(PART 511)


>>> "The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle." <<<



And just exactly HOW on this green Earth of ours does Herbert "Mr. Forensics" Blenner think he's going to go about the task of proving that last silly statement of his?

How does Mr. Blenner KNOW for a fact that the hole in Kennedy's back "HAD TO BE ROUND"?

And Blenner's "with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle" comment just might make the "CT-Kook Hall-Of-Fame" of speculative, idiotic statements.

Hint for Blenner -- The bullet entered at a 17.72-degree downward angle from Oswald's 6th-Floor TSBD window. I.E., it didn't enter JFK's back straight on.

And yet Blenner thinks the bullet hole "had to be round".

Talk about egotistical bluster. Herb's got it down cold.

>>> "Even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle.

Just two words are needed in response here:

So what?

>>> "Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back and thigh." <<<

The bullet was tumbling into Connally's back, of course, after exiting Kennedy's throat. Given these parameters, if you think that you can apply geometric precision and your own silly brand of "The Bullet Holes In The Victims MUST Have Been A Certain Size Because I Say So" logic to both Kennedy's and Connally's wounds, then you're farther off the deep end of the CT scale than I thought.

>>> "I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable time." <<<

Yeah. Me too. Definitely.

Your analytical mumbo-jumbo is a total waste of anybody's time, mainly because your mumbo-jumbo doesn't prove anything, and it most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5-mm. Carcano bullet as having been the bullet that struck both JFK and JBC, and your mumbo-jumbo (aka: bullshit) most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman who fired Bullet CE399 into the bodies of both John Kennedy and John Connally.

In short -- Herbert Blenner's nonsensical BS doesn't go anywhere (as per the norm for conspiracy theorists). Just ask James DiEugenio. He's one of the kings of propping up meaningless chaff and pretending it actually means something substantial.

It looks like Herb's in the same league as chaff-happy DiEugenio. And that's not a league that anyone should have a desire to be in.

David Von Pein
May 6, 2009