+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    454

    Those Lone Nutters

    The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night
    (or what the LNT's won't tell you about their "SBT")


    by

    Pamela McElwain-Brown

    I like pigs. Pigs are cute. Pigs are funny. Pigs are smart. Pigs have attitude. Pigs, however, have been given a bad rap. They are cleaner and more interesting than most people give them credit for If I had more room, I might even have a pet pig -- a rotund, hoofed creature with small eyes and a big nose -- a snout. When it made a mess I would acknowledge that it was a pig making the mess, not a dog or a goat. It would always be a pig. There's an old farm saying, perhaps originating from Minnesota where I happen to live -- that you can put as much lipstick as you want on a pig, but come Saturday night, it's still a pig.

    With this orientation, let's take a look at the Holy Grail of the Lone Nut Theorists (LNTs), those who really believe (or pretend they do) that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. In order to accommodate their thinking that Oswald (LHO) fired all the shots as well as to resolve the issue of there having been no bullet fragments found in either the neck wound of President Kennedy (JFK) or in the back or chest wounds of Governor Connally (JBC) they suggest that the 'magic' bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital about 2 hours after the assassination, (rather than being planted, as all indications show), created 7 wounds in JFK and JBC and emerged in nearly pristine condition. This bullet, FBI's exhibit Q1, was the first piece of ballistic evidence to reach the FBI Lab in DC on 11.22.63, having been flown in by SS Agent Richard Johnson on Air Force One, then transferred to SS Chief Rowley, and then SA Elmer Todd (none of whom marked it), and then given to SA Robert Frazier for examination and identification. Frazier quickly ID'd the bullet as having come from a foreign-made rifle. The Mannlicher-Carcano found in the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository was, of course, an Italian-made rifle.

    When did the concept of a 'single-bullet' begin? Initially, perhaps, at the autopsy of President Kennedy, which took place during the evening of 11.22.63 at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland. The purpose of the autopsy was twofold -- to determine the cause of death, and to retrieve bullets from the body. Unfortunately, this hasty pastiche of processes, directed by Dr. Humes, who had no experience with autopsies, might just as well be called the assassination's "Little Shop of Horrors", as its conclusions, re-written after LHO was murdered, have been questioned ever since. One question I am certain that the doctors must have asked, is simply "where are the bullets"? Only two small fragments were retrieved from JFK's skull, two others from the front of the Presidential Limousine, plus one tiny sliver from the arm of JBC. Only the 'magic bullet' could clearly be connected to the Mannlicher-Carcano (MC) supposedly owned by LHO.

    When the Warren Commission (WC) began to meet they had no idea of the conflict that would soon present itself -- for the FBI Summary Report, completed in early December, stated simply that two shots had hit JFK and one had hit JBC.

    So what is "the Single Bullet Theory" (SBT)? Is it really a valid theory? Or is it only a concept? Better yet, is it a concept which the LNT world has attempted to turn into an alleged fact? Is it, in short, just a pretty pig that the LNT's love to trot out every Saturday night to a gullible public to 'prove' their point that LHO acted alone?

    "THE Single Bullet Theory" has been a part of America's vocabulary since the Warren Commission Report was first published in 1964. However, what if we were to separate the different scenarios of 'THE SBT' to see if they 'proved' the same thing in the same way from different points of view? In other words, is there really such a thing as "an SBT" or is the pretty pig only wearing a different hue of lipstick for each replay of an SB concept? A WC scenario? An HSCA scenario? A Posner scenario?


    A Brief Historical Orientation of the Warren Commission (WC) SB scenario

    Even the most ardent believer in the Warren Commission Report (WCR), no matter how young nor naïve, can fail to acknowledge that this report did not exist in a vacuum. The climate in 1963 was a significant factor in the tone of the report. The Cold War was at its height; the Cuban Missile Crisis having occurred only the year before. Now we know that CIA deliberately kept information from the Warren Commission regarding its attempts to eliminate Castro. And two Soviet defectors - Golitsyn and Nosenko - may have been a part of the invisible supports on which the WCR was developed.

