Creative Speculation

Sorry, I missed this post Sunday night.

> "5) Bullet CE399,based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63".

> Really? Even as 1) no one saw it come out

Yes, I believe what von Pein is saying is that if you cannot disprove any of the previous points, then even if no one saw it come out, we can deduce that the bullet was in Connally that day. Of course, that would be a conclusion, and since you did only ask for "facts" feel free to discount that one. But you can't refute any of the previous points by just saying no one saw it come out.

> 2) Dr Shaw said at a 3 PM press conference that a bullet remained in Connally's leg at that time (an hour or more after CE399 was said to have been discovered)

If Shaw knew that nothing had been done to remove the bullet, then it would be reasonable for him to assume it was still in the leg, wouldn't it?

> 3) the nation's top ballistics expert insisted that CE399 could not be the bullet which struck Connally's wrist.

So of course, he's the one who is right and all the others are wrong, huh? But here's a rather curious thing: The reason that many people, including Shaw and Gregory, doubted that CE399 caused all of Connally's wounds (which was because they would have expected the bullet to show more damage) actually supports the single bullet theory! That's because they are probably right that it would have been more damaged if it had directly entered Connally's back without slowing down first. That is to say, conspiracists have it backwards: What we now know from Lattimer's and other tests is that the faster the bullet was traveling when it hit the wrist, the more damage there would have been to the bullet. But if the bullet was slowed down enough before it hit the wrist, it could still have enough energy to break the wrist with minimal damage to the bullet. So CE399 is consistent with the SBT, i.e. the additional slowing came from passing through JFK's neck, whereas a direct hit on Connally would be expected to produce a more damaged bullet.

> But Dr Shaw himself testified to the Warren Commission that the bullet was either "slightly tumbling" or, more likely, was a tangential hit.

And other expert opinions that the bullet was just "slightly tumbling" can be ruled out because... ?

> By the way, the wound in Kennedy's back was too low to support the single-bullet theory in any way.

Sez you. Prove it.

> Lattimer claims that " lead extruded from the rear" of both bullets, but the extruding lead he claims to see in CE399 was actually the place where the FBI scraped lead for their lab tests.

Answered elsewhere: It was lead extruded by the flattening of the bullet and the site of the samples, and the presumed source of the Connally fragments (which is consistent with the NAA analysis); none of which have you disproved.

> He is also dependent on a "tumbling" bullet as a primary factor of his test - which is crucial in reducing the velocity of the bullet such that a strike against the dense wrist bone will do less damage.

Correct, and you still fail to understand the purpose of the experiment: It was not to prove the SBT, but rather to demonstrate that the SBT was possible -- which it did -- which directly contradicts the claim that the SBT didn't happen because it was impossible. Please mull that over before continuing this line.

> His test was more interested in matching the "lapel flap" seen in frame 224 of the Zapruder film, which most lone gunman theorists claim is the instant of the Single Bullet - except Wm Seger, who insists that any such determination is entirely unscientific and not "credible".

What I insist is that such opinion, or even consensus of opinion among whatever arbitrary group you care to name, cannot be promoted to be a "fact" and then use that "fact" plus another such "fact" to "prove" there was a second gunman.