JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
Incredibly, Patrick Speer seems to think that a wound on Governor
Connally's back that was MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE (in diameter) than
the bullet that entered his back (approx. 15 mm. vs. 6.5 mm.) should
NOT be deemed a wound that is "elongated" (which is the word I usually
use when describing Connally's back wound), or "elliptical" in nature.
The wound in JFK's upper back measured 7x4 millimeters, much smaller
than Connally's back wound. And Kennedy was certainly hit by the same
bullet that struck Connally. CTer griping notwithstanding (of course).
So even with a mere "1.5 cm." back-wound measurement (instead of the
"3 cm." measurement), it indicates the high likelihood that the bullet
struck something before it hit John Connally. And the only "something"
(of course) that was located between Lee Oswald's rifle and JBC's back
was John F. Kennedy.
As usual, CTers will attempt to jump through an assortment of hoops in
order to avoid the obvious truth of the Single-Bullet Theory.
But at the end of this day (like all others), a CTer must still face the
raw facts about the wounding of Kennedy and Connally on Elm Street--
and the raw facts (bullet-wise, LACK-OF-OTHER-BULLETS-wise, and
common-sense-wise) positively favor the likelihood that the SBT is the
true scenario for this shooting.
This refusal that CTers have for accepting the SBT has always seemed
quite strange to me (when dealing with semi-reasonable CTers, that is,
not the type you're likely to find at these NG asylums). As Vince
Bugliosi has said (and he's 100% right), the SBT is "so obvious that a
child could author it".
Because even with the obviously true SBT in place, the CTers can still
argue their favorite "Oswald Was A Patsy" and "Head Shot From The
Knoll" theories till the cows come home.
"At that angle, no matter WHERE it [the bullet] came from, it HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.; February 1967
David Von Pein
December 1, 2008
Posted By: David Von Pein