    CIA and the FBI were not communicating with each other either. They had been unable to pinpoint LHO as a possible threat on JFK's trip to Dallas - despite the fact that CIA had information LHO had met with KGB during his trip to Mexico City. And they were unable to protect LHO from being killed himself. Morale was at an all-time low - perhaps only recently equaled by the events of September 11, 2001.

    In the midst of this maelstrom sat the Warren Commission members; armed with a directive to find out what had happened. They instead decided to focus on just how Lee Harvey Oswald could have assassinated JFK and wounded Gov. Connally without help. And into this mess stepped an enthusiastic WC lawyer - Arlen Specter; who just happened to make sure that he was at all the right places at all the right times. In addition, CIA had deliberately kept information from the Warren Commission regarding its attempts to eliminate Castro.

    Critics of the WC SB scenario, and indeed of the entire report, complain that its focus began and ended with LHO. In terms of the WC SB scenario, this meant that the only location that would be examined and evaluated in the re-enactment that took place in May, 1964, was to be the 6th floor Sniper's Nest of the TSBD.

    However, the premise that 'all the shots came from the rear' was never proven, was it? Instead, it was 'assumed'. Certainly we all know the definition of that word now!


    The definition of circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) attempting to support a proposition with an argument that presupposes the proposition, or the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

    This definition applies to the WC SB scenario in the following way -- only the 6th floor of the TSBD and the M-C belonging to LHO found there were worthy of consideration. Thus, the WC had, before setting out to 'prove' anything, already concluded that all the shots came from the rear. Starting from this axiom, then, all that follows must be considered within the orientation of 'circular reasoning'.

    Each scenario of "THE SBT" now, contains the following consistency -- One bullet, CE 399, fired by LHO from the M-C from the 6th floor of the TSBD, caused JFK's back wound and neck wound, as well as all of JBC's wounds to back, chest, wrist and thigh.



    WC "SB" Scenario -- True Scarlet

    The Warren Commission, to their credit, decided to do an official re-enactment of the assassination in order to determine how LHO fired all the shots from the TSBD Sniper's Nest (SN). After weeks, if not months, of preparation, they gathered toward the end of May, 1964, blocked off Dealey Plaza early in the day, and filmed from the TSBD and from the pergola from which Zap ruder shot his film. It was, by their standards, accurate down to the last detail. However, there was just one small problem -- the limousine SS-100-X in which JFK had been shot was not available. It had been conveniently whisked out of DC soon after the assassination and was gutted down to the frame to be rebuilt. The Warren Commission apparently 'released' the car on December 20, 1963. What this seems to mean is that they were told (or believed) that the car was of no further use to the investigation and was in a timeline to be rebuilt as quickly as possible.

    In any case, according to the WC members, they had been told (or believed) that all 7-passenger limousines were alike. And there just happened to be another one available -- the follow-up SS car in the Dallas motorcade -- Queen Mary II -- the 1956 Cadillac SS-679-X. This car had a higher profile than 100X and its jump seats were higher as well.

    The objective of the WC was not to determine IF LHO could have fired all the shots but to demonstrate HOW he was able to do this. This is called reverse logic -- start with the conclusion and move backward. To that end, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier was placed in the TSBD SN with the rifle. Working with the Zapruder film, Frazier was asked to define the time span, or frames, during which the shots could have been fired. Frazier provided them with a range -- from Z220 on. LHO could not have fired earlier, the thinking was, since the live oak tree below was in the way.

    Robert Frazier was the FBI ballistics expert who sat in the SN of the TSBD during the reenactment. He used very precise language and said that it was "entirely possible" that JFK and JBC were hit with one bullet between frames 207-225 (VH170). However the WC re-interpreting Frazier's statements in the WCR by saying "it was LIKELY" and "PROBABLE" that this had occurred (WCR, 105). The WCR gave no frame number, and did not specify that Frazier was referencing the concept of a range of frames.

    In the WC's enthusiasm for truth they had two drawings created of the two limousines -- the Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and SS-679-X that was used in the reenactment. There are numerous measurements shown on them. However, there is one dimension missing -- the height. Of course, that is THE critical dimension for making a comparison between one car and the other.

    In addition, there is no measurement shown for the clearance between the side door of 100X and the side of the jump seat. This is a critical measurement in terms of determining the positions of JFK and JBC. In addition, it should have been the catalyst for controversy in the later investigation done by the HSCA. Yet, as we will see, there was no controversy. Yes, we have a little mystery on our hands -- one that would probably not have occurred if SS-100-X had been available for the reenactment. CE 872 shows NO measurement for the clearance between the jump seat and the passenger door. (Figure 1)http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%201.bmp


    During the WC testimony of SS Inspector Thomas Kelley, who was rushed to Dallas immediately following the assassination and coordinated everything there for the SS, including the reenactment, Arlen Specter and Kelley agreed that the clearance from the jump seat to the passenger door was 6 inches. (VH132) They also agreed the difference between the height of the two men was 1 1/2 inches.

    In addition, the photographs of the reenactment such as show the entry wound in an unusually low position. Why? The limo they used for the reenactment -- 679X -- the SS follow-up car in the Dallas motorcade -- sat higher than 100X. 100X was not available -- conveniently -- because it had been spirited out of DC in ecember, with the permission of the WC, to be rebuilt as a bulletproof car.

    Thus, the WC attempted to accommodate the differences between the cars by changing the position of the 'wounds'. All they really did was create a mess. In addition, they used incorrect measurements and thus their SB scenario could never be proven. How do we know this? Because the HSCA exhibit II-19 does show the measurement for the clearance between the jump seat and the passenger door -- it was not six inches, but 2 and 1/2 inches. Thus, the alignment of the two men in the WC reenactment was shown to be incorrect by the redrawing of the exact same diagram! In addition, the height differential used by the WC was a mere one and 1/2 inches. The HSCA later stated that this difference was 8 cm, or app. 3.5 inches. Quite a difference, don't you think?

    Therefore, the possibility of a SB scenario that the WC worked so hard to create was based on faulty measurements. We can only agree that whatever conclusions the WC came to were incorrect, because they were based on incorrect data. The WC SB scenario, then, remains, at best, hypothetical. In fact, it is not a 'theory' at all, as it was never properly demonstrated, much less proven through repetition. It is a simply a concept -- a pretty pig wearing bright lipstick.

    The HSCA SB Scenario -- Muddled Mauve

    Over ten years later the HSCA would address the same issue of a SB scenario. Did they start from scratch? Did they do a reenactment? No. However, something they did do should have generated a considerable amount of questioning if not controversy. It requested another diagram of the limousine SS-100-X from Hess and Eisenhardt. And this one, exhibit II-19, contained a measurement conveniently missing from CE -- the distance from the passenger door to the passenger jump seat. And that distance was not 6 inches, as Kelley had told Specter -- it was 2 and one-half inches. The HSCA decided to start by 'accepting' the WC SB scenario. For that reason, nobody went back into the WC files to find the discrepancy. And so the HSCA, like a bunch of headless horsemen, 'forged' ahead, instead, re-validating an unproven conclusion.

