You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #45: Number 1, NHT.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Number 1, NHT....
offer some documentation of your goofy claims or it's just more of your typical bullshit. Even if, as you claim, both Connally and his wife maintain he was hit by a dofferent bullet, that isn't proof of anything and certainly isn't consistent with the physical evidence. Secondly, the autopsists didn't conclude that the bullet that hit JFK in the back only pentrated an inch. One of the doctors tried to probe the wound with his finger and then a soft probe, but was unable to penetrate it more than an inch, which proves basically that he was unable to penetrate it more than an inch, not that was the total depth of the wound. In fact, the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations addressed the issue and here's what they had to say about it:

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedys neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation.



Hmmm, choices. Should I believe the Forensic Pathology Panel or some guy named "NowHearThis" whose biggest claim to fame is posting goofy theories on a discussion board? I think I'll go with the forensic pathologists.

Your claim that Connally could not have been wounded by the same bullet as JFK and still be seen holding on to his stetson is easily disproven by other accounts of wounds even more severe in which case the person wounded was, nonetheless, able to grasp things despite the severity of their wounds as demonstrated below:

At last I was close enough to pull the pin on my last grenade. And as I drew my arm back, all in a flash of light and dark I saw him, that faceless German, like a strip of motion picture film running through a projector that's gone berserk. One instant he was standing waist-high in the bunker, and the next he was aiming a rifle grenade at my face from a range of ten yards. And even as I cocked my arm to throw, he fired and his rifle grenade smashed into my right elbow and exploded and all but tore my arm off. I looked at it, stunned and unbelieving. It dangled there by a few bloody shreds of tissue, my grenade still clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore . . ."
Daniel K. Inouye with Lawrence Elliott, Journey to Washington, Prentice-Hall 1967, pp. 151-152.


More importantly (and something you either were too lazy to research properly or were deceitful enough to omit) is that Mrs. Connally stated that her husband held his stetson all the way to Parkland:

Nellie: John Connally was trying to see him. He looked to
his right and he couldn't see the president. He knew it was a
gun shot. I just heard a loud noise. And John was afraid they
were shooting at the president and he turned to see if he
could see him on this other side and he couldn't see him
there and in the process of turning back John was shot.
Second shot.

TM: Second shot. You've never wavered from this, by the
way?

Nellie: I never will. I pulled him down in my lap because I
didn't want him to hurt him anymore. I didn't want him to
shoot at him anymore. And while I had him in my lap there
was another shot. And my reaction to that was matter all
over the car, blew up, we were in front of the Kennedys, it
blew up all over us. Third shot.

TM: And you're covering your husband at this time.

Nellie: And he also, he has... he has... his hat in his hand.
He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his
hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and
he was holding that hat up against him. He closed up that
wound that would've killed him before we got to the hospital.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001013092436/http://www.te...



If you look closely enough, you'll also see that Mrs. Connally states that her husband was hit by the SECOND shot, which thoroughly undermines your claim that both she and Gov. Connally thought he was hit by a different bullet. We know that because Connally stated that, after the first bullet missed, he turned to his right in his seat and looked over his shoulder because that's where he heard the shot come from. Since Connally thought that the first bullet missed (which it did) and he knows that the third shot was the fatal headshot to JFK, he would've have to conclude that both he and JFK were hit by the same shot. More importantly, perhaps you could tell us if they were hit by two different bullets and, given the relative positions of JFK and Connally, how could any shot have hit Connally where it did and NOT gone through JFK first?

As I have stated previously, some classes in critical thinking could pre-empt most of your goofy claims. I am sure your local community college offers them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC