Yes, vests issued to privates had small chest pockets.
Yes, some privates had shirts had pockets, mostly private-sourced shirts.
Yes, someone claimed those things. But as you yourself indicate substantially presumptive, not substantiated. Anyway did you suppose this a legal case? How silly.
No, I'm not going to do that. The very reason I questioned the veracity of the story to begin with is that there's little proof provided. It's not substantiated by any other source. It's what's called reasonable doubt if you persist in this silly faux legal court stuff..
I have considered those things. All good questions. I'm encouraged that even you now are asking the right questions regarding this bullet-stopping bible thing. It's called critical thinking, and it's an asset on this forum.
Excuse me? Critical thinking, as you call it, is not being contrarian. You have taken the position that these stories of bibles or books or flasks or wads of paper are all false. And in a lame case of confirmation bias and special pleading you have chosen only evidence that fits your opinion, ignoring all evidence to the contrary which is your usual practice. And your responses above about shirts and vests, as usual, answer questions that weren't asked, assuming incorrectly that no one would notice. I asked, could the claimants have been wearing those garments, not did they exist.
You questioned the veracity of the claims before you even looked for evidence. And, since it didn't fit your opinion, evidence of proof of these claims was not even looked for by you. The sum total of your contrary evidence is that regulation jackets didn't have breast pockets, ignoring the fact that many non-regulation garments and homemade garments were worn. And, by the way, here is a sketch of a regulation conferderate jacket.
This is from your first post in this thread.
I wait for a female black confederate showing a bi.....
Got any pictures?
I initiated no "silly faux legal stuff." I merely used a lawyer's term, presumptive proof, to illustrate a point. And you have offered zero irrefutable evidence to create "reasonable doubt." The only evidence tending toward doubt that you have offered is the absence of breast pockets on jackets and that is demonstrably false.
Or, that has not been the sum total of my considerations. Rather many things have been brought up:
and
What's your game here? This is just a discussion about an old book with a bullet in it. It's reasonable to be vetting the story.
Was any of that mentioned in the instances of bullet-stopping bibles cited here? Well, no. How long have you been evaluating CW occurrences? Generally in the absence of specific info. it's more prudent to default to the more common, not the less common.
The cavalryman with the 2-bullet testament in the OP said he carried it in his "blouse pocket." The testament was much smaller than a complete bible and the miniaturized versions carried by soldiers would easily fit in a pocket. Apparently, that blouse (short cavalry jacket) had a pocket big enough to hold his testament. So, exactly which facts are you "vetting?" Is he lying about carrying the thing in a non-existing pocket? Lying about being shot twice? Did he shoot the book himself at some later date? Here is a photo of an 1864 testament - way small enought to fit in a pocket.
Good questions all. Seems we're on track with each other at this point.
You wish.
You apparently aren't a reenactor then, or you would know that the standard chest pocket of either a private's vest or a shell jacket would not fit this testament. You won't be able to pull back on this one because you've provided a view with a hand in it for scale, thanks. If you were a reenactor you would also realize that a standard private's jacket (also referred to as "sack coat" or "blouse" in quartermaster terms of the time) had no pockets at all. But ok, I should have given you some slack and not assumed you had a reproduction sack coat, vest or shell jacket in your possession (as I do) by which to check the relative size of the chest pockets.
maybe they had only diamonds to shoot
isn't diamond shaped by the way since you see the page in the background it is supposed to be hit only partly while closed (I don't believe this)
maybe a porn reenactment but those aren't accurateGot any pictures?
Think maybe someone cut out the bullet? A knife made that shape, not the bullet. Hence the sharp edges. A blind man (but not a deliberately blind man) can see it.