    The HSCA used photographs of the motorcade as their basis. All of their calculations were done based on distances from the Sniper's Nest of the TSBD. One member actually recommended that they do calculations from other buildings in Dealey Plaza as well, but he was promptly stifled:

    The HSCA did attempt to make a correction for the height differential between JFK and JBC. They determined that the JFK was 8 cm higher than JBC. They also should have taken into account the fact that the new Hess and Eisenhardt drawing of the limo showed the clearance between the passenger door and passenger car seat to have been 2.5 inches (not 6 inches as the WC had believed). Nobody on the HSCA staff took the time to compare the two drawings, much less to extract the measurements used from the WC documents and note the discrepancy. In addition, there was a height differential made by the HSCA over the 1.5" differences between JFK and JBC in the WC reenactment. (Figure 2)

    http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%202.bmp


    The HSCA also did a trajectory analysis of the shots. However, when it came to their SB scenario, they only concerned themselves with where the shot had hit JFK, and ignored the subsequent position of JBC. The shots were followed back to a cone of possibility -- that, of course, being the TSBD. When one member suggested that the cone be expanded to include other buildings they were promptly quieted. The HSCA also posited an 'early' SB scenario -- around Z190. This frame, however, was outside of the range approved by Robert Frazier for a possible SB scenario. The live oak tree was in the way and LHO would have been unable to see the limo and passengers clearly. Nobody mentioned this, of course, or discussed this in any way. Instead they blithely accepted that the WC had 'proven' their SB scenario and modified it to suit their presupposed whims.

    A term that came into use as a result of the HSCA SB scenario is that JBC was 'well inboard' of JFK. Anyone who examines many of the motorcade photos realizes that a different perspective is shown on many of them regarding the relationship of the positions of JFK and JBC. The HSCA was comfortable with the logic of 'if it looks that way, it must be so'. And apparently nobody questioned it.

    Thus, the two governmental inquiries came up with two completely different SB scenarios. The WC did a reenactment, but used incorrect data, and thus, their theory could never be proven. The HSCA used more accurate data, but did no reenactment. It just began with the axiom that the WC had proven its scenario. The HSCA never bothered to compare the data they had with the WC data, and thus they never found that the WC had used erroneous data. In addition, the HSCA focused on Z190, which Frazier during the WC reenactment had already stated was outside of the range of possibility. So did the HSCA actually come to any conclusions? Or did it just add another layer of color to the lipstick on the pretty pig?

    Posner Pink

    What the elite of the LNT world knew, but didn't share with anyone, was that in addition to the fact that the WC SB scenario was never even proven, it was only given as a range of possibility, from Z207-220. This open-ended factor must surely have irked the LNT community, for after the success of the movie JFK they decided to come out full throttle with the answer not only to JFK but also to all the CT questions. CASE CLOSED was designed to finally put the cap on all suspicions of someone other than LHO being involved in the assassination. With unheard of fanfare Posner's contribution was foisted onto the public via media and print. At the heart of CASE CLOSED (CC) was a new SB scenario -- this one relying on technology to finish the job the WC started. Armed with computer enhanced Z frames and an exhaustive 3-d animation by Failure Analysis Associates (FAA) it was possible to pinpoint at last exactly how 'the SBT' had occurred. In the process, it claimed to pinpoint exactly when the shot had occurred -- Z223. This was noted because, with all the enhancement gadgets and outstanding engineering -- Posner had come across something new -- a lapel 'flip' on JBC's right lapel that could 'only' have come from the bullet exiting his chest! LNTs everywhere have had a hard time containing their giddiness at this 'find'. It is because of this assertion, more than anything else in the book, that Posner was comfortable with the title. He really believed that by at last pinpointing 'the SBT' there was simply nothing more to say.

    But was this even so? With all the technology that Posner by his own assertions had at his disposal one would think that he might have examined and excluded every other possibility. Would someone trying to put an end to over 30 years of questions simply choose to jump to a sinister conclusion without having thoroughly vetted his idea? Instead of examining reasonable alternatives, such as the multitude of shadows falling on all those in the limousine during the motorcade, and especially in the Zapruder film, where Zapruder is shooting into the sun, with colossal arrogance, Posner used the 'lapel flip' as the crowning glory of his book. Iit wasn't even true. The 'lapel flip' or 'flop' as I prefer to call it, comes from a shadow refracted from the small side window on the Presidential limousine onto JBC's chest. There are, in fact, many shadows on those in the limo, from the many reflective surfaces on and in the car, including the side windows and the windshield, as well as the chrome molding of the center partition. There is also a shadow on JBC's left chest. JBC is rotating forward during these frames. In addition, the limo is turning left, into the sun, following the curve of Elm Street. And, as you can clearly see in the full-framed version of the Z-film, this shadow bears the same shape as the perimeter of the Stemmons Freeway sign which was between Zapruder and the limousine. Notice the orientation of the sign and the shadow in the following gif.(Figure 3)

    http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%203.gif


    Forget the fact that the 'lapel flip' was nowhere near the bullet hole in JBC's jacket, forget the fact that there was no 'bulge' in any prior or subsequent frames showing debris coming through the jacket, forget the fact that there are countless shadows and even artifacts visible from the reflective surfaces on the limo in the photos and footage taken that way -- an objective look at the Z-frames shows something entirely different from what Posner would have us believe. Posner has led the LNT community into nothing less than a dead-end with his spurious idea of a 'lapel flip'.

    A Post-Posner Pastiche -- the McAdams "SBT" page

    At John McAdams endless and highly-visible website on the JFK Assassination, newbies get to treat themselves to page after page of LNT propaganda under the thinnest possible veil of scholarship. If you want to know all the dirt about Mark Lane or Jim Garrison -- all you need to do is read with naiveté the McAdams tracts. However, if you decide to read objectively and analyze what he is saying you will begin to perceive what is really being presented, which is more like a monstrous mishmash of irresponsible statements. With the orientation and tools given in this article, let's take a look at McAdams version of "The Single Bullet Theory", which you can find at

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

    McAdams jumps right in with a list of photos showing the relative positions of JBC and JFK in the limo. This is, of course, the HSCA orientation. He repeats the use of the statement that Connally is "well inboard" of JFK. Again, this is the HSCA terminology. He then focuses on the Canning trajectory study for the HSCA; fair enough, still in the same orientation. But then he blithely segues in the most interesting way, saying:

    "Canning used the HSCA scenario that had Kennedy and Connally being stuck by the Single Bullet at frame 190. More recent work has pinpointed the time of the hit to Zapruder frame 223".

    Look at that statement -- the gall of it. It’s just a bait-and-switch statement! Which naive Kennedy assassination newbie would have the sense to question what difference a few frames could make? What McAdams has blithely done was to take the unproved HSCA SB scenario and plop on top of it the "newer" Posner unproved scenario. A veritable blending of lipstick shades, if you will.

    In fact, McAdams then gives the reader more choices -- you can view the FAA (Exponent) page, or even Dale Myers' animation while completely disregarding the fact that the SB concept itself is still unproven and that there are different alignments between JFK and JBC at different frames in the Zapruder film!

    Later on in the six-page tract McAdams blithely repeats his hodge-podge of misrepresentations:

    "Supposedly, Connally is obviously unhurt in Zapruder frame 230, but John Kennedy is obviously reacting to being hit at this point. Thus, it is claimed, the same bullet could not have hit both men. But a careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Connally was hit at frame 223."

    So this is the current concept of "The SBT" -- take what you need from any SB scenario and use it to try to make your point. It makes no difference that the SB theory was never proven. It makes no difference if the particular Z-frame changes, even if it is beyond the range of the original WC SB scenario. It makes no difference that there is no such thing as a 'lapel flip' at Z223-4. All that matters to the LNTs is that there 'is' 'an SBT'. They 'believe' in 'the SBT'. They do this as a matter of blind faith, as is evidenced by the fact that they continue to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the naive.

    However, for any of those wishing to remain both intelligent and objective, we must simply ask them what they mean by 'the SBT' and remind them that, come Saturday night, even a pretty pig with lots of lipstick on is still just a pig.


    Copyright 2004 In Broad Daylight Research

    With thanks to my friends, fellow researchers, and editors Brad Back, and my husband Donner.

    This post has been edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown: Dec 14 2004, 06:29 AM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    63

    Re: Those Lone Nutters

    The HSCA SB Scenario -- Muddled Mauve

    Over ten years later the HSCA would address the same issue of a SB scenario. Did they start from scratch? Did they do a reenactment? No. However, something they did do should have generated a considerable amount of questioning if not controversy. It requested another diagram of the limousine SS-100-X from Hess and Eisenhardt. And this one, exhibit II-19, contained a measurement conveniently missing from CE -- the distance from the passenger door to the passenger jump seat. And that distance was not 6 inches, as Kelley had told Specter -- it was 2 and one-half inches. The HSCA decided to start by 'accepting' the WC SB scenario. For that reason, nobody went back into the WC files to find the discrepancy. And so the HSCA, like a bunch of headless horsemen, 'forged' ahead, instead, re-validating an unproven conclusion.

    The HSCA used photographs of the motorcade as their basis. All of their calculations were done based on distances from the Sniper's Nest of the TSBD. One member actually recommended that they do calculations from other buildings in Dealey Plaza as well, but he was promptly stifled:

    The HSCA did attempt to make a correction for the height differential between JFK and JBC. They determined that the JFK was 8 cm higher than JBC. They also should have taken into account the fact that the new Hess and Eisenhardt drawing of the limo showed the clearance between the passenger door and passenger car seat to have been 2.5 inches (not 6 inches as the WC had believed). Nobody on the HSCA staff took the time to compare the two drawings, much less to extract the measurements used from the WC documents and note the discrepancy. In addition, there was a height differential made by the HSCA over the 1.5" differences between JFK and JBC in the WC reenactment. (Figure 2)

    http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/figure%202.bmp


    The HSCA also did a trajectory analysis of the shots. However, when it came to their SB scenario, they only concerned themselves with where the shot had hit JFK, and ignored the subsequent position of JBC. The shots were followed back to a cone of possibility -- that, of course, being the TSBD. When one member suggested that the cone be expanded to include other buildings they were promptly quieted. The HSCA also posited an 'early' SB scenario -- around Z190. This frame, however, was outside of the range approved by Robert Frazier for a possible SB scenario. The live oak tree was in the way and LHO would have been unable to see the limo and passengers clearly. Nobody mentioned this, of course, or discussed this in any way. Instead they blithely accepted that the WC had 'proven' their SB scenario and modified it to suit their presupposed whims.

    A term that came into use as a result of the HSCA SB scenario is that JBC was 'well inboard' of JFK. Anyone who examines many of the motorcade photos realizes that a different perspective is shown on many of them regarding the relationship of the positions of JFK and JBC. The HSCA was comfortable with the logic of 'if it looks that way, it must be so'. And apparently nobody questioned it.

    Thus, the two governmental inquiries came up with two completely different SB scenarios. The WC did a reenactment, but used incorrect data, and thus, their theory could never be proven. The HSCA used more accurate data, but did no reenactment. It just began with the axiom that the WC had proven its scenario. The HSCA never bothered to compare the data they had with the WC data, and thus they never found that the WC had used erroneous data. In addition, the HSCA focused on Z190, which Frazier during the WC reenactment had already stated was outside of the range of possibility. So did the HSCA actually come to any conclusions? Or did it just add another layer of color to the lipstick on the pretty pig?

Similar Threads

  1. Lone Survivor
    By conserv4ever in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 12:58 PM
  2. The Lone Ranger Was Horse Poop
    By Administrator in forum Don't Watch These Movies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2013, 07:08 AM
  3. The lone non rationed health service of the future
    By oneway in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 06:37 PM
  4. Lone Neuters
    By eflteacher in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 07:10 AM
  5. The ultimate "Lone-Nutter" John McAdams
    By theme in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 02:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •