Talk:Single-bullet theory

---

Introduction

The SBT is NOT synonymous with the Lone Gunman theory. The SBT just explains how three shots could have been fired from one gun and caused all the wounds in the time span in which those wounds were thought to have occurred. Many consider it to be an essential part of the Lone Gunman theory. However, this was not the view of 3 of the 7 Warren Commission members: Rep. Richard Russell, Sen. John Cooper, and Rep. Hale Boggs, nor was it the view of the Connallys.Saskcitation 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The House Selection Committee on Assassinations concluded that the single bullet theory was correct, but believed (mainly on accoustical evidence) that there was still a second gunman who fired but missed the limousine and its occupants. So yes, the SBT and the Lone Gunman theory are not synonymous. — Walloon 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Various details

sorry, i think Alvarez' theory was separate. I got confused by JFK's "nuclear physicists" line. -- Kwantus 16:16, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re slight wrangle over "conspiracy theory" -- what i'm trying to get at, without actually saying it, is that the WC clearly set out with the idee fixe that LHO acted alone, and then filtered and wrought the facts to fit. They rejected a conspiracy theory (in the literal sense) at all costs, willing to kite this absurd MBT rather than admit the obvious, that multiple persons were involved -- Kwantus 17:18, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I recall reading that there's another problem with the 3-bullet theory: one of the shells found was damaged in such a way it could not have been the source of a bullet. Thus there's actually only two bullets available for the official nonconspiracy theory. I must try to refind that -- Kwantus 17:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I found a good page about it.[1] Apparently Posner tried to deal with this, but material like this and this and asides like this have convinced me Posner is quite simply full of it. (I'd love to know if there's truth to the claim he rewrote the book to support the WC after Random House rejected it because it didn't.) (Hm. I wonder how long it will be before a WC student says that the dent in the tail of the magic bullet matches the dent in the shell!)

---

Bullet trajectory

might need a little correcting: i think the bullet is supposed to have hit JFK in the back and turned upward, exited at the throat and turning downward -- ie more strange zigzagging. There's also the July 1997 kafuffle about Gerry Ford fudging something to make the path through JFK less crazy.[2]

Actually it did nothing of the sort. That would be the case if Connally had been sitting directly in front of Kennedy but he wasn't. He was sitting in a jump seat right centre in the car, not right, and Connally's seat was lower. In other words Connally's right was in front of Kennedy's left. In addition Connally was not sitting square on his seat but was sitting at an angle. The trajectory through Kennedy's neck to Connally, sitting lower down at an angle on a right centre jump seat, was a straight line, as detailed computer analysis shows. Indeed Connally could not be hit at that stop except through Kennedy's throat. FearÉIREANN 23:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Looks good, Gerd. What I started with was pretty editorial. Looks like you've added (or re-added) in facts but not skewed into opinion, which was th original problem - thanks. Skybunny 22:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Tague bullet merely fragment or whole

"one [shot] hit the curb [injuring] Tague" I may have miswritten that. I think it was a full bullet that hit the curb, but the WC--which is the context--may have tried to account for that as a fragment of the head shot.[3]

See the FBI report on the analysis of the curb fragment, August 12, 1964: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 27, WC 21 H 475. There was no copper in the curb sample that was analysed, which one would expect if the jacketed bullet had struck the curb. Also, the curb was a scratch, not a gouge. The FBI concludes that the mark on the curb was not caused by “the first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet”.Saskcitation 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Magic bullet

I just added a note about another meaning for "Magic bullet:" Paul Ehrlich's characterization of a goal which he believed was achieved with Salvarsan. It doesn't look right in the table of contents, though. If this article is to be kept under the heading "Magic bullet theory" perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. I hadn't actually checked before writing the note, but I see that the existing entries for Paul Ehrlich, Salvarsan, and arsphenamine all make specific use of the phrase "magic bullet" buttressing my assertion that the phrase is truly connected with Ehrlich and Salvarsan. Dpbsmith 18:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That material belongs on a separate "magic bullet" article which is not the same thing as the "magic bullet theory". I have moved the material accordingly. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

---

29+ Years Experience Investigating & Researching This Case

Anyone who would, entirely for free, and objectively like to have supplied for themself ANY specific reference you need for any detail, or, anyone who has never read the entire reports, never read the followup evidentiary and testimonies volumes, or never read for yourself the back round investigative files and individual documents performed by the following partial list of investigative agencies/departments/bodies, please, feel free, to contact me privately, anytime, with your specific reference request or constructive, detailed, referenced comments:

Parkland Hospital Doctors Reports, U.S. Navy Bethesda Hospital Autopsists Reports, Dallas Police Department Reports, Dallas County Surveyors Report, U.S. Defense Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Reports, U.S. Navy Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Reports, U.S. State Department Reports, U.S. F.B.I. Report, U.S. Secret Service Report, U.S. National Security Agency Report, Texas Attorney General Report, Texas Rangers Investigative Reports, U.S. Warren Commission Report, U.S. Warren Commission Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Ramsey Panel Report, U.S. Ramsey Panel Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Report, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Report U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Committee on Ballistic Acoustics Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies.

As of 2004, I have also spoken directly with Dealey Plaza witnesses and before-and-after assassination-related-events witnesses, still living or now dead, detailed in a personal database of over 4200+ persons.

The vast majority of persons (including historians, and, supposed, historians) who make too-broad, too-generalized comments may not have actually read these entire complete reports, nor actually read the entire supporting volumes, nor actually read publicly available investigative backround files and individual documents (1000's of pages of which are still classified against public availability), nor actually have spoken directly with assassination witnesses nor events observed witnesses. I have 29+ years experience of direct involvement as an investigator for, and research into, the micro-details of the assassination of President Kennedy for anyone who wants to, objectively, understand, and decide for him or herself the details, and truth, of what transpired on November 22, 1963.

When my free time allows, I will be updating with specific primary references of important, often overlooked details, from my 29+ year database.

JFKtruth 14:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep in mind, JFKtruth, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and edits must comply with its Neutral Point of View policy. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, "JFKtruth's" comments above do not contain one, single expression that is not neutral. I, for one, am interested in someone who has stated he/she has a 29+ year backround investigating the case. Almost sounds to me as if "JFKtruth" may have had an official relationship investigating the case, and that could be very enlightening.

Just because one person "A" has learned and shared information that a person "B" has not learned yet does not mean that person "A" is sharing information via a "soapbox."

Unless anyone can specifically point out for us what he or she thinks is a biased comment made by "JFKtruth" in "JFKtruth's" comments above, I would suggest that, specifically, "BoNoMoJo" (a.k.a. "B") contain himself or herself to the full-time job the vast majority of us each have of worrying more about himself or herself, rather than being opinionated ("BoNoMoJo's" "soapbox" quip), nor attempting to be psuedo-bossy.

Just because the WC and HSCA final report is each written one way, does not even come close to indicating that when you have actually read the 1000's of investigatory notes and investigatory reports in the investigatory files that lead to what, should have been, the final report conclusion. The simple fact is the investigatory notes, the investigatory reports, and the investigatory files information, when actually read and actually understood as a whole, reveals completely different facts that were not printed in the WC and HSCA final report because the WC and HSCA (albeit deliberately?), and for assassination-illuminating reasons, chose to ignore, omit, etc., from the final report when the WC and HSCA sealed the files until 2039 trying to hide the micro-detailed investigatory facts from the people.

IOW, the final report and the investigated facts of the case are 2 distinctly separate issues, as anyone who has actually read them can easily read and then understand. -152.163.253.9 12:00 June 15, 2004 (UTC)

152.163.253.9, See my recent comments below. —B|Talk 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Moving this material and redirecting the article

TO accord with NPOV policy, this article should be at single bullet theory, not [[magic bullet theory]]. B 18:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

In line with my comment of over five months ago, I will be moving this article to single bullet theory. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Should be: Single-Bullet Theory, or Single-bullet theory. I prefer the Title Case Version, as it was a specific theory known by that specific name. See contemporary magazine cover. User:Pedant (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV msg and Controversy message

My latest edits to NPOV the article have made it sufficiently neutral to remove the NPOV warning at the beginning of the article. I've replaced that warning with the controversy message. —B|Talk 20:14, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

---

Controversial because it documents Warren Commission & HSCA documented investigatory backround facts?!?

The current article as it stands does an outstanding job detailing investigated backround information documented by the WC and the HSCA, that any/all individuals are free to research for themself. (as a majority of persons who have actually read the investigatory backround information can discover, some of the important backround investigatory information was hidden when the WC (via Lyndon Johnson's order) and HSCA tried to seal/hide the records until 2039)

I disagree that the article is controversial.

It is the WC and HSCA, theorized, "single bullet theory" itself that IS controversial because the WC and HSCA documented investigatory backround facts, much to the chagrin of the WC and HSCA apologists, do not even support what the WC and HSCA printed in their final report.

The Wikipedia "single bullet theory" article itself is not controversial because it does provide and documents those investigatory backround facts. Some are trying to, imho, mistakenly (accidentally or deliberately?) blend 2 separate and distinct issues.

Of important note is that the WC final report itself could not even come to a WC agreement as to exactly when the, theorized, so-called "single bullet theory" occured. Additionally, The HSCA final report did not even agree with any of the WC theorized time points on when the, theorized, "single bullet theory" even occurred during the assassination. (the HSCA claimed the, theorized, "single bullet theory" occured at Z-190, --even though President Kennedy was hidden by the large live-oak tree from the, supposed, WC "snipers lair"-- but the WC was so nebulous about it that it, instead, gave the sbt a time frame of seconds during which the WC theorized it occured because before even theorizing about the sbt --which the WC did not theorize the sbt until the wounding of James Tague became more public knowledge 6 months after the assassination-- the WC at its Nov'63 outset --guided by Hoover and the FBI, the WC's main investigatory information supplier-- narrow-mindedly, was constrained to a time frame because it started its theory from the premise that there was only one assassin=talk about biased, pre-emptive, circular "logic"!)

As most persons who have read it have learned, the HSCA final report concluded, "that there was a probable conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy."

Much to the chagrin of a minority, the "single bullet," as a majority have learned for themself, really is the "magic bullet" that has been kept out of public view by the U.S. National Archives for going on 41 years. -152.163.253.9 11:41, June 15, 2004 (UTC)

152.163.253.9, nearly the entirety of your comments above are irrelevant (not to mention untimely) and appear to be based on a poor understanding of wikipedia policy regarding "controversy", "neutral point of view" and other article disclaimers. Rather than rant on, please educate yourself about these policies. The issue is not whether such-and-such fact or report is controversial, but whether the subject-matter is controversial...and this article deals with a controversial topic. For that matter it doesn't matter whether the article perfectly complies with the "neutral point of view" (which it arguably does not now comply), it would still be a controversial topic simply because there is more than one point of view on this topic and the differing sides are often divisive. In order to avoid edit wars, a controversy message advises potential editors to proceed with caution when editing to avoid violating the NPOV policy. As the article stands now, it complies well enough with the NPOV policy, but even the most informed person on this topic must present material under the NPOV policy. Contrary to what your grade school teacher told you, facts do NOT speak for themselves. If you have an agenda to prove that the "facts" do "prove" or "disprove" some theory, I suggest you take your soapbox to another forum because the wikipedian community will not accept a POV article. —B|Talk 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

description of external links

Despite 152.163.253.9's assertion, the external link to [4] is NOT a link to "modeling" evidence, nor does the website purport to be so. It is merely an interpretation of the meaning of various pictures and diagrams...which are not models. Modeling is a unique method often requiring technical expertise to create the model. —B|Talk 16:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

who refers to it as "magic bullet theory"

It is informative, relevant and NPOV to note who refers to this theory as the "magic bullet theory", namely, skeptics and conspiracy theorists. Censoring this material is inappropriate. —B|Talk 17:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

pictures

I’ve replaced the picture of dubious provenance and a strongly POV caption with two views of the bullet from the National Archives, and thus public domain. Gamaliel 02:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance

Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance 205.188.116.199 16:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations

Hello. I am working on this topic in the french wikipedia. Somebody created recently there a "magic bullet" page that is pure conspiration theory (Garrison type). Preparing to edit this page, I decided to create some illustrations, as I was not sure about the licence of the various picture you can find on the web. So I have created 2 graphics that I uploaded to commons. You can find them there, I let you with the decision whether or not they are appropriate to use in this topic. Alex lbh 6 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

More graphics and photos uploaded to Commons. They are now all on a specific JFK assassination graphics page in Commons. Alex lbh 09:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Harassment documented?

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, who, according to critics, later changed his mind that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents a documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

This is a bit of a mess. I've cleaned it up to read:

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, but then, according to critics, later changed his mind to claim that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents, as documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

However, I'm not at all sure that this is what was intended.... were the doctor's claims of harrassment documented several times in the weeks following the assassination (it seems unlikely that he'd become so vocal about this if he'd been so successfully intimidated as to "change his mind" about a key piece of evidence)? Or was it his original claim (that the wound was an "entry" point) that was documented several times?

Please review, clarify and cite sources. TheMadBaron 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Channel?

An episode on the Discovery Channel of its series Unsolved History recreated the angles, ammunition, trajectory, etc. of the Oswald shot and made a case that it is, at least, plausible that a single bullet caused the wounds described in the autopsy records--should any mention be made of this in the article? I don't know how we treat television evidence (although what I saw seemed very well documented and carefully done), and certainly it doesn't lay the matter to rest (because a single bullet could have done this doesn't mean it did), but I thought it might be a valid inclusion. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, the Discovery Myth Busters replicated the the assassination shot with two manequin made of ballistic gelatin and bones, a car of the same make and model, the Italian rifle, the same distance, direction and angle of the shot. The result was a nearly identical senario--one bullet, multiple wounds (one short of the historic number) and confused a forensics expert, to boot. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

JFK: Reloaded

I thought that the game was intended to prove a three-bullet theory. The assassination summary lists accuracy of three shots, not one.

Now with a signature! Miguel Cervantes 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neck wound location

RPJ has stuck in the following nonsense: "President Kennedy's Death Certificate places the bullet wound to Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra. [5]" If you click on the link to see the death certificate you see it mentions a lumbar SCAR and knee SCAR (the lumbar area is in the lower back-- this is JFK's old back surgery scar) and says NOTHING about the location of the neck wound. I am left to the conclusion that RPJ cited this and didn't even bother to read it. Take all the stuff OUT, RPJ.

The frantic reader above has just made the most basic mistake in doing research: He only read a document until he found something that he thinks supports what he already believes and then doesn't finish reading the document.

It is not on the first page of Kennedy's Death Certificate that describes the location of the bullet wound to the President's back. Instead, it is on the second page of the Death Certificate. On the second page, Dr. Burkely identifies the location of the bullet wound to the back being at the third thoracic vertebra.

The reader should please go back to the Kennedy Death Certificate and turn to page two. [6]

After over forty years of controversy, the hope is that the political reasons for the secrecy and confusing account surrounding the president's death can be put aside and the documents reviewed in a calm logical manner.

RPJ 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Okay, I now see page 2. I don't think I've ever seen a typed addendum to a death certificate, so it's hardly expected. Dr. Berkely must have been confused about what a death certificate is for.

One of the autopsy photos looks at this wound from behind, and you see basically the entire right upper skull blasted away, However, the scalp is very, very tough (the hair through it acts like re-bar) and it appears that little of JFK's scalp was actually gone, even if he was missing some of the side of his skull and brain. With the scalp sides down, you get the Dallas rear wound if that flap is back. With the rear flap pulled over to show the small entrance hole (as Humes does in another famous photo) you see no big wound in the back of the head at all (this flap is covering a loss of skull underneath, with a beveled half-hole at the edge of what is gone). Put ALL the flaps back, with some artificial support with cement underneath (as the morticians finally did after the autopsy), and you see the head miraculously undamaged, with hair combed normally. Which Admiral Burkely, his doctor, reports. JFK was prepared relatively quickly for open-coffin viewing by all accounts (not just Burkely's-- also the mortician), and nobody needed a toupee to do it with. But all of this has confused many people. It needn't if you remember all or nearly all, of the scalp is there.

Speaking of which, Dr. Burkely's report in the WC does not discuss wounds anatomically. On page 2 of the death certificate (thanks for that ref) Berkley does indeed locate the back wound at "about" the 3rd thoracic verteba, but I'm afraid the photos from the autopsy and the official autopsy doctors' report (which both show C6) has to take precedent over an informal report. If Dr. Burkely had some big inside knowledge to report, as you suggest in your revisions to the article, he should have included it in his 10 page letter, not stuff like how many flowers he gave to Jackie. In his report he does say he spent a lot of time shuttling between the autopsy and the family, so one supposes he missed the befuddlement of the autopsy doctors about an exit for the back/neck wound. Humes later found out about the trach by talking over the phone to a Dallas doctor, long after the autopsy had concluded. Wups. Dr. Burkely could presumably have put him straight if he knew enough to do it. But he either didn't, or was missing. So he's not in the picture as a big expert on JFK's wounds, no matter what he wrote on the death certificate, and no matter if he was both in Dallas and at Bethesda. He didn't do his main job given two chances at it (in the autopsy room and in his letter to the WC), so why should we assume he had anything real to offer?Sbharris 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know why the WC and the HSCA placed the neck entry at C6, other than the obvious fact that C6 was fractured in the X-ray, take a look at the JFK autopsy photos yourself (google JFK autopsy photo). In the photo of the back, you'll see the entry wound is in the neck, ie, it's well above the spine of the scapula (which you can feel on your own back if you care to) and well above the pack of muscle above the spine, which is supraspinatus and muscles leading from there Rhomboid minor muscle to the biggest neck spinus process, which is C7. Feel that largest protruberance in your spine at the base of your neck-- that's C7 (vertebra prominens). Anything superior to that is your neck, not your back, and it's marked with a dot in the photo because it's a prominant anatomical landmark. (JFK was a bit humpbacked, but C7, the major prominance in his neck, can still be seen as the part where his neck juts out the most, as in all of us). The ruler in the photo shows the bullet hole a bit less than 2 inches to the right and above C7, putting it in the region of C6. The bullet hole is clearly above the scapular spine, which can be seen. It's nowhere near T3.Sbharris 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• To: SbHarris

• • The doctor who signed President Kennedy's official Death Certificate was the President's personal physician who was in the emergency room with the President when he died, and attended the autopsy in Wahington D.C. He was a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy at the time. He knew the President well.

• • I am happy that you read the entire Death Certificate of President Kennedy. The easiest way to tell if a document of any importance is authentic is to check for a signature. As in the case of Kennedy’s Death Certificate the signature is at the end of the document on the second page.

• • As you were able to see, the second page of the Death Certificate, contains the official summary of facts relating to the death of President Kennedy. It desribes a second bullet wound suffered by the President that struck him in the back, which Dr. Burkely locates at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

You do not understand what a death certificate is or what its purpose is. It is not the place for "official summary of facts" in a gunshot death. That comes from the examiner's report and autopsy. Death certificates merely inform the state registrar that somebody has died, and (very generally) how they died. Detail is not wanted or needed, because only secretaries and statisticians will be dealing with the information. Don't make more of this than there is.Sbharris 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I am surprised that you attack Dr. Burkely in such a manner. He was the personal physician of the President and obviously held both the president and the First Lady in high regard. Besides signing the official Death Certificate, Dr. Burkely did write the ten page statement about the time period around the assassination. It is this document you ridicule. But, Dr. Burkely did not write this for the Warren Commission. I don't believe the Warren Commission had even been formed.

• • What further surprises me is your advice to the reader to type in autopsy photo on the internet and make some decision where the bullet hit Kenndy in the back. Since there is so much controversy over the authenticity of Kennedy autopsy material, you should direct the readers to a reliable site.

The reason there's so much photo controvery is people don't want to believe their own eyes. If you have a "reliable site" for the photos please give it. The Assassination Records Review Board doesn't have them, because they've never officially been released.

I would suggest the reader look at the material assembled by the Assassination Records Review Board which was created by Congress in 1992 and entrusted with gathering authentic documents relating to President Kenndey's death, especially the medical records. [7] The Board did collect a large number of previously secret documents and they are being made public often with startling results.[8] RPJ 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevent. If you don't like the photos, read the autopsy report, where people had time and rulers and could later examine photos. These people placed the back wound 5.5 inches (14 cm) inward from the acromion and 5.5 inches (14 cm) down from the mastoid (that's that bone under your right ear). And over the TOP margin of the right scapula. I suggest you get out cardboard or two rulers and make a hinged bit with two arms 5.5 in long. If you're about 6 ft tall, have somebody line them up on your right ear and shoulder with your head erect, keeping the intersection above your right shoulder blade. You'll find this is nowhere near T3. Furthermore, the autopsy clearly shows the bullet passed over the top of the right lung, never entering the thorax, which would be impossible if it hit at T3. The tip of the right lung comes up above the clavicle into the neck. A bullet which passes over the top of it, bruising it, but not hitting it, must be passing through the throat. So Burkely is wrong. But why should be be right? Careful measurement of the dead president's back was not his job. Sbharris 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious mistake on this page that needs to be fixed. It says the back wound was identified as being at the level of C6 on the spine. This is nonsense, designed to support that the wound was above the throat wound. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, the supposed source of this location at C6, actually located the wound two inches lower on Kennedy's body, at the level of T1. This is demonstrated beyond all doubt in Figure 24 of the HSCA Medical Panel's report, here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0064a.htm. Dr. Michael Baden, the medical panel's spokesman, testified that the back wound was below the level of the throat wound. In recent years, single-assassin theorists have tried to move this wound back up to C6--the approximate level of the back wound in the Warren Commission's drawings--but this location has been fully discredited by the HSCA's pathology panel and the widespread availability of the autopsy photos. The HSCA released Figure 4, a drawing http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm of the autopsy photo of the back wound to prove once and for all that the wound was a back wound, not a neck wound. A wound at T1 would be a back wound, while a wound at C6--2 inches or so above T1--would be on the neck, as demonstrated in HSCA Figure 24. It's disheartening to see that Wikipedia has been so totally snowed on this issue.Patspeer (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By re-reading the entire discussion above, I see that sbharris is the major proponent that the back wound was at C6. This simply isn't true. As demonstrated in the HSCA drawing on Wiki's page, the HSCA doctors determined that the bullet traveled in an upwards direction within the body on its way to the throat exit, when the body was in the anatomic position, and that the only way for a bullet on this trajectory to have come from the sniper's nest was for Kennedy to have been leaning forward when struck. A quick look at any anatomy book will show you that the throat wound was at the T1 level. Now how can a bullet travel from the C6 level (C=cervical, neck) to the T1 level (T=thoracic, chest) in an upwards fashion? It can't.

When shown the autopsy photos in 1996, Kennedy autopsist Dr. J. Thornton Boswell testified under oath that the back wound appeared to be at the T2 level. This was even lower than T1. One can read his testimony, here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0079a.htm This meant that there was no group of doctors, past or present, holding that the back wound was any higher than T1. The statement that the autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound to be at C6 is unsupportable and should be removed, replaced by the fact that the HSCA panel determined the wound to be at T1 and said the bullet traveled upwards within the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ````76.91.34.82 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, RPJ. FYI, it means no such thing. It just means that Boswell, testifying 30+ years after the fact, is out to lunch. All the radiologists and the committees disagree with him. Where's your cite for T1 from the HSCA?? The photo [9] speaks for itself. You can see the wound is at least a couple of fingers' thickness ABOVE (toward the head) the spine of his right scapula. It's about on level with his shoulder. It's certainly downhill from the most prominant vertebral process on his back, which the ruler is lying on. And that point is the process of C7, which looks to be slightly below it. In any case, whether C7 or T1, it certainly cannot be T2, since you cannot enter the back at T2, leave a trail of metal fragments and buises over the top of the lung pleura and pleural cavity, and exit the throat at the thyroid cartilage, going over the top of the manubrium, which articulates with the rib from T1. It's very difficult to hit as low down as T2 and yet go over the top of the lung, plura, rib cage, shoulder girdle and sternum. Yet the trail of metal fragments in the body on X-ray, and the buise on the top of the lung without penetration of the pleural cavity below, tells us this is exactly what happened. So that's it. The pleural cavity is basically a cone with a truncated top defined by the T1 rib, and this bullet went over the top of it, without hitting anything. See the diagram in wikipedia if you're not getting this.SBHarris 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SbHarris, not one of the HSCA's "experts" said the bullet entered at the C6 level. It appears you're working backwards. You seem to think that because, in your opinion, the single bullet theory works, the bullet MUST have entered at a place where it would work, and never mind that the "experts" agreed that the bullet entered at a place where it probably wouldn't work. My research, available in chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer dotcom, shows why it probably doesn't work even at C6. It's called a spine. Any bullet entering just right of the spine and exiting from the middle of the throat would have to pass through the spine or its transverse processes. CE 399, on the other hand, lacked any damage to its nose, and almost certainly did not strike the spine or its processes. Your assertion that damage to C6 indicates the bullet entered at that level runs counter to opinions of the HSCA FPP and their radiologists. They, in fact, were much more concerned with the damage to T1 and C7, as demonstrated here; http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm In his testimony before congress, in fact, Dr. Baden, the HSCA FPP spokesman only mentioned one fracture, at T1, as demonstrated here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm Patspeer (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is all in volume VII of the HSCA report, as you've noted. First, I admit that the HSCA pathology panel didn't think C6 had been injured, and it's fair to alter this article to reflect that conclusion (and I think it does not now say C6). The HSCA did indeed focus on right transverse process fracture(s) at T1, C7, or both (they disagreed as to where: Dr. Seaman saw a fracture at C7, but McDonnal and Davis saw it at T1. The final report says that air opacities make it impossible to be sure of a C7 fracture). The X-ray is at [10] and to me it looks like there's a neat round hole right through the process of C7. But I also admit it could be a round bubble on an overexposed film.

  The possible angles through the neck are compared at [11]. It's possible for the bullet to exit at a higher vertebral level than it entered, if JFK is leaning forward and slouched, as he was to rest his arm on the door.

  Next, it not me who's working backwards to put a through-and-through wound though JFK neck base, from back to front. As the HSCA makes clear, the apex of the right lung is bruised, without the pleura underneath it penetrated, and the shortest explanation for THAT is that a missile went over the top of the lung, buising it with a shock as it passed. That severely limits how low the path can be, but SOMETHING damaged the top of that lung, and it wasn't two bullets each entering into the body only a tiny way. Those who want TWO separate wounnds (one in the throat, one in the back) have to argue that they aren't connected, even though the lung between (and underneath) is bruised. And again, there's a problem that a bullet into the throat disappears before it gets to the back, and a second bullet into the back disappears before it gets to the throat. That's a little hard to believe, considering that there's work to be done and explained, between these points! Connect the dots, as the committee did! [12].

  Finally, there have been many tests with the FMJ 6.5 mm bullet from the 6.5 x 55 cartridge fired by the MC weapon. It's a very tough bullet, capable of being stopped by solid wood without any deformation. It's been tried against very thin bits of bone like a transverse spinal process, and that simply isn't enough. This is not the same as hitting the major part of the spinal bodies. It's even possible that delicate things like processes were fractured by the bullet blast cavity, without being physically hit by the bullet at all, which may have passed between C7 and T1 (if I'm wrong about that round defect in C7 being a literal hole). Look, I can live with a wound as low as the top of T1, as this still does the whole job seen on autopsy, causing the apical lung damage without pleural penetration. All that is required is that the bullet pass over the top of the pleural cavity, and if it goes over the top of the first rib (which articulates with T1, of course), that does the job and damage seen. (Not to mention lines up perfectly for a hit in Connally's side). Whether the bullet hit JFK in the "neck" or the "back" is a gray area, as of course T1 defines the beginning of the back, and C7 defines the end of the base of the neck. We are right on the dividing line, and I don't think it makes a technical difference. Again, all that is needed is to go over the top of the first rib and over the top of the lung. I think among autopsy docs and M.D. reviewers of autopsy evidence, ONLY Boswell puts the wound so low as to make this impossible. SBHarris 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The bullet hit the back where Dr. Burkley described it

The bullet hit Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra just as Dr. Burkely said in the Death Certificate. Look at the autopsy diagram, [13] Kennedy's shirt [14] and Kennedy's jacket. [15].

RPJ 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The autopsy drawing was freehand, and since it really doesn't reference any other spine landmarks, it's only approximate. The coat and shirt have the problem that a sitting man with his right arm held up to chest level (as JFK's was, in waving at the crowd) will have both ride up a couple of inches relative to the skin. That's especially true of the coat. The hole in the short looks about C7 to me-- just about where the spine is most prominant.

If you want to see exactly where the bullet hit, you need to look at the autopsy photo: [16]. The dot in the middle of the president's back is C7, the most prominent vertebra. The bullet hole is clearly higher, over the top of the scapula. No thoracic entry would allow a bullet to pass through the body without entering the thoracic cavity and puncturing the lungs. Yet the autopsy shows that something did traverse the president's body, and it traversed it over the TOP of the right lung, bruising it, and knocking off a piece of C6. There was also a hole in his throat at that level. The photograph has the right placement for such a missle striking from the rear.

Now, you can claim the autopsy photos have been doctored, but all three Bethesda physicans have had the chance to review them, and none of them thinks they've been altered. So you have the work of 3 autopsy doctors vs. Burkely.Sbharris 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, let me ask you for your theory explaining all this, if you don't believe the Bethesda doctors OR the photo? Have you tried taking a 5.5 inch piece of cardboard, putting it at the bone behind your right ear, and seeing where the end winds up, on your "back"? TRY THIS. If you can get it down to L3 in any reasonable sitting position, you're Tom Thumb.

Now, you don't like the Warren conclusion, so spin YOUR scenario out for me. The rear bullet hits JFK at T3, traveling through coat and jacket to do it, but it doesn't penetrate into the chest cavity because no hole is found through the lung (which it would have to be, at that level). We know JFK gets shot in the throat at essentially the same time, from the Z film, and he has a hole in his tie to show it, and the Dallas doctors saw the wound it made, where they made the tracheotomy. Now that's a coincidence-- two shots at once, nearly in line (but not quite, according to you).

The throat shot hits at C6 level, travels over the top of the right lung, buising it, knocks off part of the transverse process of C6 in the X-ray, then (according to you) DISAPPEARS. It does not pass through the skin. So you've got two bullets, hitting nearly simultaneously, one of which hits in the rear, and makes it almost into the chest, and the other of which hits in the front, traversing the throat, and nearly makes to out of the chest. Golly. Then they both evaporate. Magic indeed.

But if you take autopsy photo and measurments as accurate, of course all the above problems go away, because all wounds here are caused by passage of one bullet passing through from back to front (or of course front to back, but now you have to look at possible angles). Occam's razor, say I. Sbharris 17:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about Occam's razor.

• Both the Governor, to his dying day, and his wife to this day, have been adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

That's fine, but the governor may be wrong. It can take a second to register a bullet hit.

• JFK was hit at Zapruder frame 224 at the latest. Connally didn't react until 238, 1.4 seconds later. Look at Zapruder 230. JFK has clearly been hit, yet we see Connally siting upright, smiling, with his right hand held to the right of his body at shoulder level, holding his Stetson. The single bullet theory requires you to believe that this is a man who already had a bullet enter his back, break his rib, collapse his lung, exit his chest, shatter the bones in his hat-holding hand (which is not in front of his body) and enter his leg. That's one tough Texan.

Single frames lie. LOOK at the best image stabalized version of the Z film (it's the second link in the Z film wiki). You'll see that just as JFK emerges from the Stemmons sign, there's an instant where BOTH he and the governor react at the same instant. C's hands both fly up (and yes he keeps hold of his hat), his mouth comes open, and in general he makes exactly the sort of reaction somebody does when they're punched in the ribs without expecting it. WATCH IT. Watch it ten times if you need to. Something happens to Connolly RIGHT THERE. All of his later reactions are a slow roll into his wife's lap. There's no sharp movement anywhere to indicate a bullet strike later. Analysis of this frame-by-frame isn't nearly as good as what your brain supplies if you watch the movie. Here (wait for it to load-- it takes a few seconds) [17]

• Bullets do not fall out of wounds. They just don't.

They do. In the Discovery Channel piece the bullet was moving so slowly it actually bounced off the Connally figure's leg. I saw it in slo-mo. But had it not hit two ribs instead of one, it would have penetrated the ballistic gel, I bet.

• A bullet which travels through 2 men breaking several bones will lose some of its mass and be severely blunted.

Nah, that depends. You really need to see the Beyond the Magic Bullet special.

• Then, of course, there are the fragments in Connally's wrist to consider. The Parkland bullet was unblunted and had 99% of its original mass.

We don't know what the mass of the fragments in Connally is/was.

• The "cloth movement" stuff is nonsense. When a man is wearing a tailored shirt belted into his pants, and a jacket over it, while sitting down, and he raises his arms to throat level, the shirt cloth near the center of his back does not move at all. Try it. Joegoodfriend 7:05, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

You may need to move both jacket and shirt to get comfortable. YOU try it. If you look at the really good Kodachrome Image: JFKmotorcade.jpg that begins the JFK assassination wiki you'll see the back of JFK's jacket is raised quite a ways above the level of his tie knot, simply from having his arm up. Explain it however you like-- it's up there. Really.Steve 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop Reverting Bethesda/Warren Commission data

Inclusion of Burkely's death certificate is fair game (I only objected when I couldn't see page 2). Removal of Bethesda autopsy findings, just, because you don't agree with them, is not. I have included them without attempting to interpret them in the article itself, and you must do the same with your own primary source findings. Please carefully read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Ultimately, WP needs a "JFK Autopsy" article, gory photos and all, where people can debate all this.Sbharris 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bethesda autopsy data

I've included more Bethesda autopsy report data from the Warren report. It concludes passage though the neck with bruising of top of right lung, but no penetration into the thorax. That's not consistent with L3, but I let the reader draw his own conclusion. The Bethesda docs thought the bullet went through his neck, and they're the best ones to judge, since they had several hours of disecting and measuring to reach their conclusion.

I've deleted the reference to the death certificate in the heading. If it's death certificate vs autopsy findings, you can read about that in the body of the article. Sbharris 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Connally not hit at the same time?

Both John and Nellie Connally said that Connally was not hit until he turned to his left, but Connally did not begin to make the turn to the left until Zapruder Frame 310. So when they came behind the sign, what happend to John Connally?

The governor said he heard the first shot, and was turning to look at the president when hit by the second (which he didn't hear, but felt). The third fatal shot of 313 was clearly later, and noted by both Connallys well after the governor was hit. Since Connally never actually saw JFK clutching at his throat, it may well be that he heard the first shot that missed everybody, had decided to turn around to look, was hit by shot #2 at frame 224, and didn't realize it (the impact pain and shot didn't travel up to his brain and register) until he was in that act of turning, that you see. Right in the middle of that turn, the pain hit him. This is not crazy. People not realizing they've been shot until a fraction of a second later, is very common. And if you've ever stubbed your toe and waited for the pain to hit, you know the delay is juat about what you see on the Z film. Pain travels slowly. As for the kick of impact, it's actually mild (no worse on one end of the rifle than the other). Not enough to knock Connally over, nor does it. Connally believed to the end of his life that he wasn't hit by the same bullet that hit JFK in the neck, but he never SAW JFK hit in the neck! He never saw JFK hit at all. All he really knows is that he wasn't hit by the first shot he heard, which he ASSUMED was the one that hit JFK. As we know now, it wasn't. So that's resolved. Nellie Connally was sure the governor was hit by the second shot (she heard all three) and that also fits.

• Reply: The problem with the above is that Nellie observed JFK reacting to the first shot BEFORE her husband was hit in the chest. Although Gov. Connally may not have seen JFK react to the first shot, Nellie (and many others that I have quoted in the Criticism section) did.--Saskcitation 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The WC also thought both men were hit by the second shot, and the first one (around 210) missed everybody in the car (probably it hit a branch, the street, and frags hit an onlooker near the underpass).

• Reply: This is not quite correct. The WC was unsure which shot missed. There is a whole section entitled "The Shot that Missed". The WC was thought to favour a first shot SBT but in the end were not certain that the SBT was correct at all. Posner believes that the first shot missed (also preferred by the HSCA). No one has been able to explain how one of the shots could have been so wild to have missed the entire car (especially when it was so close on the first shot). At that distance, the car was a huge target that virtually anyone could hit without difficulty. See the evidence of Ronald Simmons, WC 3 H 447-448. Three FBI shooters using Oswald’s rifle fired seven sets of three shots as quickly as possible while aiming at three targets spaced at distances comparable to those from the sixth floor Texas School Book Depository window to the President’s limousine. All 21 shots hit within nine inches of the centre of the respective targets.

As to the evidence of a missed first shot striking something, the WC suggested that the shot or fragment which struck the curb near James Tague was from the second or third shot. Tague was not sure if he was hit on the second or third shot but believed it was the second: Tague: WC 7 H 555[18]. --Saskcitation 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the Costella Z film or any other stabalized version, and switch back and forth between frames 223 and 224, you can basically SEE Connally hit. His lapel flips up hiding the right side of his white collar, and he blurs out. That can't be anything other than a bullet through the chest. The lapel is down on 223, and back down by 225. As you watch the film in real time, at that moment, after emerging from the sign, Connally almost jumps and does a reflexive arm jerk with BOTH arms, VERY fast. It looks exactly what happens when you sneak up behind somebody and pop a baloon or hit them between the shoulders. Clearly, that's a reaction to something. Could be noise or a hit. I think the easiest interpretation is a hit. Even though Connally didn't feel the pain and blow for another third of a second, and contained to turn to look at the president, still reacting to the noise of shot #1, when he got hit by the pain and registered that he also was hit. SBHarris 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. First of all, there is no physical evidence that a bullet will make a lapel flip. Bullets just go through cloth - they don't push them aside unless they are just about stopped. This bullet went right through the jacket and shattered the radius. Second, it is highly doubtful that what we see is a lapel flip. The bullet passed through the jacket front several inches from the lapel. How does the bullet flip a lapel without striking it? Dr. Lattimer tried to duplicate a lapel flip but could not. What we see is a decrease in the visible area of Connally's shirt. That is all. That can be caused a number of ways. Posner chose to assume it was the lapel flipping. It could be simply the result of Connally moving his torso to the right (ie turning slightly inside his jacket) and the later restoration of the visible shirt area being the result of the right turn and lifting of his right shoulder taking the right side of his jacket with it. Finally, getting the bullet to pass through the torso at frame 223-224 makes it very difficult for it to then hit his wrist, pass throuh it and strike his thigh. The right wrist is below the side of the car at that point on his right side (see his hat come up a few frames later).Saskcitation 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't just the lapel that flips, but the entire right side of his suit coat bulges out. You have a supersonic shockwave in there, you know. The "restoration" you see takes 1/18th second. That's not arm rotation-- that's airblast. Take a look at the difference between Z-223 and 224. [19]. And do I really have to find you one more line up of the neck, chest, and wrist wound? It really can't occur too many other times than Z-224, since the wrist is actually too HIGH after that, from the arm jerk.SBHarris 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Saskcitation 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC). If you look at the MPI frames from "Image of an Assassination", which are the best available, you can see that there is very little difference in the appearance of his jacket between frames 222 and 224. In z223 his jacket opens up because his right hand drops. He then brings his right hand back up in z225ff and his jacket looks the same as it does in 224. So that would seem to be explainable by the movement of the jacket due to his arm motion. I don't see any bulge there at all. Bullets go through things and do not impart much momentum to the things they strike unless it is hard and massive, which a jacket isn't.

Reply, If i can say something, if you look close to the frame's 222,223 and 224, you can see Connally's jacket flip up twice, first at 222 then it is normal at 223 and it flips up again at 224.

Reply by Saskcitation 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Yes. That was what I meant. There is very little difference between the jacket appearance in z222 and its appearance in z224 or after. The difference is in z223 where the jacket seems to open up to expose more of his white shirt. Notice his hand goes down from 222 to 223: it is visible in 222 and out of sight (below the top of the door) in 223. It reappears in 225 as he brings it up with his hat. I have no idea how a bullet could pass from JFK's neck at that point and strike JBC in the back without it striking JFK's hands which are in front of his chest. The trajectory from the neck to JBC's right armpit is downward. That is just one of several problems with a shot at that point.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Connally says when he was hit And the bullet did not passed by his lapel if you watch his jacket http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r64/jfk90/Connallys_Jacket.jpg

Again, Connally is not the best judge of the exact moment when he was shot. Due to the fact that the man had just been SHOT <grin>. You know? He didn't even HEAR it. He was in SHOCK. Okay? No, the bullet didn't go through his lapel, but it created a blast and shock wave which blurs everything in that one frame, near Connally. All this happens far too fast for Zapruder to be reacting to it (Zapruder's reaction to the sound happens a bit later, but you don't appreciate it from the stabilized film). Look at the moment the car emerges from the sign. There's a point THERE where Connally "jumps" and startles very suddenly, as if smacked, but nobody else in the car does (JFK's own response is hidden behind the sign). Watch the film again, is all I advise. And again. And again. SBHarris 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what about Mrs Connally she said she shaw the president's hands fly up his throat and after he did that, Connally was hit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Or rather, then after that, she NOTICED Connally was hit. So? If you look at the Z film, the governnor makes his startle-response (I think at the moment he takes the bullet) at the moment they emerge from the sign, and JFK has been hit, and has hands to throat. Nellie starts out by looking back at JFK, just as advertized. THEN she looks up front to see if the secret service people have noticed JFK's in trouble, THEN finally she looks at her husband and notices HE is in trouble (by this time, he's beginning to realize it, too). So now Nellie focuses on her husband and moves in toward him, and just about that time BANG, JFK's head blows up and Nellie pulls the governor down. It's not at ALL obvious Nellie knows the governor is hit, as soon as he is. In fact, since he's facing away from her somewhat and she's looking first back at the president, then up front to the secret service, it seems quite clear to me that she misses the exact moment her husband is hit. Which is natural. His head doesn't explode, POW. When he's hit he doesn't do anything particular dramatic except the arm-flinch, and the wife is looking elsewhere when that happens. SBHarris 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in 2002 Mrs Connally was at the Larry King Live show and she said,

KING: You had a disagreement over the -- where the shots went or -- Connally thought he was shot with the same bullet that hit Kennedy, right? CONNALLY: No, but everybody else thought he was. And they couldn't find... KING: The third bullet. CONNALLY: The third bullet. And, see, just think about it. Six seconds a shot. John turns, can't see anything. He turns over here, he can't see anything. He starts back and there's another shot. That bullet couldn't have just hung in the air. KING: Couldn't have gone through both? CONNALLY: No, it just couldn't have.

Criticisms

An interesting and overlooked criticism relates to the shot pattern observed by the vast majority of witnesses. As the Warren Commission observed, a substantial majority of witnesses recalled unequal spacing of the shots and the majority of these recalled that the last two shots were closer together. The WC did not really make much of this. But the evidence is more than merely significant. It is overwhelming. It is by this count[20]there were 44 witnesses who recalled the last two shots closer together, 6 who recalled it the other way around and 9 who recalled that the shots were about equally spaced. This consistency among witnesses is very difficult to explain as being driven by mistake. It means that this was the shot pattern. That shot pattern cannot be reconciled with the second shot SBT. Saskcitation 05:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, it could mean that the first shot missed, and it occurred earlier than we think it did (e.g., that Connally's head-turning reaction was not as instantaneous as we thought). — Walloon 06:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: No. This is not possible. If the first shot missed then the second shot hit JFK. Leaving aside the 17 witnesses by my count who said that JFK reacted to the first shot and none who said that he continued to wave and smile as we see him doing prior to z200, this is simply not possible if one is to have a shot pattern with the last two shots close together. Even if the second shot was as late as z224, you cannot get the last two shots closer together unless the first shot was before Zapruder started filming (224 to 313 is 5 seconds so you would need a first shot at least 6 seconds and probably 9 or 10 seconds before z224). Note: This shot pattern is actually the reason Max Holland has recently postulated such an early first shot 11 seconds before the head shot, (11 Seconds in Dallas: [21]). But this is obviously seriously flawed - there simply was not a shot that early according to the evidence. Saskcitation 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Z223 to Z313 is 90 frames, or 4.9 seconds. So, a first shot any time before Z133 (223 - 90) would create a larger gap between the first and second shots than between the second and third. P.S. Your article is very well researched and presented. — Walloon 06:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: A shot at z133 (which is the first frame of Zapruder's film of the motorcade) would not have resulted in the last two shots being closer together. And it is difficult to understand how 4.9 seconds would be perceived by so many people to be "rapid succession" or "very close together" or "real close" or "almost as if one were the echo of the other" or "practically no time element between them".

In order for the shots at z224 and z313 to be noticeably closer together than the first two, the first shot would have to be several seconds before Zapruder started filming the motorcade. Since Zapruder started filming about 1 second after Tina Towner stopped filming, this means that the shot would have to have taken place before Tina Towner stopped her camera. But Tina Towner said that she stopped filming and started to get ready to leave when the first shot occurred (see Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain Ch. 8, p 215-221; It contains references to an article in Teen Magazine in June, 1968 and also a copy of Life Magazine from Nov. 24, 1967. Trask quotes from the Teen and Life articles:

"Just after she stopped filming, Tina would later relate "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle that I had ever heard")

In her personal account which is on display in the Sixth Floor Museum, Tina Turner estimated that the first shot was 4 to 6 seconds after she stopped filming.

Croft also puts the first shot after his third photo (later shown to have been snapped at z162). Croft's account is also mentioned in Trask's POTP Ch. 9, p.221-229. Trask interviewed Croft and also obtained documents on FBI files relating to Croft's photos. Croft's third photograph was taken before the first shot. In fact, Croft moved further down Elm wound his camera and may have twiddled the shutter speed or fstop before taking another photograph which, he said, he took just as the first shot sounded. He thought this photo #4 was taken simultaneously with the first shot. Unfortunately, the shot was un- or under-exposed and there was a blank negative. The point is that not only was #3 taken before the first shot, it was taken enough before that he was able to walk, wind the camera and take another.

Betzner, Willis, Woodward, TE Moore, the occupants of the VP and VP security cars and many others put the first shot well after the beginning of the zfilm.

So if the shot pattern was 1.....2..3, the second shot was well after frame 224. Saskcitation 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Material added, earwitnesses, etc.

A lot of material has been added by anon posters. Since some of it says stuff which is NOT true (ie, that Zapruder thought people had been hit by this or that shot-- he says himself he couldn't tell if there were 2 or 3 shots), I'm going to remove it unless you source it.

• Reply: I have posted the sources for all these witnesses. As for Zapruder, the transcript of his TV interview about an hour and a half after the assassination is given. He said:

And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.

So Zapruder was quite clear in his recollection that JFK slumped to his side after the first shot. The original WFAA-TV (ABC) interview is available on the MPI Teleproductions DVD Image of an Assassination.

--Saskcitation 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Ms. Connally and all three shots hitting the car, that's just wrong. The most famous Altgens photo, taken about Z-230 and probably in unconscious reaction to the sound of the second shot, shows JFK with hands to throat and his wife assisting him. And yet in that very frame, every single secret service agent on the running boards of the car behind is already looking upward and back, toward the TSBD. That's WAY too fast a reaction to a first shot. They had to be primed for that action by previous sound from behind (a shot before). And (by the testimony of many of them) they were, for they looked back and up immediately after seeing JFK hit by shot #2. But that first shot at Z-160 had no effect that anybody ever saw. Some people thought the second shot was the first, but they simply missed the first one. Many people testified to a first shot that was without effect. Zapruder jumps early in the film for no reason, and a little girl stops and looks around, all about Z-160. You can see the effects of the sound, but no effect on the limo. SBHarris 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to above paragraph: I am not sure what your source of information for your statement:

  "As for Ms. Connally and all three shots hitting the car, that's just wrong. The most famous Altgens photo, taken about Z-230 and probably in unconscious reaction to the sound of the second shot, shows JFK with hands to throat and his wife assisting him. And yet in that very frame, every single secret service agent on the running boards of the car behind is already looking upward and back, toward the TSBD. That's WAY too fast a reaction to a first shot. "

  Altgens photo was taken at frame z255-56. You can match Jacquie's hands to the zfilm and verify this for yourself. You are ignoring the fact that Altgens said that his photo was taken after the first shot but before any other shot. Although he was not sure whether there was one or two shots afterward, he was sure there had only been one to the point he took that photo. If the first shot was at z202, which is what Phil Willis said (it was at the same instant he took his photo which is exactly at z202) this gives the agents almost 3 seconds to react the way they appear in the Altgens photo.

  There is a great deal of evidence that all three shots hit the occupants of the car: Many witnesses said the first shot hit JFK; the Connallys, corroborated by others such as David Powers, Gayle Newman, and driver William Greer, said that the second shot hit the Governor in the back; the Zapruder film shows the third bullet striking JFK. That is three shots, three hits. One can disagree with the evidence and suggest that it was not correct, but one cannot say that there was no evidence.

  The Warren Commission obviously believed that one shot must have missed, but it could not say whether the first, second or third shot missed. It is a logical corollary to the single bullet theory, but there is no independent evidence of a missed shot. --Saskcitation Jan. 21, 14:00 CST

• You are right, oh anon one from Canada, that Altgens is later than I'd thought. Yes, about 255 indeed (checked). However, you can't have it both ways. If the first shot hit JFK at 202 as Willis said from the sound, and you think it was a hit, then JFK sure did a lot smiling and waving afterwards, because you can see him do some of it, over the top of the sign. Now, THAT's a delayed reaction! On the other hand, the 255 Altgens frame gives the agents still 255-223/18.2 = 1.75 seconds to react to shot #2. I really doubt, but cannot prove, that all four would have managed that to a shot #1, in that time. A first shot can be anything-- a backfire, a cherry bomb, you name it. All four agents aren't going to stop looking at the president and look backward less than two seconds after just one first sound. SBHarris 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can see what JFK is doing while behind the sign. His actions are quite consistent with being hit at z202. At z207 he appears to begin reacting - at least according to the HSCA panel who looked at it. I can't tell. He may not have felt much impact and his reaction may have taken a second or so to begin - we may be seeing the beginning of it at when he emerges. That is not much of a delayed reaction - 1.25 seconds at the most and possibly as early as z207.

Forward through the individual frames at [22]. JKF's hand motion at 207 is merely the continuation of a right hand wave he's making as he begins to go under the sign. But you can see his forhead and hair for some time after that, and the top of his head (which you can identify by relation to Jackie's hat) doesn't disappear to 215. In no time is there any change in the height or position of it. Not what you'd expect to see of a man shot through the throat. On the other hand, at 224, you see a sequence where BOTH JFK and Connally sit straight up. JFK's arms come up (both of them) and so do Connally's. They are clearly reacting to the same event and it happens RIGHT there.

Reply. Reacting sure. But Connally said he reacted to the first shot. He recognized it as a rifle shot and turned back to see JFK. He said he just wasn't hit by it im the back. He said Oh, no, no, no before he was hit. He appears to be saying oh, no, no, no. around z235-40. --Saskcitation 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see JFK from Z-215 to 226, but based on what he's BEGINING to do at 226, almost in ballet time with Connally's beginning bilateral arm flex-flinch, I think they are both hit there at the same time. We can disagree on that till doomsday, but we certainly know that Connally didn't recall correctly doing what he said he did do, unless the Z film is a fake. So we can't trust the memories of a guy who's just taken a bullet through the chest.

Reply. You are assuming he was hit in the chest at that point. If he wasn't, his recollection might be just fine. He never lost consciousness. I am not aware that Connally didn't recall correctly what he did after the first shot and before he was hit. He was unsure exactly what his position was when he was hit, and he said so. But he distinctly recalled trying to look back to see JFK and I don't see him beginning to do that before z235. I see a rather obvious turn to see JFK in after that and it is quite evident from the Altgens photo at z255 that he is turned to the right. --Saskcitation 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your witnesses, you ought to call them earwitnesses, but it's clear JFK is shot while behind the sign, and there's a LONG time between then and 313. So the Earwitnesses are wrong about the short interval there, unless there's there an extra shot which has no effect on anybody. If you want to shoot JFK through the neck at 206, you need to do it with a bullet that then just disappears. If the earwitnesses say that happened, I'm just going to assume they didn't "hear" the second shot until they saw the president react to it, and that was the point they realized it WAS a shot, and committed that as fact to memory. WHich is a tricky thing. Don't place too much evidence on testimony. You may have written a whole paper on this, but that only makes you more partisan.SBHarris 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You are just going to assume that 44 witnesses who recalled hearing a distinct pattern were wrong because they don't fit with what you see in the zfilm? I would suggest that one should try to see if there is a reasonable interpretation of the zfilm that is consistent with the shot pattern. I don't see any reason in the evidence why these 44 witnesses got it wrong - all the same way. What is the explanation? Besides, the witnesses said that they saw JFK react to the first shot, not the second. Why would they not hear a shot when it sounded?--Saskcitation 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we cannot say with any confidence what is and what is not a reasonable reaction to these events. We have to look at the evidence and stay away from "expert" opinions. The "science" of interpreting reactions is fraught with uncertainty. The evidence of many witnesses converges on a first shot at z200 or so. This is a complicated analysis but essentially it involves looking at the testimony of witnesses along Elm St. near the President and relating their actual location to their descriptions of where the President was in relation to where they were standing when they heard the first shot.

Another important body of consistent evidence is ths shot pattern: 44 witnesses recalled confidently the shot pattern of: shot, long pause, shot, short pause shot. 6 witnesses thought it was the other way around, but none were confident. 10 thought the shots were about equally spaced, but none were confident. If you would like to read my paper on the shot pattern, you can download it at http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf The 1......2...3 shot pattern is wholly inconsistent with a second shot SBT. The only possibility for the SBT with this shot pattern is a first shot SBT. --Saskcitation, Jan 21, 2007, 14:20 CST.

I see no reason at all to stay away from "expert opinions." I do see a lot of evidenc from law (DNA evidence and so on) plus a HUGE social psychology experimental literature, that witness testimony on events is NOT to be trusted, except in VERY special circumstances (ie, you see somebody know know previously very, very well, so something very very simple and bad).

Reply. How about a cite? Courts rely on witness evidence every day. Our laws make it very difficult to ignore corroborated witness evidence. I happen to be a Canadian trial lawyer with 25 years of trial and appellate experience, so I would challenge you on any blanket statement that in law witnesses are presumptively not reliable.

Of course, witnesses can be reliable or unreliable. Knowing how to tell the difference is important. Courts and investigators depend on witness testimony and generally do not have difficulty distinguishing between recollections that are reliable and those that are not. Psychologists have tested and studied witness perception, memory and recall under a variety of conditions. While these studies confirm that individual witnesses are fallible, they show that honest witness recollection is, more often than not, accurate - with the greatest accuracy on the most salient details. Courts find it safe to rely on witness testimony where the testimony is consistent with other evidence and particularly if there is corroboration on material details.

See: Elizabeth Loftus on Witness reliability. Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 25 ff. She lists several studies showing that witnesses are quite reliable on salient details. Not 100%, but even with suggestions being made to them, witnesses are right 60% of the time and when not interfered with over 90%. So when you get several witnesses saying the same thing either they made the same mistake for a common reason or actually observed the same thing.

• Hate to burst that bubble, but Loftus has since moved on, with a new edition of her book, and is now a darling of the witness-distrusters, especially now the DNA is making her look really good in a lot of cases. [23] also [24]SBHarris 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I think you are overstating Loftus' point. She does not say that witnesses tend to get things wrong more often than not. She says witness evidence needs corroboration in order to support a reliable conviction. This is a quote from the article you cited:

"LOFTUS: Often times, eyewitness testimony is accurate and in many cases has proven to be accurate, because you have circumstantial evidence. You know the victim's belongings are found in the defendant's home. The defendant's fingerprints are found in the victim's bedroom. You have corroborating evidence that helps to confirm that the eyewitness testimony is accurate. So it's no wonder that we see many situations where eyewitness testimony is accurate, we see it's accurate, we know it's accurate, it's just that fraction of the time where it's uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, that's all we have and it could be mistaken especially if things weren't done right."

Now with respect to the shot pattern or number of shots, we are talking not about one witness. We are talking dozens of witnesses that are corroborated by other evidence. For example, the shot pattern is corroborated by the zfilm: witnesses who said that JBC was hit just before he fell back (Greer, Powers, Newman). He falls back at z280 or so, which fits the 1....2..3 pattern. Loftus does not suggest that such large numbers of consistent corroborated witnesses are unreliable. --Saskcitation 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The odds of 10 independent witnesses being all wrong on fact recollection in the same way become vanishingly small. This is quite different than eye-witness identification evidence. Such evidence requires extreme caution and rigourous techniques to obtain properly and is not reliable unless corroborated. Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, nonsense. Example: 9/11. A huge fraction of people interviewed later said they clearly remember where they were on 9/11 and that on that day they saw footage on TV of the first plane hitting the first tower, before the second one hit. They were all wrong. No such footage was available that day to the public, and nobody saw it. Not just thousands, but millions of people got it wrong. Just one example for you. SBHarris 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Classroom demos with video cameras of faked unexpected events (with later essays and then comparisons) are a must in every college Psych class 101. How is it that you missed all that?

Reply. I need a cite. I have read Loftus (see above). I don't see her saying that witnesses are not reliable, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence from some other source.Saskcitation 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you must go though all that scientific crap to become a medical or social psychology expert, and you just didn't bother? What?

:Reply. A cite would help. If it is scientific presumably you can give us a cite. Again, read Loftus. Courts accept witness evidence all the time and miscarriages of justice are rare. DNA is unequivocal evidence. You can't really compare the zfilm with DNA. It does not show Connally being hit. That is just a matter of interpretation.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if you think the single bullet Wiki is going to get skewed this badly by a paper from one guy (namely you) when a thousand people have worked for years untangling this mystery, think again. We have room for major conclusions from major investigations-- that's about it. I can name you three computer graffic investigations that see Connally hit at 224.

Reply. Cite? Not Dale Myers.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, Dale Myers is one. And here's your cite. [25] and actually the better one from Myer's website: go through all sections.[26]SBHarris 07:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Myers just does an animation of the shots and trajectory. He never says he can see JBC hit at z224. Never. He is positing his theory. --Saskcitation 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• He says the computer animation shows it THERE. How much clearer does he need to be? [27]

I can SEE that he is.

Where is the blood? How is it that David Powers, Gayle Newman, Wm. Greer, all said Connally fell back immediately on the second shot? All I see is a rather robust looking Governor trying to turn back to see JFK for three seconds from z230-270 - just as he said he did after the first shot and before he was hit. Altgens said his z255 photo was taken after the first shot and before the second. Nellie Connally said she never turned to look back into the rear seat after her husband was hit on the second shot. She is looking back as late as z260. So, while you may believe that you SEE him being hit, others who are just as honest and objective disagree. A public document about the SBT must point out all the evidence, for and against.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the public is entitled to assess the SBT against the evidence, such as the fact that 44 witnesses distinctly recalled a 1......2..3 shot pattern (ie. it is a fact that they gave statements recalling the pattern). Of course, that pattern is inconsistent with a second shot as early as z224. People interested in finding the truth will take all evidence seriously. I think it is important in putting out a public objective statement that you state the evidence for and against the theory and let people use that information to form their own conclusions. It is not up to us to say what occurred: merely to objectively provide the evidence.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can SEE JFK waving at Z-204 with one hand, not clenching at his throat. GO back and watch the film again. And again. And again. Watch it till you get it. SBHarris 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. A human being cannot physically begin to react to anything in less than about 100 ms. and usually require 250 ms. to actually do something (like press a brake pedal). In the case of JFK, no nerves were hit and no bone (except perhaps a small bone protruding from a cervical vertebra). It may be that he did not feel it but only noticed the loss of function (breathing problem). If he was hit at z202 as Phil Willis stated (he said his z202 photo was taken at the instant of the first shot. Hugh Betzner said his photo at z186 was taken just before the first shot (as he was quickly winding his camera to take another). 2 frames is about 100 ms.

You seem rather defensive about your interpretation of the zfilm. Readers may wish to see what the witnesses say they saw before trying to interpret the film. Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK Lancer It says that Connally said in a Life magazine interview that he tought he was hit at Z frame 234.

Reply:That is true - Life, November 25, 1966. He also said it to the Warren Commission in 1964. No one asked him where he turns to his right and looks behind him to see the President. I don't see any such turn before z234 and no one else has been able to see it. Are we supposed to think it happened behind the sign in 1 second? Connally insisted that it was the second shot that hit him and that he made a turn right around to his right and tried to see the president after the first shot and before the second. So his opinion that he looked like he was hit at z234 is not consistent with the events that he recalled.--Saskcitation 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, but again if you look at Myers' analysis there's a simple explanation for this. Connally does do a rapid right head turn after Z-160, which is when the first shot probably is. Not far enough to see the president, but he never claimed he had seem him. That's probably the first shot he remembered and the head turn he remembered making after it, also. After he was hit (indeed a later shot) he didn't remember any of the head turning he did after that. Or else collapsed it into his earlier looking-action, in memory. He missed the sound, too.

  As for Mrs. Connally, she says says her husband was hit AFTER she saw JFK with hands to throat, but as noted, all that really means is that she noticed he was hit after that. After the throat shot the Z film shows her look at JFK, then up front to the secret service, THEN finally at her husband, who is starting to react. Again she may have collapsed two memories into one.

  I mentioned the first-plane-into-the-twin-towers false-memories for a reason, and you missed it. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing Loftus says happens. People who saw that footage later, misremembered and thought they'd seen it on 9/11, when they really only saw plane #2 that day. That is, people who saw the second plane footage on 9/11 later collapsed that memory with footage of plane #1, available only later. It happens. It happened on 9/11 to a LOT more than 44 people. Why don't you get the point? If we had no actual record that plane strike #1 footage had not been broadcast on 9/11, and were going by witness testimony alone, we'd have a HUGE testimonial base that it had been broadcast on that day. But IN FACT it wasn't, end of discussion. No matter how many people THOUGHT they saw it. Okay? SBHarris 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply by --Saskcitation 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) All I said was that when 44 people agree on a particular fact out of many possibilities, either they were all mistaken due to a common factor or they all actually observed the fact. You cannot compare 44 witnesses independently hearing the 1......2...3 shot pattern without any suggestion being made to them (read their statements) to confusion on the part of many witnesses as to the direction of the sound of the shots (or the recollection of which of two identical buildings TV watchers thought they saw a plane hit on 9/11 - come on now). Many people were confused as to the direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza (although they still generally converge on the TBSD as the source). This may well have been because there were common factors relating to sound reverberation that distorted their perception of direction. What common factor caused them to hear the wrong shot pattern - all the same way????

--Saskcitation 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) As to a shot as early as z160, not only do the 44 shot pattern witnesses exclude that as a possibility, so do about 16 "first shot hit" witnesses" (see above under "Criticism" section); so do a similar number of witnesses who place the first shot at about z200-220: ie the 5 occupants of the VP follow-up car who said their car was just turning the corner (parallel to the TBSD) at the time of the first shot (it is not there at z192); the occupants of the VP car who said they had completed the turn and were going down Elm at the time of the first shot (it is still turning at z175); Hugh Betzner who said he took his z186 photo before the first shot; or Phil Willis who said he took his z202 photo at the instant of the first shot, or Linda Willis who said that the limousine was between her and the Stemmons sign at the time of the first shot (z199-204); Or T. Moore who said that the President was about opposite the Thornton Freeway sign (located at z210); or Wm. Greer driving the limousine who said the limo was just about past the west corner of the TBSD when the first shot sounded. No one said there was a shot any where near z160. And no one said JFK did not react to it.

These recent changes have really changed the balance of the article. I think we need to trim down or condens what has been added recently. The quotes, weasel words ("if one is to believe" ect.) and eyewitness testimony that contridicts the ballistics, or the Z film, need to go IMO. Some of the text is redundant as well. Mytwocents 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. I am not sure what you are referring to. But you cannot simply ignore eyewitness testimony, especially when it is corroborated by many witnesses. Ballistics evidence and interpretations of the zfilm are not necessarily reliable. Experts can, and often do, disagree. Eyewitness evidence very often converges on a common scenario that can have only one reasonable explanation: it was observed. This is the case with respect to the shot pattern witnesses. The convergence of 44 witnesses on the same shot pattern is signficant and cannot be explained by 44 witnesses having the same incorrect recollection at random. Either they all made the same error due to a common factor or they actually heard that pattern. If it does not fit with an expert's interpretation of the physical evidence, then the opinion should be questioned. A good example is the expert opinion of Dr. Guinn on the NAA which is now being seriously questioned. I would say that it is not balanced or neutral to prefer expert evidence over witness evidence. Let's include it all and let the reader make up his/her own mind.Saskcitation 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutron Activation Analysis

NAA section added in conformity with NPOV --Saskcitation 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hand-throat movements

"From the Zapruder film one can see Kennedy already reaching up toward his throat in reaction to the bullet strike, as he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225."

There are two problems with this sentence, which is why I marked it as "opinion." First, the language "in reaction to the bullet strike" is conclusive. Second, Kennedy's right elbow was resting on the car's door frame during the motorcade, leaving his forearm already roughly at throat level. Twice in the Zapruder film before frame 225 he is seen raising his hand up from that position to wave at the crowds. Whether Kennedy was raising his right hand up a third time to wave at the crowds when he was struck by a bullet circa 223-224, or whether the movement of his right hand was only in reaction to being struck by a bullet, is a matter of opinion and conjecture. (Thus, when Kennedy's left hand moved up to his throat might be more informative.) The sentence should be modified. — Walloon 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that at z225 JFK is not reacting to having been hit in the neck with a bullet? Here is z225[28]. Here is z193[29] when JFK was waving and smiling (at Mary Woodward and her group. According to Mary Woodward they had just shouted to him, and he and Jackie turned, smiled and waved). The difference is quite obvious. It is not so much a matter of opinion at a matter of observation. JFK is reacting to something and he is in obvious difficulty.

What frame are you suggesting shows his hands in the same position as in z225?Saskcitation 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Are you seriously suggesting that at z225 JFK is not reacting to having been hit in the neck with a bullet?"

That's not what I am saying. Please re-read my message above. The position of Kennedy's right hand — that it was elevated at throat level — is not a reliable indicator of whether he was reacting to being shot. His right hand had already been at throat level because he was resting his right arm on the door frame. Kennedy's right hand actually moves downward from Z224 to Z225. See Was Kennedy Reaching For Throat? for more. There are other reasons to believe that Kennedy was shot at Z223, and was reacting by Z225, but the level of his right hand is not one of them. The level of his left hand could well be an indicator that he had been shot. — Walloon 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The best evidence that there's something seriously wrong with JFK at 225 is that he has his mouth open. And it's not a smile. And yes, both his hands are heading for the unnatural position which they will take in subsequent frames, so there's no reason to think this odd position of them in 225 isn't part of that same reaction. Watch the entire sequence as a motion film. JFK is CLEARLY in trouble from the moment he's visible after emerging from the sign. And as for Connally, again watch the ENTIRE Z film. Connally DOES make a rapid right head turn, but it's well before the car gets to the sign. That's the ONLY one he makes, and so the sound he describes himself looking for must have happened much earlier. And indeed is from bullet #1, not the one that hit either JFK or him. Connally never heard the bullet that hit either him or JFK. That's not surprising, inasmuch as people quite frequently don't hear the bullet that hits them from a rifle. The bullet arrives before the sound, and by the time the sound hits the ear, the nervous system is busy dealing with the shock of having just been blasted by a high powered rifle bullet wave. So when Connally swears that he wasn't hit by the same bullet that hit JFK, all he really means is he wasn't hit by the first shot he heard, and which he ASSUMED hit JFK. And he's right, he wasn't. But he has no way to know that bullet hit JFK--- because he never saw JFK while hit. So he doesn't KNOW of that which he speaks. He assumes. That's all. SBHarris 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

John Connally may not have seen JFK react to the first shot by moving left and bringing his hands to his neck, but 17 others did including his wife. Not one witness said that JFK continued to smile and wave after the first shot. The Governor had been able to see and converse with JFK by turning to his right (the recently discovered Jeffries film shows such a conversation) and on this occasion JFK was not where he had been, according to Connally. It is difficult to see why JBC could not have seen JFK if he had turned around to see him prior to z200. It is difficult to imagine that JBC is trying to see JFK prior to z200.

In any event, the issue here is whether JFK is reacting to being hit at z225 and whether his right hand is evidence of that reaction. The particular issue is whether his right hand appears unusual. It is in a different position than it was at z193 and the bent claw-like contortion hardly looks like he is getting ready to wave. When looking at the overall appearance of JFK in z225 in the context of all the evidence (17 witnesses by my count who said he did exactly that after the first shot), it is a reasonable inference that he is reacting to being shot.Saskcitation 12:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

John Connally, in his 1964 and his 1978 testimony, was agnostic about whether he and Kennedy were hit by the same bullet. (Mrs. Connally, on the other hand, believed that they were not.) What he was adamant about: "Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit by the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet…" — Walloon 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that: he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet, only if that bullet is the first one, since he clearly remembers hearing the first one and not being hit. His wife's observation is that JFK is hit by the first one, because she reports she hears it, looks at JFK, sees he's hit, and after THAT, John is hit. But the Z tape refutes her. She does indeed look back to see the president hit after the throat shot, and probably THINKS her husband wasn't hit then, so had to be hit later. But she actually never looks to see at the time. The Z film shows her look at JFK first, then forward at the Agents (the driver principally) to see if they notice that the president has been shot, and ONLY THEN, over at her husband, who by then is slumping, giving her notice that he's in trouble. She's not going to admit that her husband was hit when the president was, but she didn't notice because she was looking at the president and the agents. There wasn't much dramatic when the gov was hit, anyway, so you can hardly blame her. SBHarris 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis assumes that JBC has been hit by z230. So the zfilm refutes Nellie's recollection only if JBC was hit by z230 or so (where she thought afterwards that he was hit). Her evidence fits with the zfilm if JBC was not hit in the back at that point. It may be noted that Altgens said that his z255 photo was taken after the first shot but before any other.Saskcitation 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"You're right about that: he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet"

Did you even read what I wrote, and what I quoted? I'll repeat what John Connally said: "Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit by the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet…" — Walloon 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote; did you read what I wrote? I agree with your point: You didn't quote all of what I said: "he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet, only if that bullet is the first one" As you point out, it's okay with Connally if they are hit by the same bullet, SO LONG AS it is NOT the first one (i.e., if it's the second one). It's Mrs. Connally who doesnt' like that scenario, because it requires her to be noticing that the presdent has been hit without noticing that her husband has. But as we see in the Z film, that could well have happened, because her husband makes no dramatic gesture while Mrs. Connally is looking at him, and she doesn't get around to looking at him until some time later, by which time his initial flinch reaction is long over.SBHarris 03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My interest here is in ensuring that the reader is presented with the evidence, not just opinion. There is a great deal of evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot and that the first shot occurred after Zframe 190. There is also a great deal of evidence that that last two shots were close together, closer than the first two. Each of these two bodies of evidence exclude the second shot SBT. So while the second shot SBT has some theoretical appeal, it does not fit with a lot of evidence. Now there may be a reason all those witnesses could be wrong, but the reader should be aware of that evidence if we are to comply with the Wiki NPOV requirement. Saskcitation 12:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the trivia section.

None of the items in the trivia list impact this subject. They are more appropriate for the originating article they refer to (i.e. the entry about The Onion parody belongs in the The Onion article, not here). In other words it's much more likely that people reading about Family Guy would want to know what they are parodying, rather than people reading about this subject wanting a list of parodies. I'd like to start pruning these down but I understand that some people can get quite attached to certain articles and this article is very controversial. What objections would I face trying to move these trivia items to more appropriate articles that then link here? Padillah (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

section on how Warren Commission came up with theory lacking

I find it odd that there is no discussion here as to why the Warren Commission came up with the single bullet theory in the first place. I think the page could use a description as to how the WC by April 1964 had more or less concluded that Oswald alone was responsible for the assassination, as all the evidence pointed in that direction. However, once they started to closely examine the Zapruder film, it seemed that there was a timing problem with the sequence of shots that didn't match the other evidence. This was resolved once the theory was proposed, and confirmed, to the satisfaction of most on the Commission (with the notable exception of Richard Russell) by the May reenactment.

Surely a few paragraphs on how the theory emerged is warranted here. Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Saskcitation (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC):

David Belin, in his book Final Disclosure, said that the theory emerged after he found an expert (presumably FBI's Robert Frazier) to say that Connally could not have been hit after frame 240 in order for the bullet to have made the exit where it did. This meant that if the first shot was at z210, which is where the WC thought it occurred, and 2.3 seconds or 42 frames were required between shots, if JBC was hit 30 frames or less after the first shot, JFK and JBC could not be hit by separate shots fired by Oswald. (According to Belin, this was an attempt on his part to prove a conspiracy.) However, he said, Arlen Specter then came up with the SBT.

Specter said in a Life Magazine interview in 1966 ("Rebuttal by the Protagonist of the One-bullet verdict", Life, November 25, 1966, p. 48B) that the most damaging argument to any alternative argument to the SBT was where did CE399 go?:

"Having virtually ruled out an early hit on President Kennedy, the Commission was forced next to consider what is potentially the most damaging single argument against Connally's account of the crime: what happened to the bullet that hit the President?

If the only wound that Connally sustained was in his back, this would be a good argument in favour of the SBT. But Connally was wounded in three places, one of which was on his left side (the thigh wound). The bullet through JFK was going right to left. Specter and the WC did not consider the possiblity that the shot went to JBC's left side and struck his thigh. They probably did not consider this because the car the FBI used for the re-enactment showed that no such path existed. But the car they used for the re-enactment was the Queen Mary, the 1956 Cadillac Secret Service car as the president's limo was being rebuilt at the time. The jump seat in the 56 Cadillac was a high bench seat. In the president's limo the jump seat was on the floor and the back was low - the same height as the seat length (the back folded forward over the seat). With JBC turned sharply right as he was at z180-207, it was quite possible that the left thigh was exposed to a bullet travelling from the 6th floor window through JFK's neck. This reenactment[30] using a mock-up jump seat shows that the path indeed existed.

The problem is that neither a first or second shot SBT fits the evidence. The WC thought that JBC was hit on the first shot and did not feel it. This was odd because JBC said he felt the shot impacting his back:

Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade. (Warren Commission, Vol4, p. 129 - 4 H 129)

Robert Frazier did not actually say that JBC could not have been hit after z240. What he said was the bullet could not have exited on the right side of the Governor's chest after z240 if it went through him undeflected:

Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position in frame 240?

Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot, assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case too far to the right. Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235 and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his left chest area rather than from his right chest area.

Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position at frame 249?

Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor and struck him in an undetected fashion and passed through his body undeflected. - 5 H 170

Frazier was not an expert on anatomy. He was a firearms expert. The sensation JBC described indicates that the bullet imparted some momentum to his body on impact. A bullet changes momentum either by slowing down or changing direction. It can do this only if it strikes something solid, like bone. If it struck while JBC was turned sharply to the right (which is exactly what Nellie described to Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires on Nov. 22/63) the path of the bullet through JBC must have changed direction in JBC's chest.

The second shot SBT does not work either. For the second shot SBT to work, the first shot had to have occurred around z160. The problem is that many witnesses said the first shot was well after this and JFK was hit by it (at least 16 witnesses said he reacted immediately moving left and bringing his hands to his neck). No one said JFK and Jackie turned, smiled and waved to the crowd AFTER the first shot. Several said they did this just before the first shot (Mary Woodward in a news story written hours after the assassination described in meticulous detail the last smile and wave of JFK and Jackie as they passed her group and that this was just before the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" - this is seen from frames 160-200). Also, an overwhelming number of witnesses had a clear recollection that the last two shots were bunched - closer together than the first two. A second shot at or before z224 cannot possibly fit such a shot pattern.

And then there is the need (with the SBT) for a missed shot. There is a absence of any clear physical or witness evidence that a shot missed the limo entirely.

The three shot-three hit scenario that Connally described will work if JBC was hit after z240 and if the first shot through JFK went on to strike JBC's left thigh only. A shot much after z271 would mean that the second shot was too close to the third to have been fired by Oswald. So the question is: is there evidence in the zfilm of such a shot between z240 and about z271? Saskcitation (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Quote:

• The second shot SBT does not work either. For the second shot SBT to work, the first shot had to have occurred around z160. The problem is that many witnesses said the first shot was well after this and JFK was hit by it (at least 16 witnesses said he reacted immediately moving left and bringing his hands to his neck). No one said JFK and Jackie turned, smiled and waved to the crowd AFTER the first shot. Several said they did this just before the first shot (Mary Woodward in a news story written hours after the assassination described in meticulous detail the last smile and wave of JFK and Jackie as they passed her group and that this was just before the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" - this is seen from frames 160-200). Also, an overwhelming number of witnesses had a clear recollection that the last two shots were bunched - closer together than the first two. A second shot at or before z224 cannot possibly fit such a shot pattern.

ANSWER It may well be that witnesses who thought JFK reacted to the first shot are simply wrong. As always, the Z film is the best source.

The witnesses heard the shots. The sounds are not evident from the film. Only the timing of the third shot is evident from the film alone. So it is a serious error to to say that the film is better evidence of the timing of the sounds of the shots.

The problem with assuming that the witnesses are all wrong is that you cannot explain why they are so consistent. The consistency of these witnesses is not a random or meaningless fact. Besides, it is not just the "first shot hit" witnesses. It is the first shot location witnesses as well. For example, Mary Woodward said the first shot occurred just AFTER the Kennedys turned and waved to her on the as they shouted at them from the north side of Elm. She said JFK turned forward after waving at them and then she heard the "horrible ear-shattering noise". Others, such as the Chisms and Gloria Calvery said much the same thing. If that turn, smile and wave occurred before the first shot, the JFK must have been hit by it. It is not possible for Oswald to have fired two shots from z200 -z224 and, in any event, the shot pattern with the last two shots closer together precludes two shots before z224. About 22 other witnesses put the first after z186.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

JFK is hit while behind the sign, and you can see him jump straight up from the shock just after he emerges.

You cannot say he is hit behind the sign. You can say that he appears to be reacting behind the sign because he is already reacting when he emerges. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is the difference? He's waving just before his face is hidden by the sign (doubt if he's shot at that point), and I (and you) can see the brown top of his head, which doesn't move in its arc next to the pink arc of Jackie's cap, until about Z-220. He's clearly hit when he emerges at Z-225. That's not a big window.SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is about 20 frames or about one second. The HSCA photographic panel, on a vote of 12:5, found that JFK was reacting to a severe external stimulus by frame 207[31]Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which means about Z-224, when JBC is also hit, as you see from he lapel and his shock-blur. Very much better evidence that this isn't the first shot from the TSBD is Altgens#1, which is at Z-255 only 1.7 sec or so after JFK emerges from the sign with hands and throat, clearly hit for some time. In that photo, both secret service men on the right runing board of LBJ's limo, and also the secret service man sitting next to LBJ, are (by now) looking back at the TSBD. As are several people in the crowd in front of the TSBD (the white facade). Now, 1.7 seconds is not enough time to crane your neck entirely around in response to a FIRST firecracker-like noise behind you, epecially when the president of the US in front of you. You have to be primed for it, by a previous noise (and several secret service men said they didn't look back until the second shot, also). So the behind-sign shot at 224 (which I assume is the magic bullet shot) is NOT the first shot. As for JKF's "clawlike hand," behind the sign, I think it's just a tip of the fingers to smooth his hair in the wind, done automaticaly between each hand-wave to the crowd. You can see him do the same hair-smooth, just BEFORE the completely natural wave he makes before going behind the sign. What's he's doing behind the sign, I think, can be perfectly well explained as the beginning of another hair-stroke (not a wave)-- and then he's hit. It's very stereotyped, but if you watch his wave->stroke as he comes around the corner long before the sign, you see the same thing-- the same sequence of one then the other. And that hair-stroke is NOT a reaction to anything bad THERE, because it's followed by a natural handwave just before JFK goes behind the sign (though you can still see his hand beginning to touch his hair).

There is a lot of subjective interpretation involved in your analysis. Better to stick to evidence. .Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you mean the subjective interpretation of OTHER people? SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

• And then there is the need (with the SBT) for a missed shot. There is a absence of any clear physical or witness evidence that a shot missed the limo entirely.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER To which I can only add the obvious comment that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is if the entire Plaza was scoured by the FBI looking for bullet impacts - which is what the FBI testified they did. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they went up the elm, because at the time, nobody had any idea Oswald might have fired his first shot while the limo was partly obscured by it. Bullets do strange things when passing through wood.

If a shot missed the limo entirely, you wouldn't expect much evidence of it.

I would. It is pretty hard to hide a mark from a 10 gram jacketed bullet going 2000 feet/second.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. How many high powered rifles have you fired at acute angles at asphalt? I've done it more than once, and not much of a mark is made. Seems counterintuitive, but that's too bad. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence. The point is to have a bullet that fragments and loses its copper jacket and slows down enough to rise and fall to the curb near Tague. That requires losing most of its energy to whatever it hits first. How does it do that without leaving a trace?Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there was a mark on the street and a couple of people hit by fragments on the underpass. Those are good candidates for a missed shot bullet, since any bullet fired into the car would have been pretty well contained by it, with no routes for exit without creating holes (which there weren't, to speak of).

There was only one person hit by a bullet fragment, and that was James Tague. He was hit by a fragment that had ricocheted off the curb near where he was standing about 300 feet from the limo on the south side of Main St. near the base of the overpass. The mark on the curb was analysed by the FBI and contained lead with traces of antimony. No copper trace was found so the copper jacket did not strike the curb.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're saying. No copper means it was a lead core frag. Expected for a ricochet. But no bullet entering the limo had any way of getting to where Tague was hit. Windows and sides obstructed, and the windows had no holes through them.SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say: "did not strike the curb" (corrected now).Saskcitation (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A bullet entering the limo fragmented and struck the windshield. One fragment cracked the glass and one hit on the very top of the metal frame. It is not hard to imagine another fragment going about a quarter of an inch higher and going over the windshield. That fragment could easily explain the curb strike and ricochet to Tague. Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And in evidence of that, there were found the remains of two bullets to have hit the limo interior: one the magic bullet which fell out of JBC's stretcher much later, and the other found in two main fragments (nose and tail) inside the limo front, plus a lot of other small metal from the center section in JFK's head. Obviously, that one, the bullet from the 313 final hit. And ending up in fragments, just where it should have. SBHarris 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether the fragments in the car and in JBC were from one one or two bullets is not certain. It is quite possible the fragments were from two bullets. See NAA section. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fragments were definitely from two bullets. While analysis concluded they were from two bullets, recent questions about the techniques involved on reaching that conclusion open the possibility, however remote, that an extra bullet was involved which had, by a remarkable coincidence, similar quantities of the alloys found in the fragmented bullet. Or, of even more remote possibility, the identical metallic characteristics of the "magic" bullet and the fragments removed from Connally. Canada Jack (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say fragments from one or two bullets in addition to CE399 (the whole bullet). It is not a remote possibility that three bullets struck the occupants of the car. According to Randich and Grant, the metallurgical analysis is consistent with 2, 3, 4 or 5 bullets. Of course 4 and 5 are eliminated by other evidence. But 2 and 3 bullets are consistent and one is not more probable than the other based only on the fragment analysis, according to the authors.

The problems with fragment analysis of such small samples is explained by Randich and Grant in their paper and follow-up letters. The metals are too grainy at the scale of these samples and you cannot say that all samples from the same bullet will all be similar. Here is their abstract from the paper cited in the NAA section:

ABSTRACT: The bullet evidence in the JFK assassination investigation was reexamined from metallurgical and statistical standpoints. The questioned specimens are comprised of soft lead, possibly from full-metal-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano (MC), 6.5-mm ammunition. During lead refining, contaminant elements are removed to specified levels for a desired alloy or composition. Microsegregation of trace and minor elements during lead casting and processing can account for the experimental variabilities measured in various evidentiary and comparison samples by laboratory analysts. Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. Alternate statistical calculations, based on the historic analytical data, incorporating weighted averaging and propagation of experimental uncertainties also considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory. In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.

Just so. NAA evidence is consistent with two bullets hitting the limo, as well as three. So we get to choose from other evidence which it is. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So we are left with the evidence of the Connallys, Greer, Powers, Hickey, Gayle Newman etc. that no shot missed the limo (the Connallys were adamant until they died that three shots hit) and equivocal bullet fragment evidence that says 2 or 3 hit. That isn't much to support the SBT. But there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald fired all three shots. The solution is to solve the problem based on the evidence - it does have a solution - not to concoct a theory (SBT) that has no evidentiary support.Saskcitation (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mention a lot of people, and you're wrong about most of them. J. Connally never said three shots stuck the limo. He heard the first, but had no way of knowing if it was a hit, and never saw anything to suggest it, because he couldn't see the president after shot #1. The #2 shot hit him, and he never heard that one. He only assumed he was hit THEN by a different bullet from JFK BECAUSE he assumed the first one he heard HAD hit JFK. But he could have been wrong, and I think was. All he said later is that he was sure that the first shot he HEARD was not the shot that hit HIM. Which I think is correct. Shot #3 hit JFK, and of course Connally heard, and was aware of that as yet another shot. As for Ms. Connally, she also assumed the first shot hit the president, I think because when she saw the president hit, she thought her husband had not been. But she also was wrong. The problem with HER story, is that she had no way of knowing if her husband had been hit at shot #2, because she never looked at him. She was looking at JFK clutch his throat, then at the driver. By the time she looked OVER at her husband (who'd been hit on the side away from her), it was well after he's clearly hit on film (which is 224 when his lapel flips, he flinches, spasmodically raises both arms, then begins to roll.) So Mrs. C is mistaken about when her husband was hit, and the film contradicts her (since it shows him hit long before she notices it. Too bad for her, but I go with the film. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Connally said that JFK was not where he had been because when he turned around he could not see him. Nellie said JFK visibly reacted to the first shot, as did at least 15 others. About 22 witnesses put the first shot some time after z186, which means JFK must have been hit by it. Saskcitation (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Larry Sturdivan's assessment of the above, per Bugliosi? Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read Rahn/Sturdivan as well as Randich/Grant's. I have also read Dr. Art Snyder's analysis. I understand Randich/Grant and Snyder. They are adamant that Rahn/Sturdivan are making elementary errors in their premises, analysis and conclusions. If CBLA can be used to distinguish between bullets, perhaps you can explain how the Walker bullet and one of the floor fragments "match" but are obviously different bullets. Saskcitation (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The metals are too grainy at the scale of these samples and you cannot say that all samples from the same bullet will all be similar. Here is their abstract from the paper cited in the NAA section (etc)

Here is Larry Sturdivan's assessment of the Randich and Grant paper. Sturdivan was a Warren Commission and HSCA ballistic expert. The following is from from Vincent Bugliosi's book, pages 437-8 in the endnotes. Sturdivan was asked by Bugliosi to respond to the Randich-Grant piece, and Sturdivan's response is dated 14 August 2006.

If one looks at the NAA data obtained by Vincent Guinn for the HSCA, it falls into two groups which are immediately obvious. The lead core of the stretcher bullet, CE 399, and the lead fragments from Governor Connally's wrist have an antimony content near 800 parts per million (ppm). The core of the bullet fragment from the president's limousine, CE 567, the lead fragments recovered from the president's head, and the small lead fragments from the carpet in the backseat have antimony content that ranges from about 600 ppm to a bit less than 650 ppm. Randich and Grant, in this JFS article of July 2006, set out to show that this obvious grouping is illusory (all recovered bullet evidence is indistinguishable from each other) and that this means that the wrist injury and/or the fatal head wound could have been caused by other (unrecovered) bullets.

This is similar to watching a videotape of a bank robber and discovering that the two bank robbers were identical twins. Randich and Grant would solemnly declare that since you could not tell the bank robbers apart, it could have been any two people that robbed the bank. Obviously, it isn't how close the two groups of recovered bullet evidence are to each other that matters, it's the chance that the lead from a third source could match as well as the other members of the group do. For this comparison, one must characterize the range of antimony content in the population of bullets available to a potential shooter in the early 1960s, a point that Randich and Grant choose to ignore.

Most high-power rifle bullets available to potential assassins in 1963 contained hardened lead cores in which the antimony content was orders of magnitude larger than that in the recovered bullet evidence. On the other hand, the antimony levels in the recovered evidence was far outside the level found in natural lead ores, indicating that the "soft" lead cores inserted into those bullets contained a small quantity of leftover hardened lead. Any bullets containing lead from natural ores would have had a much smaller quantities of antimony. Fragments deposited by either of these types of bullets could not have been mistaken for lead from the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company for use in the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (WCC/MC). Obtaining exact concentration of trace metals in soft lead cores was beyond the abilities of even the FBI in 1963, so the best a conspirator could do to match CE 399 or CE 567 was to use another bullet from the same lot. Vincent Guinn measured the antimony content in that lot of WCC/MC bullets and found that it ranged from near zero to a few thousand ppm. This prompted him to state that the recovered samples were all in the high range of antimony concentration, not only from that lot, but for any of the four lots of these bullets.

Ken Rahn and I properly characterized the distribution of antimony in that lot and found that it did not differ significantly from the other three lots, and used that distribution to show that a randomly selected WCC/MC bullet would have only a low probability of matching either group so closely as other members of that group did. This is true even if that hypothetical "other gunman" selected other bullets from the same box from which CE 399 and CE 567 were drawn.

Furthermore, using measurement errors not artificially inflated by the irrelevant factors used by Randich and Grant shows that the obvious grouping is (not surprisingly) the correct one. Earlier NAA tests conducted by the FBI, though not disclosed to the Warren Commission, showed results virtually identical to Guinn's. These tests were run with different samples cut from CE 399 and CE 567, independently verifying that the two groups could be distinguished from each other. Note that this result is not necessary for calculation of the probability that a random bullet would match the antimony content of the fragments recovered from either of the two men as well as the recovered bullet or major bullet fragment (within the same group) does.

So let's ponder the premise that the recovered fragments were in fact from more than one bullet in either (or both) of the groupings. That would require the other assassin(s) not only to use a bullet from the same manufacturer as only these bullets at the time had the levels of antimony found here, but it would also require the other assassin(s) to choose, at random, a bullet which happened to matched the antimony levels of the Oswald bullets! (Recall that CE 399 was proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.) To say that, therefore, the two groups could represent multiple bullets, is akin to saying, as he notes, that having twins rob a bank means that anyone else could have been robbing a bank. It's not merely unlikely, it's absurdly unlikely, especially given the fact that these sort of tests did not exist at the time and therefore a conspiracy would mean some incredible blind luck would have to be at play! So, before we even examine any other evidence as to whether other gunmen were present, or whether the wounds are consistent with more than two bullets, or anything else, we see that those who propose a second gunman, or even an unlikely third bullet from Oswald himself somehow striking Connally and/or Kennedy, they have to suggest this extremely improbable set of events. Canada Jack (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that if three bullets hit there must be more than one shooter. How does that follow from the bullet fragments? There is abundant evidence that Oswald fired three shots. The evidence that three shots struck does not mean there were two shooters if there was sufficient time between the shots.Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I said. So, before we even examine any other evidence as to whether other gunmen were present... I pointed out that given the NAA evidence and what Sturdivan says, we have the extremely unlikely possibilities that either a second gunman through an incredible coincidence fired a bullet with a near-matching antimony level OR Oswald himself fired an additional bullet which matched (which would be more likely that someone else, but still improbable). You are either being disingenuous or not following the argument here - all evidence suggests that Oswald fired three bullets. The issue here is whether a third bullet HE fired is among the fragments analyzed. Of course when one looks at other evidence, that possibility is ruled out. Which means, in the end, with a very high degree of probability, that the fragments are consistent with two, and only two, bullets. Canada Jack (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are siding with Rahn/Sturdivan and rejecting Randich/Grant. Randich/Grant reject Sturdivan's characterisation of NAA data. Furthermore, you cannot equate the three bullet hit with the existence of multiple shooters, which is what your quote from Sturdivan does. Saskcitation (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the section on the page on this, and I see not only is Sturdivan's response to Randich and Grant lacking, but a rather POV statement ends the statement: In conclusion, there appears to be no scientific consensus that the NAA data, and comparative bullet lead analysis in general, can be used to prove that the SBT probably occurred or to exclude a "three bullet hit" scenario. Says who? There is no citation for the statement.

The sources to the papers are provided. There are two groups (Rahn/Sturdivan on the one hand and Randich/Grant Snyder on the other) who take diametrically opposing views. That means there is no consensus. That is an NPOV statement. Where do you see a POV in that?Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me we should omit the POV line or at least provide a reliable-source citation, and include some part of Sturdivan's 2006 response. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But you have to include Sturdivan's objective conclusions, not his editorializing. The first paragraph is very POV. I still maintain that it is not a POV line to say that there is no consensus. A consensus means that there is agreement in the scientific community and as a matter of objective fact, there is not. But we can leave it out.Saskcitation (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure you are applying "POV" in the way it is intended here at wikipedia. Sturdivan is one of the key players in this particular debate, he is taking a particular stance that is by definition POV. It is entirely appropriate to include his views if germane and relevant to the discussion. The basis of his critique is his opinion that the others are not taking into account the available stock of bullets in 1963 from which to draw from and it his opinion that therefore the analysis is flawed. If we were to say "Sturdivan's response destroys the argument" or "Randich/Grant's devastating critique", well that would be editorializing, and POV. Sturdivan makes an analogy which is his opinion (the bank robbers) and the only assertion which he does not support is that the others did not take into account was the availability of the bullets with requisite antimony. Canada Jack (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His view is provided, as well as those of Randich/Grant and Snyder. How does Sturdivan's view represent a consensus? All you are saying is that there are views that disagree with Randich/Grant. That is all the article says: there is no scientific consensus.Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am not suggesting that with Sturdivan's response, there would be consensus, I am saying with or without the Sturdivan critique, the statement is clearly POV. And, it is original research, as you are providing an opinion which seems to be your own as to the issue of whether a consensus exists. [32] I am therefore omitting the statement unless you can provide a reliable source (not one of the parties) who state that there is no consensus on the issue. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. Either there is a consensus or there isn't. It is a matter of fact. It doesn't need an opinion from someone as an authority - it needs to have evidence of a scientific controversy. This is not a subject on which there is widespread scientific interest. So far, there is only Rahn/Sturdivant/Guinn and Randick/Grant/Tobin/Snyder. If you know of someone other than these who have written a paper on the subject that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, you should post it. If not, then the best that can be said is that there is no consensus in the scientific community. Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: Name me any scientific realm where there is consensus!

Sure: Newton`s laws of motion. Einstein`s special theory of relativity. Quarks. Maxwell`s equations of electro-magnetism. The laws of thermodynamics. Kepler`s laws. Celestial mechanics. DNA matching. These are all accepted areas of science. They are proven science. Bullet lead analysis is not such an area.

Not sure where you are coming from, Sask, but Newton's laws of motion have been shown to be wrong, due to Einstein. The laws work under most conditions, but are not universal.

Newton's laws are universal. It is just that they have limits. They require modification to account for effects that become significant at speeds close to the speed of light. There is nothing wrong with F=ma in the real world. NASA uses it to launch rockets and land spaceships. Every physicist uses and accepts Newtons laws. There is no controversy.

The point here is that even when it comes to science, understanding is always provisional, and science says as much. In this case, our knowledge is also provisional, and based on what evidence we have and how we can analyze it. To suggest "consensus," is, therefore, meaningless. Canada Jack (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think there is a scientific consensus about Newton's Laws you will never think there is a consensus on anything. You are saying that consensus is a meaningless word. You are entitled to your point of view.

Try going to the Evolution page. If there is any more contentious scientific endeavour, I'd like to hear about it. Yet is this lack of consensus noted on the page? No! And in large measure that is because it is almost a meaningless thing to say. That is the point. As noted in the section below, if the controversy is mentioned, that should suffice. To characterize "consensus" is nearly an impossibility.

There is certainly a scientific consensus that evolution is real. The details are not known for certain but the principle is not in dispute by scientists.Saskcitation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just proved my point. Who says there is consensus? Biologists do. But other scientists (who are not biologists) claim there is no "consensus." And many of these in fact deny the very existence of evolution itself, let alone the standard "new synthesis" of Darwinian natural selection and molecular biology. So who do we go to to claim "consensus"? Do we only include those who say as much? Or do we also acknowledge the controversy? No, we simply state what scientific principles are out there and, when there is a dispute, we describe the dispute, we don't characterize the dispute. I think this is the salient point you are not getting. Canada Jack (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms the bullet analysis, we have no consensus, for example, on whether the recent FBI decision to not introduce this method into court is even relevant. Some argue that for what was being done in 1963, it is a valid science. The FBI actions don't seem to address that, just how it applies in current cases. Or is it? In that section you added, on the FBI ceasing to use this, I could quite easily, and by your logic, rightly, note that there is no scientific consensus that this applies in any way to the JFK case. But would to so note that be relevant? I don't think so. And, more to the point, you can probably see that by simply making that note, I am editorializing. Which is why the best thing is to simply avoid the silliness and not lead readers of wikipedia into some favoured conclusion - on what science "thinks" about the issue. To note "consensus," in other words, is a form of editorializing. Canada Jack (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to reiterate here, the issue is not whether there are conflicting views on the fragment analysis, the issue is whether we can say In conclusion there appears to be no consensus... For example, if 100 scientists say x and 1 says y, does that mean there is no consensus? Maybe, maybe not. Are the critiques of the NAA conclusions coming from a great many scientists or few? If we are to assess "consensus," we must do so via a reliable source. I submit that that would be rather difficult to do, as any such comment would be POV - dependent on the pro- or con views on the issue. IMHO, to omit the remark solves the problem as one need not note that there is a dispute on the issue as the section describes the dispute. It is not our place to supply a conclusion, as that is both POV and original research. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has published experimental results to demonstrate the validity of the "theory" that CBLA can match fragments to bullets. If there had been, they would have been referred to in these papers. There are no such references. Until someone does, it will remain an area of unproven science. I am not sure why you think it is POV to say there is no consensus in the scientific community. If there was, courts, the FBI and the National Academy of Sciences would not have rejected it. But for Rahn/Sturdivan there would be a scientific consensus that it is not valid science.

Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saskcitation re-instated the statement. Since at least one person (see below) agrees that the issue of "concensus" is, in any practical sense, meaningless, it should be omitted. Of course, the initial point about it being unsourced and therefore original research (as a conclusion is supplied), it has to go. As for the ommission of the paragraph from Sturdivan, that should stay as it is highly relevant to specifically addressing the claim of Randich and Grant. Indeed the entire basis of the Sturdivan analysis rests on whether, given what was available to potential assassins in 1963, it was likely a second assassin would have had a matching bullet. That essential point is lost when the paragraph is excised.

That is your view. Randich and Grant are saying that it was not a matching bullet. They are saying that bullet lead is not uniform at the level of sampling done by Guinn. Randich and Grant are Lawrence Livermore scientists who are experts in metallurgy. Rahn is an oceanographer and Sturdivan is a ballistics expert. FWIW.Saskcitation (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My only opinion is that Sturdivan's argument is somewhat lost by omitting that statement. Whether I agree with one side or the other on the bullet analysis is not the issue here, nor should it be. The issue is whether the Sturdivan part is relevant - I think it is, and it seems you acknowledge as much since we already mention him previously (he was not just any ballistics expert - he worked with the Warren Commission and the HSCA). The goal here should be to bring the pertinent debate to the table, and the NSA debate is an important one. If they are wrong, and there are fragments from three bullets, then a conspiracy most probably at play. Clearly a germane and important issue to the case. I felt it entirely relevant to include Sturdivan on this crucial issue. Canada Jack (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How far does it go? The Rahn/Sturdivan paper is mentioned and their view stated. The Randich/Grant paper is mentioned and their conclusion stated. You say that Sturdivan's rebuttal to Randich/Grant should be mentioned. I could say that Pat Grant's rebuttal should also be mentioned [33]. Does that mean that Sturdivan's surrebuttal must be mentioned? Grant's surrebuttal? ..... Really, all you need is a statement of the two positions to give the reader an accurate picture.Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant's article does not address the points made by Sturdivan. He simply reiterates his position, so I am not sure why you feel there is a danger of rererebuttals etc. Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Canada Jack (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant's rebuttal is to Ken Rahn's response to Randich/Grant's published paper.

Neither Ken Rahn nor Larry Sturdivan has been able to publish their critique of Randich/Grant in a peer reviewed journal. Since there is no peer review for web publications, let alone letters to authors, the reader has no way to assess the merit of such comments. To get something published in a peer reviewed journal signifies that it has scientific merit. Randich and Grant provided a metallurgical critique of the Guinn data that was published in Forensic Science International. Rahn and Sturdivan have not been able to persuade a peer reviewed journal to publish their critque of Randich/Grant. No one has provided a peer reviewed critique of Randich and Grant. There may not be one published. So if it is ok to publish Sturdivan's comments, why not Pat Grant's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskcitation (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: With all due respect, the goal here should not be to present someone's favoured scenario in the best possible light, it is to fairly and accurately portray the debate. It seems to me that for several decades, the NAA analysis stood.

Not so. It has been the subject of controversy since 1978.

However, recent events have cast some doubt on the accuracy of the method, which is the result in part of Randich and Grant. Indeed, this has been brought in for further relief by the decision of the FBI not to submit these sorts of analysis as evidence for trials. However, while Randich and Grant may have a point, it is the opinion of Sturdivan that while their analysis may applicable today, it's not applicable for the realistic conditions which existed in 1963 in terms of bullet availability.

No. Sturdivan is using a semantic argument against what he thinks is the alternative to the fragments coming from only two bullets: that another person used another bullet that had a similar antimony content. (He seems to be forgetting that there were fragments of at least two bullets of the original 5 that we know Oswald had that had indistinguishable Sb concentrations). But that is not the only possiblility. The other possibility is that Oswald fired three bullets and three bullets struck, which is what David Powers, Nellie Connally, William Greer and others said.Saskcitation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it a "semantic" argument?

He uses an argument based on language rather than science to support his conclusion. When he says that Randich/Grant's argument is like the example of two twins robbing a bank, he is using a semantic argument.

Based on what was available to assassins in 1963, going by the antimony levels, another assassin almost had to use a bullet from the same stock. As I said, it means that rather unlikely occurence or the somewhat more likely occurence (but still unlikely) that Oswald himself fired the third bullet.

Well, this is the issue. Is it unlikely at all? If you are only measuring one element (Sb) how many distinguishable Sb readings can you have in that range 1-1200 ppm? If you say that a match occurs if the samples are within +- 40 ppm, there are only 15 different Sb readings. That means that on average, the chance of having a match in 7 random bullets is greater than 50%.

But even Randich/Grant concede this the reality of what we are dealing with here, ie., the rest of the evidence precludes that when they say the "stand-alone primary evidence" could render their conclusion of more than two bullets wrong. Like, for example, the lack of a clear third bullet.

But here there is evidence of a third shot. We know that three shots were fired. We have pretty conclusive evidence that they were fired by Oswald. The issue is whether two or three struck the car. Nellie, JBC, and Greer gave evidence that is consistent only with three shots having struck. No one said only two struck. No one.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the bullet that exited JFK? Why do the recovered bullet fragments not add up to more than two bullets?

If you knew you had all the fragments, you could answer that. We don't have that evidence. So there is nothing significant about the fact that we don't have fragments adding up to more than two bullets.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How could Oswald have gotten off two shots which hit Connally given the time constraints of the Zapruder film?

The time constraints of the Zfilm? I can only see one definite shot - at frame 313. We know that JFK was hit by z224. Those are the only two objective time constraints of the zfilm. Anything else is interpretation.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The SBT requires the first two shots to be closer together. However, at least 48 of the witnesses said the last two shots were closer together. 6 said they thought the first two were closer together and 9 said they were about equal. There are also many witnesses who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave. The SBT requires him to have no reaction to the first shot. This is evidence that the timing for the SBT is inconsistent with the evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And why are there clear signs of people reacting around frame 160, and what about the witnesses who claim a shot was fired that early?

I don't think there are any clear signs. What are you referring to? There are many witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (eg. Betzner, Willis, Woodward, etc.). About 22 of them by my count. No one put it earlier than z186. No one.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, several witnesses said they saw a bullet strike the pavement shortly after the turn. This is the problem when you focus too closely on one part of the evidence.

No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever. In this section, we are focussing only on the NAA in this section. That is all that we should be concerned about here. There is serious doubt in the scientific community that the NAA data mean anything, let alone prove the SBT occurred. Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even Sturdivan says it is possible, though not probable, that part of a third bullet is there. However, when we go to other evidence, that possibility is eliminated for all practicle purposes. Of course, being an evidentary endeavour, we will never, we can never, definitely conclude Oswald acted alone, but the evidence points to the general conclusion that he did and that only two bullets struck.

That is your POV. You are ignoring witness evidence. If you accept the shot pattern with the last two closer together, you cannot have the SBT. Period. If you accept all the witnesses who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot, you cannot have the first shot SBT. Period. If you accept the evidence of witnesses who put the first shot after z186 you cannot have the SBT. Period.

I am rather astounded that you seriously seem to want to pursue this third Oswald bullet. One question I gotta ask: Where does this go? What's the point? Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if the NAA conclusions are wrong, it does not mean there were two shooters. It means that Connally and JFK were hit by separate bullets. That is all. If the shot pattern is correct, the second shot occurred after the midpoint, or after z255. Which is exactly what Altgens said (he said his z255 photo was taken after the first but before any other shot).Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In his opinion, the Grant/Randich analysis is flawed as the realistic probability of a second assassin, by chance, picking a bullet with similar characteristics is close to zero. Is he correct? I don't know. But our question here is if it is relevant. You seem to take issue with allowing a rebuttal on this as we don't have a second rebuttal. But all we should be doing here is characterizing the debate, not getting the last word in. And this NAA debate is new, at least these questions, so when one of the chief defenders of the status quo has some serious qualms about it, it merits inclusion. All we should be doing here is ensuring that both sides of the debate are present. One suggests you can't trust the accuracy of the sampling to determine if there are fragments from only two bullets. The other says that a major factor should be that, in 1963, it would have been highly unlikely for a second assassin to randomly choose a bullet from a lot Oswald chose from and have a near match, and that most other bullets manufactured then would have been easily distinguishable from Oswald's bullets. It may not be the final word on the subject, but it is the response from one of the major players. Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your statement:

The goal here should be to bring the pertinent debate to the table, and the NSA debate is an important one. If they are wrong, and there are fragments from three bullets, then a conspiracy most probably at play. Clearly a germane and important issue to the case.

is not really correct (I assume you mean NAA debate). Why do you say a conspiracy is "most probably" the conclusion? If there are fragments from three bullets then a very possible conclusion, if not the only conclusion from the evidence, is that all of Oswald's three shots struck the occupants of the President's limousine. You would need evidence either of more than three shots having been fired or you would need evidence that Oswald fired fewer than three shots. There is no such evidence of either. On the other hand, there is evidence that three bullets struck. Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if all we had as evidence was the analysis, the most likely possibility, if we are to suggest there were three bullets, was that it was from another Oswald bullet. The problem is there is no other evidence that I am aware of, nor do I hear any serious claim, that Oswald's three bullets all found their mark, or even just hit the limousine. Indeed, from Bugliosi to the Warren Commission to numerous conspiracy theorists, we hear the assertion that if the SBT is wrong, then there was a conspiracy. That's because almost no one takes seriously the possibilty that three Oswald bullets hit their mark - so any putative third/fourth bullet hitting its mark would come from a separate assassin.

Further, other than a few witnesses who claimed as much there is no evidence that more than three shots were fired, no shells or other bullets were recovered, no one saw a second assassin firing shots and the wounds received were consistent with two bullets striking JFK, and one striking Connally. I have not seen a serious argument made that Connally was hit by two bullets, not one that could easily be demolished, that is, based on other evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And since the section is a direct quote, there is no POV. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

Three bullets fired by Oswald finding their mark

Sask brings up an interesting possibility about the possibility that the NAA results could mean that a third bullet did not come from a second assassin, but from Oswald himself. He bases this in part on witness accounts which, in his view, overwhelmingly state the initial shot was the one we see Kennedy reacting to.

But Sask seems to be ignoring a lot of evidence, or is perhaps unaware of the evidence, which suggest a shot indeed was fired around frame 160 and that shot missed the limousine.

There are many witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (eg. Betzner, Willis, Woodward, etc.). About 22 of them by my count. No one put it earlier than z186. No one.

In fact, many witnesses did state that the first shot was fired around Z160, which is shortly after the president's limousine made the turn. Connally himself said "We had just made the turn... when I heard [a rifle shot]. I instinctively turned to my right."

First of all, you should start with Connally's complete statement:

Governor CONNALLY. We had-we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don’t recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway. to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could-I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.4 H 132

So he is saying that the car had gone down Elm some distance. The difference between z160 and z200 is only 2 seconds. You cannot tell from a statement like that whether he is referring to an event 8 seconds or 10 seconds after the turn.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Bird Johnson said "we were rounding a curve... and suddenly there was a shot..." [She was two cars behind and the car she was in can be seen rounding the curve at Z160.]

Again, to be accurate you have to use her entire statement:

we were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report-a shot.5 H 565

Now look at the VP car at frame z160. It is still in the turn. Not exactly going down hill yet. Still, it is inconclusive. It is not possible to say from that statement precisely where she is saying the car was.

But if you look at Ralph Yarborough's statement (sitting beside Lady Bird) he too refers to the car going down the slope of Elm Street:

"as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by." 7 H 440

Then you look at the statement of Hurchel Jacks, driver the the VP car:

"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn . I was looking directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car". CE 1024, 18 H 801

Now this is a clearer statement of where the car was. It is quite consistent with Yarborough and Lady Bird, but it is more specific. Frame z160 shows the VP car still in the middle of its turn, not straightening out after completing the turn. So we see that Jacks' observation was inconsistent with a shot being at z160.

Then we look at the statement of S.A. Rufus Youngblood, who was in the VP car front seat:

"Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please. Will you describe just what occurred as the motorcade proceeded past the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets?

Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. Well, the crowd had begun to diminish, looking ahead and to the right the crowd became spotty. I mean it wasn’t continuous at all, like it had been. As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise." 2 H 148-9

Again, Youngblood's is a statement that is consistent with the others, but specific about it being past the intersection going down an incline and not consistent with the car still turning the corner.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Secret service agent Paul E. Landis, who was standing on the right running board of the car behind the president's said "The president's car and the follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out.

Again, let's look at the statements of those in the VP and VP followup car. We have seen how the VP car witnesses described their car as having completed the turn and going down an incline. The VP followup car witnesses describe the car as just completing its turn onto Elm, being alongside the TSBD, just as Landis describes. And if you look at z191 the VP followup car is still turning and pointing somewhat toward the TSBD. You can see that Landis and the occupants of the VP and VP followup cars cannot be describing a shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At this moment I heard what sounded like a report from a high-powered rifle..." Barbara Rowland, standing on the west side of Houston, midway between Elm and Main said "as they turned the corner we heard a shot."

Again, use the whole statement. She says:

"They were facing mainly toward the other side of the street and waving, and as they turned the corner we heard a shot, and I didn’t recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker. And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second. and that is all." 6 H 184

Rowland is stating some specific details. She says "They were facing mainly toward the other side of the street and waving".Where do you see that occuring on Elm Street before z170? Mary Woodward said she and her friends shouted to them and waved and JFK and Jackie turned toward them, smiled and waved to them BEFORE the first shot. Also, Barbara Rowland said that there was a longer space between the first and second shots. If that was the case and the second shot came as late as z224, that means the first shot would have to have occurred before the limo turned the corner - ie before Zapruder's filming of the motorcade began. So, in actual fact, Barbara Rowland's evidence is entirely inconsistent with a first shot at or around z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to Barbara Rowland, you really have to look at her November 23/63 statement to the FBI which is found at 26 H 168:

"She said they did not say anything more about this and in about 15 minutes the President's Motorcade passed by and headed left on to Elm Street and started down toward the underpass, when they heard the three shots, spaced several seconds between each shot. She advised after hearing the shots, they started running."

Now she is clearly saying that the car had turned onto Elm St. and was going down toward the overpass. I don't know how you can say from her evidence that she was referring to a first shot at z160 and not two seconds later at z200 (two car lengths further west). If you continue to insist that I am wrong and that she is definitely pointing to a shot earlier than z186 I think you have to explain why you reach that conclusion. Saskcitation (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell, in the car behind the limousine, said the president's car "was just [about] through turning [and had started] to step up the speed a little bit" when he heard the first shot. Geneva Hine, watching from the second floor of the TSB, said the limousine had just "turned the corner" when she heard the shot. And the list goes on. So, if your premise that witness testimony points to the first shot being fired towards the neighbourhood of frame 200 or so, that premise is clearly faulty.

It is not a premise. It is an observation. The list of 22 witnesses who bracket the first shot after z186 are:

Hugh Betzner (photo at z186 before the first shot)

Phil Willis (photo at z202 at time of the first shot)

Mary Woodward (smiling and waving of JFK and Jackie was before the first shot)

Witnesses standing opposite the President's car at or after z186 and saying that the car had just passed them when the first shot was heard:

Jean Newman 19 H 489

Billie Clay 22 H 641

Victoria Adams (looking out the second west-most window of the TSBD)22 H 632

Georgia Hendrix 22 H 649

Sue Dickerson 22 H 644

Peggy Hawkins CD897

Dorothy Garner 22 H 648

Karan Hicks 22 H 650

Carol Reed 22 H 668

Gloria Calvary 22 H 638

Karen Westbrook 22 H 679

Jane Berry HSCA Reference Collection CD5

Delores Kounas 22 H 659

Danny Garcia Arce: 22 H 634

Occupants of the VP follow up car who said their car had turned onto Elm (it is still in its turn pointing to the TSBD at z191:

Joe Rich. (driver), WC 18 H 800:

Clifton Carter, WC 7 H 474

SA Kivett, WC 8 H 778: "The motorcade was heading slightly downhill toward an underpass. As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 of the way to the underpass.."

SA Johns, WC 18 H 764

SA Taylor, (18 H 782): "our automobile had just turned a corner"

That is 22 witnesses. All independent recollections. All having different observations that all point to the first shot after z186 and converge on a first shot around z200, exactly where Willis pinpointed it. Are you saying they all conspired to falsify evidence? Because that is the only reasonable explanation if they were all wrong in the same way.

Your quote from O'Donnell is not accurate, by the way. He said the follow up car had completed the turn and had straightened up. The full quote of the part you gave is:

"So he was at a normal-I would presume they were just about turning to step up the speed a little bit, because there would be no crowds from there." 7 H 448 Saskcitation (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, these are imprecise statements and cannot be used to distinguish between a ahot at z160 and one at z200. At z160 and z200 the limo had turned "just turned the corner". There is only a 2 second difference. The more specific evidence is inconsistent with a first shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Warren Commission did not spend too much time on this issue of the first shot, and did not even have the stills of the Zapruder film from the early part to examine the issue more closely. The HSCA did examine this issue, however. And it concluded that Connally can be seen reacting to hearing the first shot (as he described in his own testimony) from 162-7 and therefore the first shot was fired around Z160. Indeed, a close look at frames Z157-160 reveal that Kennedy himself turns sharply to the left, perhaps also reacting to the sound of the first shot.

Well, if you follow the evidence, everyone said that JFK and Jackie turned to the right, waved and smiled BEFORE the first shot. That smile and wave was described as a response to the shouts and cheers of Mary Woodward's group.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonnie Ray Williams, who was on the 5th floor of the TSB, was very specific about the timing of the first shot. "After the president's car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do... was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot." In the Zapruder film, we can see Kennedy doing exactly as William describes between Z133 and Z143. Combining Williams' testimony with Connally's and looking at the film, it would seem that the first shot was fired between Z143 and Z160.

• [ LOL! I just have to interject again here my comment from a section above: As for JKF's "clawlike hand," behind the sign, I think it's just a tip of the fingers to smooth his hair in the wind, done automaticaly between each hand-wave to the crowd. You can see him do the same hair-smooth, just BEFORE the completely natural wave he makes before going behind the sign. What's he's doing behind the sign, I think, can be perfectly well explained as the beginning of another hair-stroke (not a wave)-- and then he's hit. It's very stereotyped, but if you watch his wave->stroke as he comes around the corner long before the sign, you see the same thing-- the same sequence of one then the other. And that hair-stroke is NOT a reaction to anything bad THERE, because it's followed by a natural handwave just before JFK goes behind the sign (though you can still see his hand beginning to touch his hair). To which the Saskcitation answer was: There is a lot of subjective interpretation involved in your analysis. Better to stick to evidence.--Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Well, It seems I'm not the only person to see it in retrospect on fresh exam of the film. An eyewitness at Dealey Plaza saw it also and interpreted it much the same way, without benefit of examining the film. Strange! ]SBHarris 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten-year-old Rosemary Willis can be seen running and stopping and turning sharply to her right, an action that commences around frame Z164.

She is still moving forward until z199.I don't see how you can say she turns to her right before z203. At z203-204 she turns her head sharply toward the TSBD.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By Z204, she is looking towards the TSB. She would later say that she stopped running when she heard the first shot, but since she had earlier also said that she saw the president shot in the back even though the film shows her looking at the TSB at that time, her recollections may not be accurate. Critics say she was reacting to her father who had yelled at her and her sister. But he, Phillip Willis, was in the process of taking a photograph determined to be around Z202. Interestingly, Willis claimed that the first shot was simultaneous with this photo he was taking, but he later admitted that he couldn't be sure if the president was hit with the first shot, opening the possibility that he conflated his recollection with the photo he took corresponding to about Z140.

This is simply idle speculation. He was clear that he was referring to his z202 photo. Furthermore, Betzner was also absolutely clear that he took his z186 photo before the first shot - as he was winding his camera to take another. And Altgens was very clear that his z255 photo was taken after the first and before any other shots. Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many have wondered how Oswald could have missed the president, indeed the entire limousine, from such close range. This ignores several factors which made this the most difficult shot he would have fired. For one, he would have been rushed to get the shot off as the limousine was soon to be obscured by the tree. For another, he was likely running with adrenaline as he actually fired a shot at the president of the United States. Further, unlike with the 2nd and 3rd shot where the president was, essentially, a stationary target (in a slow-moving car, with little sight adjustment needed between shots), Kennedy was a moving target, going sharply to Oswald's right as he turned the corner. Still further, given the arrangement of boxes in the window, Oswald would have had no barrel support for the steep-angled shot he was attempting. That angle would have been 40 degrees, compared with the 17/15 degree angles for shots 2 and 3.

No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever.

Again, Sask is wrong on this issue, though in fairness he may not be aware of the witnesses who in fact did describe this. Mrs. Donald Baker was standing in front of the TSB and said that "immediately" after the limousine passed her and neared "the first sign" [the Thornton Freeway sign, not the Stemmons sign visible in the Zapruder film] she "heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement... It looked just like you could see sparks from it." She was asked where the thing hit the street. "I thought it was, well, behind [the limousine]."

You have to look carefully at her evidence. She said the president's car had gone past her and was well down Elm St. when she heard the first noise. She was standing on the north side of Elm in front of the TSBD. In her deposition to the WC, she said (7 H 510) that she saw "something" hit the pavement at about the Thornton freeway sign. This means that the limo was past the Thornton freeway sign (She marks the position at point "2" on exhibit CE354). That would put the location of the car at least at frame 250. It is hard to find from her evidence that this was a shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And Royce Skelton, standing on the overpass over Elm Street, said he saw one of the two shots he heard "hit in the left front of the president's car on the cement," and "I could see smoke coming off the cement." Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He said he saw this after the second shot. Hardly a first shot miss.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One more point on the absence of a third bullet. I earlier asked if three (or more) bullets struck the limousine, where is this third bullet? Sask's response is to pretend this is not an issue. But when we discuss the first bullet the one I say was fired about Z160, suddenly the lack of this bullet is an issue.

The point is rather simple. If you have physical evidence that a bullet struck someone or something, you don't need to find the bullet. You can infer its existence because it hit something. If you have neither evidence of what it struck nor the bullet, you have a problem. Those who maintain that a third bullet missed the limo entirely have an evidentiary problem. No bullet. No damage outside the limo as coming from a bullet making a first strike on something outside the limo. Saskcitation (talk)

(SBHarris)"To which I can only add the obvious comment that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence." Sask: "It is if the entire Plaza was scoured by the FBI looking for bullet impacts - which is what the FBI testified they did."

So we are to embrace the ruthless efficiency of the FBI scouring every inch of Dealy Plaza and coming up with no third bullet, yet this same FBI who could not find a trace of any third bullet within the confines of a space of, say, ten cubic meters, including a complete lack of any impact associated with a bullet that would have hit something besides Connally and Kennedy is greeted with a silent shrug. Why, pray tell is this not a better example of when absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a bullet at full speed striking something and leaving no trace, and a bullet striking JBC and the fragments leaving the car and not being recovered. Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I'm supposed to believe that a third bullet hit the inside of the limo, and we can't find it because it ricocheted off something and most of it went over the top of the windshield. Oh, well then: what did it ricochet FROM in there, without leaving the kind of horrible and difficult-to-repair gouge which we were supposed to find in the street, but significantly didn't? No answer. As you say, it doesn't bother Sask a bit when HIS theory happens to be missing the same kind of gouge-mark from a primary hit on hard surface, that he demands in OURS. Except that his missing gouge, narrowly circumscribed in space, is a much tougher one to hide! WHERE IS IT??

??The gouge mark from the primary hit is found in JBC's chest. If the fragments exiting from JBC's wrist from the second shot struck the windshield (as Greer suggests when he described hearing a concussive sound from the second shot) and one went over the windshield to strike Tague (which he said hit him on the second shot) then we have evidence that such fragments existed without having to recover them.

We're supposed to believe the interior of the limo was completely refurbished, but before it was, they found all those tiny bits of bullet #3 (or what I assume is it), and the tiny scratches on chrome and window. So indeed, the lack of anything else screams pretty loudly in its silence. It looks like every bullet that went into the limo hit meat or bone, on first contact. And for three bullets, if we must have three, we're running out of candidate meat and bone. This is why conspiracy people are so involved with ice bullets, explosive bullets, or bullets removed surgically on Airforce One (while Jackie is sitting next to the coffin) or while the JFK Ambulance was joyriding around Bethesda with the coffin in back, and the first lady and the secret service in the front. Whee. SBHarris 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Connallys' evidence, (corroborrated by Greer, David Powers and Gayle Newman) the first bullet struck JFK in the neck, the second struck JBC in the back and the third struck JFK in the head. I don't see why you say we are running out of meat and bone.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it seems Sask wants to make the contention that Oswald was the source of any bullets in the car but he is nearly alone in suggesting three bullets from Oswald's rifle found their mark. Though I suppose we can't exclude the possibility he is in fact a conspiracy theorist trying to find cracks in the evidence that don't necessarily suggest "conspiracy," somewhat like the Intelligent Design advocates who aren't explicitly saying that the "intelligence" they refer to is in fact God, his approach is not consistent and he seems to be ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary. If one accepts the premise that the NAA could narrow the bullet fragments down to at least the ones associated with the bullets Oswald was firing (as most bullets manufactured in 1963 would have been easily distinguishable from Oswald's bullets), then it follows that, given Sask's contention about the uncertainty with how many bullets we are talking about that a third bullet may indeed have been found within the car - but from Oswald's gun. It would seem, however, that the researchers he quotes don't actually claim that - that it is possible that Oswald had three bullets there, not two - just that three or more bullets are possible.

I can assure you that I am not a conspiracy theorist. There was only one shooter and it was Oswald. It is the SBT that gives strength to the CTs. I am just trying to show that the evidence, particularly the shot pattern evidence, the first shot hitJFK evidence, and the first shot location evidence, is all very consistent and wholly inconsistent with the SBT.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But this to me seems to be far less likely than he supposes as so much of the other evidence excludes this from reasonable possibility.

And I think I have shown that none of the other evidence excludes this as a reasonable possibility. Moreover, the other evidence actually excludes a shot before than z186.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While the NAA analysis and its critiques suggest the possibility that a third bullet was in the car, with Oswald being the source a far likelier (though unlikely) than another assassin, this possibility is reasonably excluded by a ton of other evidence. It is interesting that he talks science at one point, but bases most of his three-bullet argument on witness statements, which is often unreliable and contradictory. Not saying that my witness testimony is somehow superior, but he can't pretend, as he does, that few or no others suggest a bullet being fired around Z160 when in fact many do. And at least some of this witness testimony seems to be corroborated by what we see in the Zapruder film. Canada Jack (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the end, one wonders what the point is to this insistence that Oswald found his mark three times. Because, in the end, it doesn't change any of the important conclusions about the assassination. It doesn't contradict the argument that Oswald acted alone, and it doesn't, on its own, eliminate the possibility of conspiracy. It doesn't, as Vincent Bugliosi would put it, go anywhere. Maybe Sask hates Arlen Specter and wants to discredit the man who generally is seen as the author of the SBT...

Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of trying to discredit anyone. The WC and the WC staff, including Arlen Specter, did an excellent job and got the right conclusion. They did a much better job than the HSCA, after all. It is a matter of getting the evidence right. The evidence does not support the SBT. The Connallys' swore it did not happen. They were right. That is all I am saying.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a great illustration of the the point that you can draw any number of curves though a given number of known points, if you're bloody-minded and tricky about it, not caring about jiggles and complications. We haven't ruled out two shooters at Oswald's location, both firing at the limo from behind and above, but now allowed to fire nearly together, so that JFK and JBC can be hit by different shots close together, but now 3 total bullets. It's going to take good timing to pull this off, folks! Because as JBC emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, he jumps straight up, both his arms jerk up like on marionette strings, and he rolls pretty quickly to the right with right arm down protecting his right side. It's not too many hundred milliseconds after we first see JFK clutching his throat, that JBC is rotated so far to the right that his right side is completely inaccessable to anybody in Oswald's position, unless they want to shoot though JBC's seatback. And god knows how they're going to hit his wrist and leg at the same time, since his wrist, after the upward jerk, remains high, still clutching the hat (he keeps that hat through JFK's final coup de grace, which means after he's shot through the wrist by anybody's estimation, and his wife said he held it until they took it away from him at the hospital). So this is going to have to be one tricky line through these points. Instead of just a few mistaken ear-witnesses (but not all them) we are now asked to have to have two shooters high and behind the limo, one to hit JFK twice, and the other to get JBC once (and it has to zigzag upward to get the governor's wrist, unless the JKF neck bullet hits JBC's wrist, but another bullet gets JBC in the chest and thigh). AND the bullet that goes through JFK's neck has to disappear completely soon after doing so, because if 3 bullets hit the inside of the limo from above and behind, they're trapped in it. We have one on the stretcher with JBC, and one that hits JFK's head, surely a different one, and that leaves yet a third one for JFK's neck which must eventually evaporate. So an extra shooter to get off this oddly-timed shot, has to fire an effective but disappearing bullet. Boy, now THAT's magic. SBHarris 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sask's response says it all. After saying stuff like No one put it earlier than z186. No one and being shown that in fact numerous witnesses did say that, what does he do? Why he does what he accuses SBHarris of doing - he subjectively dismisses those statements by implausibly suggesting they weren't in fact saying what they quite clearly were saying - even Connally - that the first shot was fired shortly after the turn! Sure, Connally describes going down the street, but he also said that the first shot happened when we had just made the turn. While we might debate what exactly he meant here, it is clear that when Sask says "no one" said as much, he is referring to his own interpretation of what the witnesses actually said. Seems when Sask makes a definitive statement, we have to accept that that he is applying his own, personal, subjective analysis, an analysis I should point out, which ignores the testimony that nobodies like the HSCA used to determine when a first shot was fired. So, when he suggests we must fall back on science to understand what happened here, he nevertheless embraces highly subjective interpretations to come to a single conclusion - no one says a shot was fired before Z186. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

I said no one put the first shot earlier than z186. To disprove that statement you have to find someone who said that the first shot occurred at a time earlier than z186. Finding someone who said that the car had just turned the corner doesn't do it. "Just after" could mean a couple of seconds to 10-15 seconds. Who knows? z160 was 8 seconds after the limo turned the corner. Connally said "just after" and he made it clear that he meant 150-200 feet after the corner which is about 8-10 seconds. You have to find specific evidence that it was before z186 because there is specific evidence from many witnesses that put it AFTER z186. You are providing witnesses who said things that may be consistent with a shot before z186 but they are also consistent with a first shot after z186. Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another howler, given his flat statement that "no one" put it before Z186. If that was the case and the second shot came as late as z224, that means the first shot would have to have occurred before the limo turned the corner - ie before Zapruder's filming of the motorcade began. So, in actual fact, Barbara Rowland's evidence is entirely inconsistent with a first shot at or around z160.

So, Sask now concedes that "some one" indeed claimed a first shot before 186! So much for "no one." Maybe the witness got remarried and has a surname "No One?" The point is that you claimed "no one" said anything about a shot before Z186. You have been proven utterly wrong, and you would be best advised to stop pretending otherwise.

You have to read what I wrote. I said her evidence regarding the shot pattern is in itself INconsistent with a first shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And here's another howler to dismiss what some might reasonably say suggest a strike circa Z160: Again, these are imprecise statements and cannot be used to distinguish between a ahot at z160 and one at z200. At z160 and z200 the limo had turned "just turned the corner". Again "no one" means Sask, in his subjective determination, has eliminated those who he decides do not past muster.

And perhaps the most specific description there - by Bonnie Ray Williams - which suggest a shot at about Z150 or so by the closest witness to Oswald's perch is not even addressed by Sask. The point here is you may quibble with interpretations on various witnesses. Fair enough. But you cannot pretend that your subjective opinion rises to the level of being able to confidently declare "no one" suggested a pre-Z186 shot.

If you can explain how Williams put the first shot at z150 and definitely not as late as z186 then please do.Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

She is still moving forward until z199.I don't see how you can say she turns to her right before z203. At z203-204 she turns her head sharply toward the TSBD What the sentence says is she started to slow down at the time in question and turn her head by 204.

This is simply idle speculation. He was clear that he was referring to his z202 photo. Well, coming from the king of "idle speculation," that is rich. But what you have failed to realize is that Willis seemed utterly confused over whether the first shot hit the president. Here is what Willis in fact said "When the first shot was fired, [Mrs. Kennedy's] head seemed to snap [toward the president]." Looking at the Zapruder film, we see her turning at Z195, mere frames before Willis took his photograph, slide 5, and many have cited that as proof that the photo he took then was when the first bullet struck. But a closer look reveals she sharply turned her head at Z167, well before anyone here claims he was hit. So he was asked: "Did you think the president was hit by the first shot?" His response: "I didn't really know, sir." Seems clear to everyone that he was hit close to the time of his slide 5, so it would seem that he might not be clear as to which photo he took when the first shot was fired.

But you are suggesting that Willis was referring to her turn at z167 taken 35 frames before he said the first shot occurred. You cannot speculate that Jackie's turn at z167 was the turn he saw. First of all, she is smiling at the crowd, not looking at JFK. Second, what about Mary Woodward's evidence that this was a turn in response to their shouting and that was before the first shot. It is clear from her evidence and her Nov 23/63 story in the Dallas Morning News, (as well as several others on Elm) that she was referring to the turn, wave and smiles from z165-200. Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the other howler: No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever. And what is Sask's response to my furnishing of quotes from two witnesses who in fact said they saw bullets striking the pavement? You have to look carefully at her evidence. Well, you may dispute where she places the bullet strike, but what you can't dispute as to whether she made the claim!

He said he saw this after the second shot. Hardly a first shot miss. #1, I didn't say it was the first bullet. #2, as far as I can tell, he wasn't specific about which bullet struck pavement. The point here, which I am not surprised you are avoiding, is that you claimed there were never any claims of a bullet strike on the pavement. Ever. You have shown to be utterly wrong again, and no amount of subjective parsing here will get you out of that one, Sask.

No one says that they saw a bullet. They saw "something". "Something" did strike the pavement: pieces of JFK's skull, blood and flesh.Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a bullet at full speed striking something and leaving no trace, and a bullet striking JBC and the fragments leaving the car and not being recovered. There sure is, Sask. One missing bullet was fired which was never found in an area the size of several acres, which was not particularly germane to the investigation as it struck no one and which was not the subject of intense interest. Indeed, the WC didn't even bother to try to determine where the bullet might have struck the pavement. The other "third" bullet, however, would have had to have left some sort of clue as to its existence other than the ambiguous NAA determination, especially since it was widely assumed initially that all three bullets struck as three shots were heard by most. Yet there was utterly no sign of this third bullet in the confined space of the limo despite a very intensive investigation. Again, one has to ask: Why does "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" not apply in the former but not in the latter?

You are assuming the NAA theory of Guinn is correct. According to Randich/Grant/Snyder the fragments could be from three bullets. If they are, then you have physical evidence that three bullets struck, in addition to the witness evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to show that the evidence, particularly the shot pattern evidence, the first shot hitJFK evidence, and the first shot location evidence, is all very consistent and wholly inconsistent with the SBT. But what we are seeing here is that in so doing you are subjectively dismissing much evidence that says otherwise, unless it happens to support your case, in which case you readily embrace it. This ain't science, Sask. It's subjective appraisal by you and its time to stop pretending otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about the shot pattern evidence (last two closer together), the "first shot hit" evidence or the first shot after z186 evidence. Any one of those three bodies of evidence is enough to refute the second shot SBT. You should try to deal with it rather than employ ad hominem arguments against those who point it out. Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things to add here. One is that there were three empty brass found in Oswald's sniper's nest, and he had to have planted one of them if he only fired twice. If he fired three times, he had to have time to do it.

He had time to do it because there is overwhelming evidence that he fired three shots. The problem is created only by interpreters of the zfilm who seem to think that Connally is hit by z230. However, the zfilm does not provide the answer to when Connally was hit. You have to look at other evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, you should have a look a this link, which not only shows the film-blur in both cases JFK and JBC very clearly around z160, and ALSO has a very nice collection of quotes from witnesses who heard a first shot that missed (because they heard two more) and/or saw an impact in the street: [34].

First of all, blurr analysis is an unproven science. No one has been able to demonstrate that it works. So it might be an interesting theory but whether it is an accurate and reliable way of determining when shots occurred is unknown. People have used blurr analysis to "prove" that there were seven shots. Second, the blurr analysis does not fit with the witness evidence that the last two shots were closer together or the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Read this carefully, especially the end of it. Lastly, please read Clint Hill's testimony at the WC carefully, as he notes something which other people also did, which is that the head shot came with a distinct double sound, much like an echo. Unlike the case with the throat shot, people in the limo heard both the supersonic crack of the bullet AND the impact sound of the head-shot, very close together. But Hill identifies them as being from the same bullet and says they sound very much like what you hear when you fire a weapon and hear the impact at nearly the same time. He's talking about the third bullet (or if you like, the last bullet), as it's the one that hits just as he's climbing onto the car, well after the throat shot. That double sound may well have confused other people hearing it. SBHarris 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Hill recalled only two shots. He did not hear three time-separated noises. Many of the people who heard three shots were far from the bullet path and could not have heard the shock wave crack let alone been confused by it. They reported three shots with the last two distinctly closer together. [35]Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I said no one put the first shot earlier than z186. To disprove that statement you have to find someone who said that the first shot occurred at a time earlier than z186. Finding someone who said that the car had just turned the corner doesn't do it. "Just after" could mean a couple of seconds to 10-15 seconds. Who knows? z160 was 8 seconds after the limo turned the corner. Connally said "just after" and he made it clear that he meant 150-200 feet after the corner which is about 8-10 seconds.

What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all of the above is merely your subjective opinion on what the witnesses were in fact claiming. When you say "who knows?" that is a sign that you should not pretend, as you do, that "no one" claims a bullet to have been fired around Z160. Period. If you were truly looking at this from a cool, rational viewpoint, you would have to acknowledge that while it seems some witnesses place the first shot when we see JFK react, others seem to place it a fair bit earlier.

You are providing witnesses who said things that may be consistent with a shot before z186 but they are also consistent with a first shot after z186. Some, but not all. So stop pretending "no one" said as much, as that is merely your subjective opinion.

You have to read what I wrote. I said her evidence regarding the shot pattern is in itself INconsistent with a first shot at z160. The statement was inserted as an example of a pre-Z186 witness statement, not as evidence for a shot at or about z160. Again, you avoid addressing the issue. You pretend there were "no" statements pre-186. Yet how can you pretend this isn't suggesting a pre-186 shot? By changing the subject. Here's a suggestion. The next time you want to cite witness evidence to suggest that the first shot was the one that hit Kennedy, then say that there is evidence to suggest that, but don't suggest there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, because that would be a factual inexactitude.

If you can explain how Williams put the first shot at z150 and definitely not as late as z186 then please do. The action he describes JFK doing are consistent with what we see JFK doing from Z133 to Z143. Since JFK, following that action, turns to his left, then he starts to wave, he is engaging in following actions. Williams suggests that the first shot immediately follows the stated actions as it was "the last thing I remember seeing him do." The point here is that we do have witness statements which make a plausible case for a shot circa Z160. I can appreciate that you disagree with that interpretation, but you seem to be more than willing to allow your subjective view of the subject to eliminate other reasonable interpretations. I'd hardly say it is going out on a limb to suggest that some of the above-mentioned witness statements are consistent with a strike around z160, and seem to be consistent with some of the evidence on the Zapruder film. Sure, some other evidence suggests a later first shot, but you cannot pretend this evidence does not exist.

Saying that Williams evidence is "consistent" with a first shot at z150 doesn't do it. There is more than one place where JFK has his hand near his head. He has his hand near his head at z200-207 as he takes it from a waving position to something different (this movement prompted the majority of the HSCA photographic panel to conclude that JFK is reacting to a severe external stimulus by z207). Unless it is consistent ONLY with a shot at before z186 (and therefore inconsistent with a shot at after z186) can you say that it is evidence of a shot before z186. The evidence of all the 22 witnesses I have listed is INCONSISTENT with a shot before z186. Saskcitation (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are suggesting that Willis was referring to her turn at z167 taken 35 frames before he said the first shot occurred. You cannot speculate that Jackie's turn at z167 was the turn he saw.

Willis himself said that he could not be sure that the first shot he heard found its mark. Does anyone doubt that the shot fired circa Z200 found its mark? I'd say no, clearly you say no. Anyone seeing JFK's reaction would say no. Yet Willis can't be sure? The point here is that if Willis can't be sure about that basic fact, his "certainty" about slide 5 being the photo taken at the time of the first shot is called into doubt. Since he also took a photo around where it is thought a first shot took place, we can't be certain about this issue. For someone who focusses on the mere possibility that the bullet fragments might represent more than two bullets, it is quite interesting that you can't acknowledge that, given Willis's clear confusion on the matter, there is a possibilty that he was also confused at to which photo was taken. Except you go far further than I do. I don't suggest that therefore it is probable that Willis in fact confused slide 4 with slide 5, just that is possible and we can't be sure given his confusion, but you suggest the uncertainty over whether bullet fragments can be so closely calibrated means the door is flung wide open to not only tossing out the SBT, but suggesting the implausible notion that three Oswald bullets found their mark. Right.

No one says that they saw a bullet. They saw "something". "Something" did strike the pavement: pieces of JFK's skull, blood and flesh. One witness described seeing sparks, which is not likely to be caused by skull fragments. But let's take your increasingly desparate line of reasoning further. Did anyone actually see any bullet zooming through the air and striking JFK/Connally? What? No one? How can we be sure that they indeed were struck by bullets? Maybe some conspiring elements stuck some plastic explosive on JFK's head to make his head explode, and some similiar nefarious thing happened with Connally, aided by some quick actions at Parkland to make "bullet" wounds, along with a lot of planted evidence. Migod, Sask, you are getting sillier by the minute. It is one thing to embrace evidence that supports a particular theory while downplaying other evidence which suggests alternate possibilities. It is quite another to start to demand, from this other evidence, to prove a negative at each and every turn. All we are saying here is there is evidence to suggest other scenarios and like it or not you can't pretend otherwise. You have every right to question that evidence, but to pretend it isn't there is not acceptable, it is intellectually dishonest.

Again, imputations of bad faith are not only bad form, they are contrary to the Wiki rules. I am not pretending any the evidence you cite does not exist. I am simply saying that it is not evidence on which one could conclude that the first shot did not happen after z186. That is to say, none of this evidence points to a first shot before z186 or a first shot miss. If it is consistent with a first shot after z186 it cannot, be any standard of reason, be evidence of a shot before z186. A shot "just after the car turned the corner" is not evidence that is inconsistent with a shot after z186. z186 is 9 seconds after the car began the turn. z160 is 8 seconds after the car began the turn. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding how you can use that kind of evidence to say that it occurred at z160 and not at z186. You have yet to explain that. Saskcitation (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming the NAA theory of Guinn is correct. According to Randich/Grant/Snyder the fragments could be from three bullets. If they are, then you have physical evidence that three bullets struck, in addition to the witness evidence.

The theory may in fact be flawed, but if there were in fact only two bullets, what we are seeing is consistent with that. The later analysis suggests that that earlier analysis is nowhere near as definitive as first assumed, and opens the possibility that a third bullet was represented by the fragments. But, as even they say, and which you seem not to appreciate, the new analysis is consistent with two bullets as well. They don't say that three bullets are in fact represented, just that it can't be ruled out definitively. An entirely different thing. So, this "physical evidence" you speak of is actually highly open to dispute. But the important note is that, even given that, the analysis is still consistent with what we'd expect from an analysis of the fragments from two bullets. If that was the only evidence available, than we'd have more of an issue. But we do have other evidence which suggests very strongly the sequence of events as argued here. A first bullet which missed. A second bullet which hit JFK and Connally. And a third shot which fatally wounded Kennedy. It would seem to me that your approach is: expand that crack in the door which allows for the possibilty of a third bullet. Embrace witness testimony which tends to corroborate an initial bullet circa Z200. Pretend any other evidence suggesting otherwise doesn't exist. Accuse those who say otherwise of being "subjective" when it comes to addressing witness testimony, yet subjectively dismiss all evidence which may not fit. Indeed, ignore the improbables which occur once we start the clock at Z186. Ignore what we would expect from separate bullets striking Connally. Ignore the fact there is no physical evidence, besides the remote chance the NAA is showing three bullets, of the existence more than two bullets within the limousine. Pretend that it is a far bigger mystery where the Z160 bullet went than where the third limousine bullet went. Etc.

There is nothing subjective about the shot pattern evidence (last two closer together), the "first shot hit" evidence or the first shot after z186 evidence. All I have to say to that is: Do you know what the definition of "subjective" is? Because, unless you have an audio tape somewhere or some other form of clear, physical evidence, all we have is a pile of witness statements on the timing of the shots which is, by definition, subjective.

Any one of those three bodies of evidence is enough to refute the second shot SBT. You should try to deal with it rather than employ ad hominem arguments against those who point it out. Perhaps you should look up "ad hominen" as well. You are making statements regarding evidence which are unsupported, and in some cases, simply false. I am suggesting that while you are certainly free to dispute evidence and put forth alternate interpretations, you are not in a position to characterize your subjective interpretations as any way being definitive. Which you do by declaring there is "no" evidence regarding certain issues. If that is an "ad hominem" attack, I'd suggest you are holding your pet theories a little too close to your chest and taking this too personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All the comments I have made pertaining to the evidence are based on the evidence. When you have identified evidence that you say points to a shot before z186 you refer to statements about the shot being heard "just after the car turned the corner". You say that this refers to a first shot at about z160. I question how you can say that such a statement refers to a shot earlier than z186. Z186 is about 9 seconds after the car began to turn the corner. z160 is about 8 seconds after the car began to turn the corner. I am saying that you cannot distinguish between z160 and z186 on the basis of that kind of statement. That is not subjective. That is factual analysis. If you disagree then perhaps you can tell us why it means z160 and not z186.

Rather than deal with my points, you make perjorative comments about me "pretending" about the evidence. Questioning the bona fides of the proponent of an argument is a form of ad hominem argument and it is usually used when all the good arguments are gone. Rather than question my bona fides, you should deal with the evidence. I say there is no evidence pointing to a first shot before z186 and there is no evidence that JFK and Jackie continued to smile and wave after the first shot. If you don't like that statement, provide us with some evidence that pinpoints a first shot earlier than z186. If you can find any such evidence, I will withdraw my statement. Saskcitation (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sask, you seem utterly incapable of seeing, let alone addressing, a point. You have a view that the first shot was fired at z186 or after. You, not me, not SBHarris, made bald statements such as there is "no" evidence suggesting a shot beforehand. But it turns out that the basis of this "no" evidence claim is not something that the WC said or found, or the HSCA said and found, or any number of other sources, but it comes from your subjective analysis of the evidence. I mean, I reject your NAA argument, but I don't pretend there is no argument! I agree there is an alternative scenario, I never characterisize is being in the region of "no" evidence for such a conclusion, etc. I term it improbable, etc. If you cannot see the distinction here, and how intellectually dishonest it is, I don't know what else to say.

Rather than deal with my points, you make perjorative comments about me "pretending" about the evidence. Questoning the bona fides of the proponent of an argument is a form of ad hominem argument and it is usually used when all the good arguments are gone.

??? Sask, have read a single thing I have posted? We are talking about your characterization of evidence, not the evidence itself! I know you can interpret some of this evidence is many ways. That is not the point. The point is that you pretend there is no other interpretation but your own, and you do so be flatly declaring there is "no" evidence to suggest a) a shot circa 160 or before or b) a bullet strike on the pavement.

I am not interpreting the evidence. I am just pointing out that it is not specific and therefore not inconsistent at all with a first shot after z186. It is quite capable of a range of meanings and is, therefore, not evidence of a shot before z186. The evidence of Betzner, Phil Willis, Mary Woodward, Hurchel Jacks, the occupants of the VP followup car, the 48 witnesses who recalled the last two shots together, the 16 or so witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left and moving his hands toward his throat, is entirely inconsistent with a missed first shot or a first shot prior to z186. The evidence you offer is not inconsistent with this evidence. That is all I am saying. The evidence has to be more than capable of being construed as being consistent with a first shot earlier than z186. It has to be inconsistent with a first shot after z186.Saskcitation (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone here is not respecting another here it is you in refusing to address the issues here, instead insisting on debating the evidence as you see it. It tells me that you are either not reading closely what is being said here, or simply ignoring the concerns.

Again, you avoid dealing with my points. I appear to be the only person taking a serious, independent and critical view of the evidence. That is how evidence has to be treated.

Indeed, what is your next remark?

I say there is no evidence pointing to a first shot before z186 and there is no evidence that JFK and Jackie continued to smile and wave after the first shot. If you don't like that statement, provide us with some evidence that pinpoints a first shot earlier than z186.

Evidence was supplied, and you rejected it. Fine. That's your interpretation, and you may be wrong, but you can't pretend you can't be wrong. That's all I am saying. What do you not understand here? Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not reject your evidence. It is fine evidence. I accept it. I am just saying that it does not establish a first shot before z186. That is just a statement of fact. You may counter that by showing how indeed it does establish a first shot not later than z186. You seem to be unwilling to do that.Saskcitation (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shot timing (moved down to break very long section)

A couple of things to add here. One is that there were three empty brass found in Oswald's sniper's nest, and he had to have planted one of them if he only fired twice. If he fired three times, he had to have time to do it.

He had time to do it because there is overwhelming evidence that he fired three shots. The problem is created only by interpreters of the zfilm who seem to think that Connally is hit by z230. However, the zfilm does not provide the answer to when Connally was hit. You have to look at other evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Connolly is hit by z232-- his right shoulder has already started to come down by then to the very unnatural position you see in z240. That's a reaction to a hit in the right armpit. When do YOU think he's hit?

You have to be careful here. He is definitely reacting. But is he reacting to being hit by it or reacting to the sound of it? Connally said that he reacted to the sound of the first shot not to being hit by it. He said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and he reacted by turning around to see JFK. There is a large amount of very consistent witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving to his left and bringing his hands to his throat[36]. No one said he waved and smiled after the first shot. I don't see anywhere prior to z235 any sign of JBC turning his head to see JFK.

Actually, you don't see any evidence of JBC turning his head all the way around to see JFK until very late, just before the final bullet.

Right. Just before z270 in fact.

And by that time, he's in the wrong position to be shot anywhere but the wrist. His shoulders are lined up with JFK by the time he can see JFK. But Connally never said he'd seen JFK, and anyway, Nellie is already reacting to JBC by this time, so SHE thinks he's hit, even if you're going to argue that he's just gawking at JFK and is fine. That's too problematic a story. It's much more easily explained by JBC's rapid head turn after z160.SBHarris

You have to be careful about using opinion to defeat real evidence. The evidence (particularly the shot pattern with the last two shots closer together) says there was a second shot at about z270. Greer turned around after the second shot. He completes that turn at z280. Powers said JBC disappeared immediately after the second shot. He falls back onto Nellie at z285. Nellie said she never looked back at JFK after the second shot. She is still looking at JFK at z255. Altgens said his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shot. Nellie said that she saw her husband move in response to being hit on the second shot and she reached over and pulled him down. She did not say she waited 3 seconds, looked at JFK and then pulled him down. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect the poor woman to say? That she wasn't looking at her husband when he was hit, and so didn't notice it? Which is what we see on the Z-film? What was happening to JFK was much more interesting. And Mrs. Connally was looking ahead when her husband jumps up, and brings arms up, after Z-224. She just missed that reaction (his biggest one), and that's all.SBHarris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By Nellies' evidence, JBC was not yet hit there. You believe that JBC beginning to turn at z230 or so is a reaction to being hit so you must conclude that Nellie is wrong. But if you don't assume anything and just follow her evidence, as well as the evidence of about 48 others who said the last two shots were closer together, there is no contradiction. Saskcitation (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JBC doesn't "begin to turn" at 230, if by this you mean a normal turn that somebody would make to look behind them. It's distinctly unnatural. It begins with a jump and both arms flying up. Okay, you say, noise reaction. But then just watch. JBC not only turns, more importantly his right shoulder goes WAY down and he's protecting that right chest, which he essentially turns downward. Just as he would if wounded there. You want him to turn so the wounded area is DOWN (which he does), and yet still get a bullet there, LATER. HOW? Considering that it exits his right nipple area, going forward, where's it going to GO, if it hits JBC after the position you see him in, in Altgens/Z-255?? I don't think so. SBHarris 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there is certainly no problem with the bullet exiting the chest and striking the back of JBC's wrist after z250. The wounds are in contact with each other there. The better question may be to ask how the bullet exits JBC's chest at z224, strikes the distal side of the radius (the side facing to down and to the right at that point) and deflects LEFT to strike the left thigh. Bullets deflect away from, not toward, the point of contact. The wrist wound caused Dr. Shaw a lot of difficulty. The palm-side thin slit exit wound is quite consistent with having been made from a bone or bullet fragment. The entrance wound is consistent with a bullet being deflected away from the point of contact with the radius. With the wrist in the position it is in after z250, that means the bullet deflected up. Saskcitation (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also alot of consistent witness evidence that there was only one shot before JFK emerges from behind the sign (the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3). The Connallys were adamant that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot (corroborated by Gayle Newman, Dave Powers and others). The shot pattern evidence puts the second shot striking JBC after z255. Altgens also puts it after z255 (his z255 photo was taken, he said, after the first and before any other shot). So the evidence puts it after z255 - long enough after to create a widespread recollection that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If you add the other observations - particularly the evidence of SA Hickey and SA Kinney that JFK's hair flew up on the right side of his head at the moment of the second shot - you can pinpoint the time of the second shot. Just look at JFK's hair and see where it flies up. Look for a change in the appearance of his wrist and a sudden uniform forward motion of JBC. Or see where Greer turns around, as he said he did immediately after the second shot. Or see where JBC disappears from view as seen from Dave Powers' position in the following car (he said JBC disappeared from view on the second shot). Or look for some change in the top of the windshield. All of this happens at once and can be seen in the zfilm. I'll let you figure out where.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no such place for two shots to hit poor JBC. If he's hit by two bullets, he reacts more to the sound made at the JFK hit at Z224 than he does to either of his later hits!

What is wrong with that? Do you think people generally go into acrobatics when they think they are fatally wounded?

No, but they react more strongly to being hit hard in the back by a fist (what JBC said felt like) than from a distant firecracker noise. SBHarris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Altgens photo at Z-255 Connally's already rotated so badly as to be completely parallel to the door and the line of sight though JFK.

Well, JBC is not parallel to the door because the line of sight from Altgens still shows part of the front of his chest.Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As it would even if he was fully rotated. Rotate at 90 degrees to me and I can still see some of your chest, unless you have the world's largest arm. SBHarris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like WAY post chest hit to me. There's no way to shoot the man in this position that is characteristic of any of his wounds (his chest wound goes through from armpit to nipple, not armpit to other armpit!).

Again, be careful about interjecting opinion to defeat real evidence. I don't know what a person looks like after being shot in the chest. The chest bullet did not penetrate the lung or the chest cavity. It went through the fifth rib from the outside in not the inside out. In other words, it went around the chest cavity, not through it. Nellie said JBC was hit when turned right - she told his doctors that. Dr. Shires said the wound to the wrist was consistent with the pronation of the wrist due to turning the torso. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NO, YOU be careful about interjection opinion. The Z film is primary evidence. It trumps anybody's ear-memory. Or anybody's memory of any kind. If memories conflict with the Z film, the memories are simply wrong. SBHarris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but only if the zfilm is unequivocal eg. the third shot. (Interestingly, not one witness had a recollection that was inconsistent with a third shot at z313). The zfilm is primary evidence, but it does not have a soundtrack and there is nothing in the images that provides unequivocal evidence of the shot timing other than the third shot. Witness evidence is also primary evidence. It is just that the recording mechanism is a little different. If two people witness an event and independently recall specific details they are very likely accurate. As the number and proportion of witnesses who independently recall the same detail increases, the likelihood that they were all independently wrong exactly the same way becomes effectively zero. Those who do not have accurate recall of that event will have recollections that are randomly distributed over all the other possibilities. Saskcitation (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if a separate bullet hit his wrist it could do so here, but there's no reason to posulate that, when his wrist has been in the proper down position, just 2 seconds before. And as for using Altgens as earwitness! Double standard! He's clear down the road, farther away from the shooter than ANY of the people who you said couldn't be trusted on their ear-witness evidence on account of distance! It's entirely possibile Altgens didn't hear shot #1, and thus thought that shot #2 was the first one. It's time you laid your theory out, without being coy about it. SBHarris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT suggesting the wrist was hit by a separate bullet. The bullet through JFK's neck went to the left of the centre of the jump seat. JBC was wounded on his left side in one location. That location also fits the trajectory as seen in the KGB overhead photo.

No. JBC was hit twice in the right chest, through and though. Giving him pneumothorax. SBHarris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as Altgens is concerned, he was clear that his photo was after the first shot and before any other. He did not miss hearing the first shot. No one could possibly not have heard that "horrible ear-shattering noise". He was not counting the shots. Still he was pretty sure there was more than one shot after the first and he was sure the head shot was the last. BTW, I never said that ear witnesses farther away could not be relied on. You have to reread what I said. I said they could not hear the supersonic crack - just the muzzle blast. That doesn't mean the could not hear the number of spacing of the shots. Any way, Altens was not very far from the car. He was much closer to the rifle than Tague who said he had no problem hearing the three shots. Saskcitation (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet JFK has already been hit by the time he emerges from behind the sign at 225. That's less than 4/10 of a sec between these. Even if you don't think Connally's hit to 240, that's still only 8/10 of a second after JFK-- still not enough time. Far easier to think that JBC is hit at 224 when his lapel moves and just before he gives the double arm jerk reaction. That also works for JFK. SBHarris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to follow the evidence. The evidence will tell you when he is hit and you can use the zfilm to corroborate it. If you assume that JBC is hit by z240 then you must find that all the witnesses who distinctly recalled the last two shots being closer together were wrong. That is virtually an impossibility since there are so many who recalled it, independently.[37]. Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before. It's called the twin tower effect. Hundreds of people remembered having seen footage of an airplane hitting the FIRST twin tower on Sept 11 (ie, they said they'd seen footage of BOTH impacts before the towers fell). But they were all wrong, as no footage of this first impact was ever broadcast on that day. It turned up later. So, can all those witnesses be wrong? You bet your life! Wrong and provably so. They conflated two memories into one. SBHarris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By that standard all witnesses are always wrong. Witnesses can be influenced by improper questioning or false information to give a wrong answer. But if they are independent and agree on an event that has many possible alternative ways of occurring, they either have all made the same mistake for the same reason or they have observed correctly the same event. Saskcitation (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Witnesses are wrong when they disagree with video or film. Or DNA. End of this! SBHarris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even DNA needs witness evidence to provide it meaning. The case of Dr. Schneeberger shows that. Dr. S put someone else's blood in a tube and inserted it into his arm so the sample obtained from him had someone else's DNA. The victim was discredited, initially (for several years). She knew he had assaulted her and she was eventually proven to be right. The DNA evidence was wrong. Her drug impaired recollection was better than the "expert" evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a Cite for this tall tale? Nobody gets DNA from arm-blood. They take it from a cheek swab. There's no place in your arm to put a "tube of blood" to have somebody stick it, anyway. Geez! SBHarris 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He was very clever. He said he had a condition that made it necessary to avoid taking blood from his fingers and he insisted on taking it himself. He did this three times. The victim persisted and hired a private investigator and got a surreptitious sample and had it tested. See the Wikipedia article on Schneeberger[38]. There was a TV movie made about this case. Saskcitation (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, you should have a look a this link, which not only shows the film-blur in both cases JFK and JBC very clearly around z160, and ALSO has a very nice collection of quotes from witnesses who heard a first shot that missed (because they heard two more) and/or saw an impact in the street: [39].

I have not only looked at it, I critiqued this page by David Reitzes several years ago.[40] You cannot have the first shot missing and striking the road but leaving no trace. This is why Posner (and lately Holland) suggest that it struck something above the road and missed everything. But not only is there no evidence that it struck anything outside the car, there is strong evidence that it struck JFK [41].Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, blurr analysis is an unproven science. No one has been able to demonstrate that it works. So it might be an interesting theory but whether it is an accurate and reliable way of determining when shots occurred is unknown. People have used blurr analysis to "prove" that there were seven shots. Second, the blurr analysis does not fit with the witness evidence that the last two shots were closer together or the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget the blur if you don't like it. The point is that both JFK and JBC do a rapid head turn to the right after the z160 blur. That move is consistant with JBC saying he looked to the right at the first shot, but wasn't hit yet. And indeed the site shows that neither man is hit while they do this head turn.SBHarris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the people who heard three shots were far from the bullet path and could not have heard the shock wave crack let alone been confused by it. They reported three shots with the last two distinctly closer together. [42]Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! You didn't look at the site given at by the cite [43], did you?

See above. My critique of Dave Reitzes page is here:[44]Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The motorcycle officers Billy Joe (B. J.) Martin, James M. Chaney, Stavis (Steve) Ellis, and William G. (Bill) Lumpkin, were all among the closest eyewitnesses. All of them said the first shot missed, and several of them describe street bullet strikes (the street apparently never was systematically examined between the assissination and the time it was repaved, not long after).

But if you actually read all their evidence they only describe something hitting the curb or street. Even they do not say it was a bullet. Read my critique.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody EXPECTS them to have "seen" a bullet, even if it WAS a bullet! You can't see bullets in flight (unless you're directly behind them and the sun is just right-- and even then I've only seen it for pistol bullets). SBHarris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we have the secret service agent Glen Bennett, riding in the car immediately behind: At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked . . . towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. Is he close enough for you?

This is evidence that suggests that JFK was hit on the second shot, but it is the only evidence and it is uncorroborated. Moreover, in his original hand written notes made that afternoon he describes it differently - he describes hearing a "firecracker" noise and looking at JFK and at that exact time seeing "that a shot hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder". He described only two shots. In his later statement he describes three shots and it is somewhat different than his notes.[45]Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You say we're not running out of meat and bone if the first shot hit JFK, the second Connolly, and the third JFK. But indeed we are, because if the first shot hit JFK, that bullet disappeared without doing further damage. It went though his coat back, his shirt back, and his tie knot. It made a wound in his lower neck/upper back, and another in his throat (seen by the ER docs) before going through the tie and away. Then it disappeared entirely. What happened to it?

It didn't disappear. It is CE399. It ended up in or on JBC.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, you're talking about the single bullet theory, then, are you not? CE399 goes through JFK to hit JBC?

Well, it is likely that CE399 struck JBC because it doesn't appear to have struck the car and it was not stopped or deflected by JFK's neck. The question is WHERE did it hit JBC? The SBT says it caused all of JBC's wounds so it struck JBC in the back. That is the Single Bullet Theory. Saskcitation (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Exiting his throat at 224, it should have had JBC's armpit in front of it. Did something stop it before it went on to hit the governor, in the jump seat 18 inches away or so?? Magic? SBHarris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why JBC' right armpit be in front of a bullet moving right to left through JFK's midline? Why would the bullet not go to the left of the middle of JBC? Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that JBC is sitting inboard of JFK, far enough that a bullet doesn't hit him in back, but the side of the chest at the right armpit (he is indeed a bit rotated, but not much). However, it's still moving at a 24 degree angle inward vs. the long axis of the car, so when it exits JCB it exists the right front of his chest, in the right nipple area. I already pointed you to [46], which is worth a thousand words on this trajectory matter. Compared with your KBC job, which is about as good as the WC's wooden pointer (one straight object is as good as another)

And by the way, of course this bullet penetrates JBC's chest cavity. It produced a sucking chest wound and pneumothorax. SBHarris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The bullet did not pass through the chest cavity. JBC did have a pneumothorax but only because of the rib fragments being driven into the lower lobe of his right lung. See Dr. Shaw's medical report [47] and testimony [48] [49]. The damage to the chest lining was on the anterior side due to those "secondary missiles" from the fifth rib. Saskcitation (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the trajectory, it went to the left of the middle of JBC's jump seat. See the KGB Files reenactment using a laser and the real car[50]. With JBC sitting as he was in z200, it is pretty easy to see where the bullet could have gone.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The KGB??

Yes. It is from "The Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files" documentary.Saskcitation (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're really pulling my leg. Before that you said it wound up in Connally. Connally's proper rotation has been subjected to much more thorough review, and you can see some really good footage here: [51]. It's very clear that everything JBC does after coming out from behind the sign is a slow reaction to the bullet strike on him-- he's clearly in pain and he opens his mouth twice.

But, according to the evidence, JBC felt no pain until he reached the hospital. None. He never noticed his thigh wound until told about it the next day. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if he's reacting to a hard fist punch with no pain (say what?) the analysis stands. SBHarris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But this follows the *only* rapid motion JBC is seen to make, which is a jump-up and double arm raise, starting after 224. That's what you'd expect to see of a man punched in the back, and that's what you DO see (but only when the Z film is played in motion, and stabilized). Which is just when JFK reacts. I urge you to view that loop of film after the sign over and over. Connally shows no signs of anything when he emerges, THEN he has the biggest reaction he shows on the whole film, followed immediately by facial movements and a slow roll and then back into his wife's lap. Yes, he does look as if he's looking toward JFK and even should be able to see him, during this roll. But he's in shock, too, and gawping. He never says he ever saw JFK, and he's probably right. The head move JBC describes to look backward, which he never completes, to look at JFK (in keeping with his memory of what happened *before* he was hit) occurs well before he is hidden behind the sign, after Z-160, and indeed, neither man shows any sign of being hit before they go behind the sign.SBHarris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And all I am saying is that this is exactly what JBC said he did in reaction to the SOUND of the first shot, not to being hit in the chest by it. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Use of Bullet Lead Analysis

Why is this section here? It has no connection stated to the JFK assassination. This section should be rewritten to connect it to the JFK assassination, perhaps by citing those conspiracists who claim this undermines this sort of analysis. Recall that Sturdivan's critique is based on what was available to assassins in 1963, this analysis studied current manufacturing methods and concluded that it is no longer valid. They did not conclude that analysis done in 1963 therefore was not valid, though some in the conspiracy world in fact make that claim.

If the section cannot be connected to the assassination, it should be deleted. Canada Jack (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It relates to the JFK assassination because it shows that the principle of using bullet lead analysis to determine the source of a bullet is fundamentally flawed. Grant and Randich refer to this paper in their 2006 paper. Guinn was only using Sb concentrations to determine `uniqueness`. In their 2002 paper the authors show that the technique has no scientific validity even if you were to match 6 elements. They conclude:

"Our results show that the forensic examiner using a method of bullet lead alloy elemental analysis, which quantifies up to six elements is restricted to concluding only that indistinguishable bullets might have come from the same “source,” not that they did come from the same “source”. In addition, it is quite possible that multiple bullets with similar but distinguishable compositions could have come from the same “source”. The authors therefore feel that there is no scientific validity to any conclusions more positive than attributing the possible association as to molten source among bullets from different samples. An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria."

The reader should be informed that the analysis which Guinn used to support his conclusion is no longer accepted by the FBI, National Academy of Sciences or the courts as evidence. Now there is a significant difference between the kind of analysis that Guinn did and which the FBI was doing. Guinn was trying to match bullet lead to a particular bullet in a box of bullets. The FBI tries to match bullet lead to a box of bullets. Randich and Tobin say in their 2002 paper you cannot do what the FBI was trying to do.

Your remarks about conspiricists are not pertinent. This is not about conspiracy vs. lone nut. This is about science and the validity of conclusions from bullet lead analysis. The authors are not taking any position on what happened in the JFK assassination. They are just saying that you have to look at other evidence because the bullet lead analysis is flawed. Saskcitation (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: With all due respect, you are missing some important points here on how we present evidence and include material on wikipedia. I am simply pointing out that the section, as it stands, has to go. Why? Because you have not connected it to the JFK assassination. I previously linked to this page, but it seems you have not yet gone there to see why you must follow the guidelines. [52]

It relates to the JFK assassination because it shows that the principle of using bullet lead analysis to determine the source of a bullet is fundamentally flawed.

Where, prey tell, does it say that? What you have presented there says nothing about the JFK assassination and everything about a 2002 paper which describes lead from a smelter used for tests from 1998 to 2000. Then it says this prompted the FBI to stop using this form of analysis.

It isn't that complicated. Guinn used compositional bullet lead analysis (CBLA) to identify the source of bullet fragments in the JFK assassination using a one element match (Sb). The FBI has been using CBLA to identify the source of bullet fragments using 6 elements. The National Academy of Sciences and the FBI now say that that technique is flawed. Tobin and Randich say it is flawed. Courts say it is flawed. Tobin and Grant in their 2006 paper say it is even more flawed when it is done with respect to only one element.Saskcitation (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

???? Yes, Sask, it isn't that complicated at all: Either connect the section to the JFK discussion, or it will be deleted. Please read, carefully, what I am saying here. When I say "connect" I mean supply within the text the assertion from whomever you please that the analysis in question directly relates to the JFK analysis. I am not doing this to trip you up, as I know these connections exist. But since you added it, you should do the work here, not me. The fact that I have not deleted this article should indicate to you that I am acting in good faith. Canada Jack (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, with respect, I don't think you understand my concern here. It is not in determining whether this applies to the case, it is the fact that you have simply plonked this down without connecting it to the JFK case. You have to describe this in terms of how this analysis led some to conclude that the JFK analysis was itself flawed. Why? Because what you have put on the page says nothing about how this affects the JFK analysis. And that is important because there is an argument whether this analysis is even relevant to that JFK analysis. IOW, it is not self-evident from what you have posted how this is relevant. Clearly, someone thinks it is relevant, so you must make that link, you must present it in that fashion. Instead of deleting this, as we normally should, I suggest we leave this and you represent this to make it connect to the issue at hand.Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I know that the FBI decision to cease using this analysis has a bearing on the issue. I am not pretending it doesn't. But by simply inserting this text, because there is nothing within it about how it relates to the JFK assassination (the study concerned itself with samples produced decades after 1963, not with the samples studied in terms of the assassination), and it because it seems to be there just to bring some "context" to the analysis, it is "original research" as an inference is supplied without connection to someone who made the inference. The connection to JFK has to be explicit - either within the report, or someone saying as much. If the FBI had said "the study invalidates the conclusions made about the JFK assassination," then that would be a different story. But because it doesn't, we need to frame the reference in terms along the lines of Grant and Randich (or whomever) say that the report and/or the FBI decision underlines their contention that the analysis is flawed and can't be used as a basis to determine only two bullets were involved. It can't be stressed too much - you can't make that inference. It might suffice to simply introduce that section in a similar manner. Please note that I do believe the insertion is relevant, but only once it is connected in a manner as I suggest. Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the suggested changes, Sask, and it looks good. I think this should stand as is. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus verification problem

I may point out, before you get too much into this, that the problem of "consensus" infinite regress is an old one on Wikipedia, and has never been dealt with satifactorily. If there's a consensus among scientists on the correctness of an idea (the Earth is more than 3 billion years old, say) then you need somebody to say there is a consensus, so you can quote them and have it a verifiable fact that there's a consensus. But now wait-- that's just one guy saying there's a consensus-- how do we know it's not just his personal opinion? Is there a concensus that there's a consensus? Why says so? Does he say so in print, so it can be cited? But he's just one guy with a printed opinion? Who agrees with him? Is there a consensus that there's a consensus that there's a consensus? Who says so? Where's your cite? Are you getting tired, yet?

If you don't want to fight this kind of thing out, it always better to simply avoid th questions, point out the people who've done the major published studies, and summarize their conclusions. In the case here, there aren't that many major studies to summarize. Of course, people who've actually done the studies should be given priority over later (outside) interpreters, especially non-experts in the field. So who has the major published studies, and what were their conclusions? Kibitzers who know no statistics get lower billing-- maybe just a mention. SBHarris 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For the purposes of the particular section, I don't feel we need any comment on "consensus." This is not a case of omitting a comment favourable to one side or the other (even if cited), it's a case of why include a nearly meaningless assertion. The issue is not whether there is a consensus or not, but whether there is a debate. Canada Jack (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think it looks pretty neat already (though, since it's taking over, we may need a subarticle on NAA analysis in the JFK assassination, with a summary of that in THIS article!). I'm especially interested to see the fragment stuff fall into two clear patterns-- one from JBC's wrist that matches CE399, and all the rest, which match the fragments from JFK's brain. And neither of these match the remaining round in Oswald's rifle. That's fairly clear: three bullets, one unfired. And perhaps a forth which missed the limo, since it is (after all) a four round clip and three expended brass were found (little factoids that nobody really wants to talk about when they're pushing conspiracy and multiple gunmen).

If only JBC hadn't been buried with even more fragments which could have been matched to one set or the other. Oh, well. Give it a century and all these guys will get exhumed for a really good set of forensics like President William Henry Harrison and King Tut were, and a lot of previous bad theories will go down. No, Harrison wasn't poisoned with arsenic. No, Tut wasn't bludgeoned (instead had a bad leg fracture, probably from a chariot fall). One CT of JFK's head would answer a slew of questions, and no doubt allow collection of yet more fragments from the last shot. SBHarris 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on stating matter-of-factly that CE399 and the wrist fragment are a match? The point that Randich and Grant make, which appears to be overlooked in your responses, is that Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan are wrong in concluding that CE399 and the wrist fragment "match". They are saying that Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan do not have enough sample data and the sample sizes are too small. They are saying that at this sample size, there is no uniformity within any bullet lead. It is important that the reader get this understanding from reviewing the article. If you insist on saying that it is a matter of fact that the CE399 and the wrist fragment "matched" - and that such a match from two different bullets is highly improbable, as a matter of fact - then the reader is not getting an objective, neutral information. This is the essence of the controversy between Randich/Grant and Rahn/Sturdivan.They disagree strongly on this point. I just want to ensure that this disagreement is clear to the reader, that's all. Saskcitation (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point, Saskcitation. (hey, my step-dad grew up in Kamsack!) The initial part describes the match, as that was how the evidence was presented. Then we have the more recent controversy which suggests there may not be a "match." I added the rebuttal from Sturdivan as the issue is important and the rebuttal relevant. But to then say "in conclusion there is no consensus..." that may in fact be the case but it's the sort of statement that can't really be supported, as it should be, by a reliable source. I mean, even if you can find a source for that, it's a simple matter to find someone else who says "there is a consensus." So, it's a can of worms to say that, in other words. That in no way denies the lack of consensus, it is just a form of editorializing that we should avoid, and, in this case, needless and gratuitous in my view. It should be clear to anyone reading the article that there is some strong and reliably sourced objections to the NSA analysis. There is, in my opinion, no need to include the statement, so omitting it is the easiest solution. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving this page.

This talk page is getting rather long but as someone not very intimate with the conversation here I don't feel comfortable archiving anything (for fear of deleting a current conversation). Would someone that is familliar with this page either archive it yourself or help me archive it (I can walk you through it pretty easy). It would save a lot of scrolling and make for a cleaner, less befuddling talk page. Padillah (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above paragraph and would also like to say that the referencing on this page is terrible, with mostly in-text links. Can these be converted to the standardised format please? I'd do it myself but this isn't one of my habitually watched pages. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A site just about anybody interested in this should look at

Here: [53] only has the best frame by frame analysis I've seen of the Z film, but gets the anatomical details right also. You can see Connally's right hand move down with great speed, entirely disappearing between Z-222 and Z-223. Too fast to be anything but a downward motion due to a bullet strike. [54].

Lets work it out. Between z222 and z223 is one frame or 55 ms. In z222 you can see about half possibly three quarters of his wrist. In z223 you can't see any of it. So his hand has moved at least half to three quarters of a wrist width or about 2-3 inches. So that is a speed of 2-3/.055 = 36-54 inches per second or about 3-4.5 feet per second or about a slow to moderate walking speed (2-3 mph). It is not possible to move one's hand at a speed of 2 - 3 miles per hour??? It stays down through z224 but reappears "suddenly" at z225 so it moves back up at the same speed as it went down. There is nothing about that motion that is out of the ordinary range of normal voluntary motion. Saskcitation (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't move your hand that fast starting from zero within 3 inches, unless you're doing something athletic. Flies would fear you! You did the problem wrong: let's see what acceleration it takes to move 10 cm (2.5 inches) = 0.1 m, from a standing start, in 0.055 sec. A = 2D/t^2 = 2*0.1/(0.055)^2 = 66 m/sec^2 = 6.75 g's. Pretty good for a hand. Suppose the hand and forearm weigh 1 kg (this is light, as my own hand is 700 g by volume). Force is mass* acceleration = 66 N = 15 lbs. Try hefting a 15 lb barbell. I doubt you pull back a hand with 15 lbs of force doing any normal social activity. And this is a lower limit, meaning we used all the time between frames, and a very light hand and forearm. It could well have been 30 lbs. The momentum for a 700 g hand moving at v = at = 66*0.055 = 3.6 m/sec is the same as for a 10.3 g bullet moving at 244 m/sec = 800 ft/sec. Well, golly, that's about right. SBHarris 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming it is not moving in z222. But we don't know that and we cannot assume it. We cannot see his wrist in z221. The natural assumption would be that what is happening between z222 and 223 is a continuation of what is happening in z221-222. So it may not be accelerating at all. In any event, how does the hand manage to reappear in z225 after being below the line of sight in z224? What is the force that is causing that? Saskcitation (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A very powerful muscular reaction that hits the man in the back. Both arms come flying up in the most violent reaction he makes the whole time. Watch it in motion.

Also, it is not clear that the "white spot" seen in z222 is actually JBC's right wrist (cuff). It may be the brim of his hat. I can't see his hand in z222 and if that is his cuff you should be able to see somthing that looks like a hand at the end of it (as in z230). The hand isn't there. Saskcitation (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but where it should be is front window frame of the car, so we can't tell. In any case, the color of the blotch is wrong to be skin, which is gold-tan for his hand and face. It's possibly a peice of white hat, but the argument is the same. It goes down fast. Yes, it could have been on the way before JBC appears, that I admit.

But now for another thing you didn't mention: what causes the tremendous blur of JBC and everything else, in Z-224? [55] And if nothing special, then why does JBC manage to move forward relative to Mrs. Kennedy just behind him, between those frames? Again, it looks like something hit him powerfully in the back. Take a look at the z223-224 comparison with Mrs. K's position held constant. She doesn't move at all relative to the rest of the car between those frames. But JBC, in front of her, is having his right shoulder rammed forward and his body pushed forard between these frames, in 1/18th of a second (you can see more of Jackie's suit), and something nasty, airblast wise, has hit this whole 224 scene which isn't there in 223. SBHarris 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: film blur. What causes the blur in about 80 percent of the frames? This is a hand-held 8 mm movie camera with a zoom lens. The shutter speed is 1/30th of a second. The subject is moving (both down and across the field of view). The film then moves in 1/50th of a second, stops and another frame is exposed. Try taking a picture of a stationary subject with a still camera at a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second and see if the results are any better than Zapruder's. Then do it with a zoom lens! Modern digital cameras recognize that some blur almost always occurs and digitally correct for it.

Re: forward motion of JBC. JBC is about to turn right around to see JFK. In order to do that he has to lean forward to allow his right shoulder to move left.

Here is a better question. Look at JBC's forward motion from z271 to z280 or so. What is causing that uniform sailing forward just before Nellie reaches over to pull him down? Also what causes the appearance of his wrist to suddenly change between z271 and z272? What causes JFK's hair to fly up on the right side of his head at z272-275 (just as SA Hickey and SA Kinney observed at the time of the second shot)? What causes the left sun visor to move forward from z271-272? What causes Greer to turn around at z280 (which he said he did immediately after the second shot)? What causes JBC to fall back at that point (which Dave Powers said he did immediately after the second shot)? Why did 48 witnesses swear that the last two shots were closer together than the first two?

Here are some more questions: Why did at least 16 witnesses say that JFK reacted to the first shot and none said he continued to smile and wave? Why did Mary Woodward say that the first shot was just as JFK turned forward after he and Jackie turned, smiled and waved at them? Why did Betzner say that the first shot was just after his z186 photo? Why did Croft say that the first shot occurred after he took his z162 photo of the President and was running down Elm St. to take another? Why did all the occupants of the VP follow-up car say that the first shot occurred when they had just turned the corner (and their car is still pointing toward the TSBD at frame z191)?

These are all very important questions that need answers. Witnesses can be wrong. But when they say the same thing, how is it that can all be wrong the same way on so many different issues? Saskcitation (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

His lapel flips up in the next frame, and his right shoulder is driven foward relative to the rest of his body. Also, this page notices something which I've never seen anywhere else, which is the obvious (when you look at it) fact that although Connally keeps hold of his hat through the whole episode, after his arm jerk at about Z-230, his wrist drops unnaturally and is completely limp. It's obviously broken. SBHarris 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing obvious about his wrist being broken at z230. It is quite possible to hold the hat with his wrist into his chest as he turns around to see JFK from z235-270. Saskcitation (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no real Western man with a Stetson ever holds the cowboy hat in a completely, totally limp-wristed way like that, unless wounded. It's gay as a bunch of posies. There's something badly wrong with Connally. And YOU are the one who says he's NOT wounded. Feh. SBHarris 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold a stetson in your right hand and turn around to look behind you. It feels to me like quite a natural position to bring the hand up to the chest like that. If the hand has a stetson in it, I don't know how else you could hold it with the hand in that position. Saskcitation (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about these images, for those reading along: [56]. There's no reason at all for Connally to hold the hat against his chest in Z-262. He could have continued to hold it in the position of Z-230 while he turned. Now remember Occam's razor, here. You have no argument that a bullet didn't come along and break this same wrist, about (what?) half a second later than you see it in Z-262? You agree on THAT. Which break, would do the same thing to it, that we see half a second earlier? And you're REALLY going to argue in that circumstance for the coincidence of all coincidences, that what we see in Z-262 just happens to be a natural motion which looks for all the world like a broken floppy wrist, since the same wrist is intact right there (says you) but due to be broken (says you) a fraction of a second LATER??! Please. In what frame are you arguing that JBC's wrist finally IS broken by the bullet? SBHarris 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the injury to the wrist was a comminuted fracture of the radius 5 cm above the wrist joint. The bullet made a hole in his french cuff about 2 cm above the end of the cuff. The radius did not break into two parts leaving it to flop around at the point of the bullet wound. The bullet blasted fragments of bone off the radius. What you see from z247-281 is a bend at the normal wrist joint. So your argument that he is holding his hand that way because his wrist is broken doesn't really hold, as far as I can see.

The radius IS broken completely in half, with the two halves non-connected. "Comminuted" means fragmented, but this is also displaced a bit, and there is a mild bend at the site. The radius is the main bone which holds the hand, so the wrist would be unstable. Of course that doesn't mean he can't hold something as light as a hat. Nothing much heavier. [57] [58] SBHarris 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Although others say "wrist" and you correctly point out that that is not accurate, the question has to be asked: Why if Connally wasn't shot through that part of his body is his hand in a strangely limp position at the frames in question. If one looks at the link in question, one sees Connally holding the hat in what we could term a "natural" position, but by 260, this same hand is in a very odd and awkward limp position. Given the sort of wound he received, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that he lost control of his hand, which would account for the awkward hand position. Canada Jack (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One could ask the question another way: how does a bullet exiting JBC's chest on a right to left trajectory strike the back of JBC's wrist rather than the medial side of the wrist? If you bring your wrist up off your lap so it can be struck by a bullet through the chest, the side of the wrist, not the back faces the chest. The answer may be that given by Dr. Shires, which was that JBC was hit while turned right (as Nellie told the Dr.) and as you turn your torso with your arm in front, the wrist naturally pronates so that the back of the wrist turns toward the chest. This is simply a physical effect cause by the bone structure of the arm. If you turn right by twisting around like that, the wrist naturally turns. It may look unnatural. Besides, there is really no evidence that this wound caused him to lose control of his hand like that. The flexor tendons in the wrist and the median nerve were undamaged. He held onto his hat all the way to Parkland. Saskcitation (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is somewhat simpler. JBC raises the hat in an extremely fast reflexive jerk and turns it "over" through 90 degrees in about one frame between z229 and z230. If you want to see the graphic, see: [59]. What I infer happens is this: Connally before the strike is riding with his right forearm held in the most natural relaxed position, thumb toward body, volar (palm) side of the hand down. That's how you sit if totally relaxed. Loosely gripped in the hand is his hat, which is sitting hole-side up (sitting on its crown) in his lap, while the forarm is on his thigh. The bullet comes through his chest, traveling down, and hits him in the thumb-side of the back of the forearm, exiting forward toward the hand, breaking the radius completely, and finally exiting the wrist at the crease between palm and forarm, passing from there directly into the thigh. The arm jerk does something remarkable: the hand comes up off the lap in a flex, and as it comes up, the forarm is rotated to be thumb forward, palm up (as you would raise an arm so your thumbs are outward and palms up), so as the hat clears the door, you see the dome of it first, because it's turned partly. In about one frame, JBC turns his wrist over again, just as the hat hits the top of its arm arc, and now the wrist rotates so that the hat flips so it is hole-forward for the first time. That's how it remains, in the same grip, througout what follows. Except the hand slowly flops forward with the wrist slowly coming up toward the head, the the hat staying hole-forward next to the chest. It stays there as JBC rotates and falls back. The whole thing looks like swatting at a fly. SBHarris 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as when I think JBC's wrist is broken: it is broken when it was struck by the second bullet. By all the evidence, that occurred closer to shot 3 than shot 1. There is an abrupt change in the appearance of his wrist and hat between z271 and z272 that fits with a shot at that point. At that point JFK's hair flies up on the right side of his head (no one else's hair moves at all). At that point JBC starts sailing forward relative to the car and everyone else in it. etc. etc. (see above). Unfortunately his wrist is out of view after that point. Saskcitation (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a very big problem here, Sask. If, as you seem to suggest, JFK's hair moves at this point owing to a presumed bullet grazing him, then striking Connally in the wrist, the rather large problem presents itself as to the angle this shot would have had to have to do this. It is not so apparent in the Zapruder film, but in the Nix film and others, JFK was in the process of leaning far to his left meaning that any shot which grazed JFK's head at that point would likely have continued on to hit Nellie Connally or her seat. Further, we are presumed to believe that shot one and shot three were both near- or direct hits as the line-of-sight from Oswald's perch was relatively stable, but shot 2 not only missed, it missed by a huge portion. While possible, it doesn't sound that plausible. And still further, it seems somewhat odd that a bullet that presumably struck Connally at 270 or so would be slowed sufficiently to not penetrate his thigh. Indeed, it's hard to see how, in the position he is sitting in, that this bullet would have deflected to his thigh. Perhaps you have a scenario as to what bullets did what damage and that question is answered? Canada Jack (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a problem at all. A shot at z270 from the SN is almost directly to the rear because the car turns left as it is going down Elm (the street curves left). So a shot missing JFK's head by less than 12 inches goes right into JBC's right armpit. Hickey particularly noticed the hair fly up at the time of the second shot and interpreted what he saw as the shot just missing JFK. Saskcitation (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find the FBI recreation of this, at the time you suggest, but I couldn't. However, JFK is leaning left at something like a 45 degree angle at frame 270, as is confirmed by other films showing the fatal shot. If you look closely at the Zapruder film, you can see this is so as where he earlier had been resting his right arm on the side of car, his right arm by 270 is flexed to the right of his body, but within the car. Hence, a shot missing JFK's head by even a foot would, if anything, hit Connally's left side. For a shot to do what you suggest, the shot would have had to have originated from someplace down Houston Street. As for your contention that the car is turning left, it would seem you are not correct here. See this diagram showing the position of the limo at 313.[60] Even there, the limo has barely entered into a gentle left-hand turn, it would not have started this turn at 270. In other words, what you suggest - a bullet brushing JFK's head and continuing on to hit the governor - simply doesn't work if the bullet was fired from the TSB. Perhaps I will contact Dale Myers to nail down the precise positioning of the limo occupants at this point to see if the trajectories work for the wound you suggest. I think that in general you have the approach to evidence backwards. We have to take the physical evidence and work backwards and see what works with the witness evidence, rather than take the witness evidence, which is often vague or contradictory, and see what seems to fit. If the trajectories don't work, in other words, it really doesn't matter what some witnesses said. Because the physical evidence refutes conclusions you are making in regards to it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this overhead trajectory diagram:[61]. JFK is definitely leaning to the left but his hips have not shifted left. Jackie has moved to her right and is holding JFK's left forearm. JFK is leaning forward so his shoulders are lower than before. At the same time, JBC has turned around and his right shoulder is over the back of the jump seat exposing his right armpit to a shot from the rear. The bullet drops about 4 inches between JFK and JBC (24 inches separation and 10 degree vertical descent). Since JFK's hair flies up, the bullet likely passed at a lower level probably just over JFK's right shoulder. Something causes JFK's hair to fly up there and Hickey and Kinney said it happened on the second shot. His hair does not move from z224-240. Saskcitation (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The diagram does not show the correct positioning of JFK. He is in the midst of toppling into Jackie at this point, and his head is almost in contact with her. Yet the diagram shows him sitting erect. How do we know he was toppling to his left? I mentioned other films which much more clearly show this, but if we want to stick to Zapruder, take a look at Z270. [62] While it is not immediately obvious what position JFK is in as we are looking downward and straight to his side and therefore JFK's lean away from us is not readily apparent, take a look at where his extended elbow is. His right arm is extended horizontally, yet it is clearly inside the limo where a few seconds earlier his arm was resting on the side of the car and his body was flush to the car. The only way for his arm to be extended in that position while remaining in the car is if he is toppling leftward towards Jackie, with his torso at something approaching 45 degrees to the left from the normal sitting position. There is no indication that he had shifted his butt to the left, just his torso seems to be moving. As I said before, this is readily apparent in the Nix film, and Zapruder himself described the president as toppling to his left before the fatal head wound. JFK's head would likely be close to the midline of the car in the diagram you link to, not dead centre within the right side of the car as you portray it. Therefore, the diagram is misleading as JFK's head would be even further into the car and therefore a bullet grazing his hair, or even missing by a few inches would continue on and completely miss Connally in the position he was in at that point. Canada Jack (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

JFK does not move very much left between z224 and z251. His elbow appears to be over or very close to the edge of the car at z251. He shifts over to the left from z251-z271, which is one second. The question is how far does his head move to the left. I have him so that the centre of his head is over the centre of his seat. The seat width is 60 inches. I don't see how his head could be 30 inches inside the car. If he leaned that far you would see his head drop significantly. I don't see it drop much relative to Jackie or the car. You also have to take into account the change in angle to Zapruder as the car is moving across Zapruder's field of view. But all of this really doesn't matter. We don't know how close the bullet came to JFK's hair in order to make it move. What matters is that JBC's right armpit is in clear view for a shot from the SN. Saskcitation (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Dale Myers on this and he said that when viewed stereoscopically, it is very apparent that JFK is leaning significantly to his left. Not sure what you mean about seeing his head drop - His head is in fact quite a bit lower than Jackie's in 270, significantly below the presumed "proper" level if we draw a parallel line along the back of the seats. Further, we can see a lot of the seat behind JFK, both behind him as he is leaning forward a bit, and to his right. And, this has to be underlined, JFK's extended elbow is partially obscured by the side of the car, which a few seconds earlier it was resting upon. As for the point that we don't know how close the presumed bullet was to JFK's head to cause his hair to move, well I don't think more than a few inches is what would work here. I'd say you are straining the lengths of credulity to suggest a bullet passing a foot or more from his head would cause his hair to jump up. In short, the position you have JFK is at odds with the evidence presented at the moment in question. Therefore there is fault with your premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a premise. It is a conclusion. All you need to determine that a shot occurred around z270 is the shot pattern evidence OR the evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot OR that the first shot occurred after z186 AND that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot. The thing to note, however, is that it fits with all of those other details (JFK's hair flies up at z272-275 - whether a bullet or a gust of wind caused it, the hair was seen to fly up at the moment of the second shot -; Greer turning z276-280; Nellie looking at JBC at 272 and pulling him down immediately after; JBC moving forwar from z272-278; appearance of wrist changing 271-272) AND it fits with the last two shots being fired by Oswald (time between z271 and z313 = 2.3 seconds). My only point is that the SBT does not fit a lot of evidence and it really isn't needed for Oswald to have fired all the shots. Saskcitation (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a premise. It is a conclusion. Your premise is that the hair moving is consistent with a bullet passing by JFK's head. Your conclusion is that this is evidence for Connally being struck by a bullet around this time. Unfortunately for your premise, JFK's torso is too far to the left to allow the trajectory you suggest, and taking one look at the diagram you link to shows that JFK's position needs to be more to the right for your conclusion to have any validity. Since Connally couldn't have been hit by any bullet fired by Oswald which also caused JFK's hair to move, you have a problem. Your only have some witness testimony to suggest that Connally was hit by a bullet at this point, but no evidence otherwise to point to this. I suggest you try to calibrate the position JFK was in at the appropriate Nix frames to see what, exactly, JFK was positioned at, because the diagram you have is not only wrong, it is demonstrably wrong as JFK's extended arm is partially obscured by the edge of the limo, meaning he is either a) shifted in his seat to the left, or b) leaning over. Canada Jack (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The premise is that the witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together were correct AND that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. This leads to the conclusion that JBC was not hit until much later than z224. OR the premise could be that the witnesses who said that the first shot struck JFK were right. If JBC was hit on the second shot, he must have been hit after JFK begins reacting. OR the premise could be that the witnesses who heard the first shot after z186 were right. Same conclusion. I am merely pointing out that a shot at z265-275, which is the time frame that it must occur IF ANY of these bodies of witness evidence is correct, is consistent with what Hickey said he observed. He said that JFK's hair flew up on the right side at the moment of the second shot. I don't agree with you that JFK was too far left, but even if you are right it doesn't make all that evidenc disappear. Hickey did not say the bullet caused his hair to fly up. He just said his hair flew up on the second shot. Maybe it was the wind. It is just that the evidence of Hickey and corroborated by Kinney is that the sound of the shot and that hair flying up occurred at the same time.

Your argument seems to be that if the bullet didn't cause it then Hickey did not see what he said he saw and the zfilm showing it is somehow wrong. Hickey could not have seen it fly up earlier, BTW, because as seen in the Altgens z255 photo[63] he is facing backward (his head is just over the driver's sunvisor). He said he turned around to the front, looked at JFK then heard the second shot and watched his hair fly up.

The FBI re-enactment of the positions at z255 is here [64]. On what basis do you say that his head is a further 15 inches left one second later? I don't see such a sudden movement. Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If he leans 45 degrees to the left, his head will move right .707 x his height above the seat and his head will drop (1-.707) x that height. If his torso is 40 inches high, his head has to drop about 12 inches and his head will move left 28 inches. His head does not drop 12 inches.

Again, you fail to grasp the point. The diagram you link to only works if JFK is seating perfectly erect. He clearly was not.

If he was perfectly erect, his head about 8 inches from the right side of the car. I put his head in the middle - about 15 inches from the left side. Saskcitation (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know where you get your numbers. I am over six feet tall. If I leaned over 45 degrees, my head lowers only several inches.

???Are you saying that your head does not obey the laws of geometry? A 45 degree lean of a 40 inche torso MEANS his head is 28 inches from the right side and it is 28 inches ABOVE his seat. Saskcitation (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you base your numbers on the assumption that a person is a one-inch-wide stick. Besides, the issue here is the placement of his head in terms of left-to-right in relation to the centre line of the car. Your trajectory can only work if the head is more or less directly above JFK's seat. Again, have you calibrated these assumptions on JFK's position with frames from the Nix film? Because the problem is, just about any lean will render your argument unworkable. Canada Jack (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is try it yourself. Put a person in the seat and get them to lean over as you see JFK and see where his head is. He is not leaning over 45 degrees. I think you will find that a 45 degree lean will cause a person to topple over.

While the precise angle of the lean may be a matter for debate, the point is he was leaning. And, indeed he was toppling into Jackie. So, I ask you again, since if he was leaning significantly to his left this might affect your assumptions about a shot at 270, have you calibrated his position with, say, the Nix film?

Maybe not, if you're wearing a back-brace. If you look at the Moorman polaroid photo, taken about 3 frames after the fatal heat shot (before his body has time to move), he's leaning a LONG way over. Looks like it could well be 45 degrees. SBHarris 01:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW Dale Myers has a lot invested in the SBT being correct. Furthermore he refuses to reveal the data on which he bases the trajectory and seating positions etc. Ask him to program JFK leaning to the left to a 45 degree angle and show us what it looks like.Saskcitation (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment, Sask. If you knew Mr Myers, you would know that he was convinced of a conspiracy. But the difference between his assumptions and his approach to investigating all this is that he didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence in front of him, unlike many in this field. And when he did his recreation of the assassination, he was forced to admit that any conspiracy based on the bullets that struck the occupants of the car was, quite simply, wrong. So he embraced the SBT. But he does not call it the Single Bullet Theory, he calls it the Single Bullet Fact.

I know. Do you think he is going to change his mind? He ignores the witness evidence. He even admits he does. He can't explain why it is so consistent. He just says it is wrong. I don't ignore it. I don't know if you have ever done a complex trial, but I have done many and I can tell you that that kind of evidence would be extremely significant to any trier of fact.

He "ignores" witness testimony when it contradicts the physical evidence. If witness x says he was looking at JFK when he was shot in the head, but the Zapruder film shows witness x looking elsewhere, then it is reasonable to conclude witness x is wrong.

Of course. But no one said they were looking at JFK when he was shot in the head but is seen in the zfilm to be looking elsewhere. The other shots that are not unequivocally captured at a certain frame of the zfilm. So when a witness says they were looking at JFK when the second shot occurred and they are not looking at him when you think the second shot occurred, and when dozens of other witnesses say the same thing, you can't just reject his evidence. Rather you should rethink your opinion as to when the second shot occurred. That is all I am saying. Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your approach seems to be "witnesses are infallible," ignore the physical evidence, then come up with some convoluted scenario to make the testimony fit. So, in this case, conclude that another bullet must have struck JFK in the head. Not sure what kind of success you would have in a trial if you declared as you have here there is "no" evidence for a bullet at 160 or a bullet striking the pavement then and that "no one" "ever" claimed as much, then be presented with what I and Harris have presented which show that many in fact did claim as much. I'd say your credibility at a trial would start to plummet rather quickly.

Not at all. Witnesses are fallible. You seem to think that means they are always worthless. Well, they aren't. And the courts don't think so either. The key is to determine when they are reliable. I am saying that they are reliable when you have several independent witnesses independently reporting the same observation. And when that fits with the rest of the evidence, it is reliable. That is what we have here.Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't say that witnesses are worthless. Indeed, the entire premise that there were three and only three shots chiefly rests on the fact the overwhelming majority of witnesses say there were three (or fewer) shots. The problem with what you term "reliable" is that you seem to have no further basis for establishing that other than others saying essentially the same thing.

No. I say that if the overwhelming majority of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY recalled seeing the same thing then they are reliable. Independence is the key. You must conclude that they accurately observed the same event if there is nothing that could have made them all make the same mistake for the same reason. You will never get this kind of convergence of INDEPENDENT witness evidence that will conflict with unequivocal physical evidence. It doesn't happen in real life and it did not happen anywhere in the JFK assassination. If this kind of evidence conflicts with an "Expert" interpretation of physical evidence, you should question the accuracy of that opinion. That is what I am saying here. The "expert" interpretations of the zfilm as to the time of the second shot conflict with large bodies of independent witness observations - ie not the physical evidence itself but someone's theory about it. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And that once you have that, then you construct elaborate scenarios to trump the physical evidence which suggests otherwise. While it is true that if 20 people said "a" happened and only one or two said "b" and we'd likely go with what the majority of people said, if we are presented with physical evidence that in fact points to "b," that isn't negated simply because the witnesses said otherwise. Your problem is that your scenario does not fit in with the physical evidence, and some things we would expect - like the presence of a third bullet, entrance wounds for Connally which are not indicative of a tumbling bullet, etc., are not there. And you have yet to convincingly suggest why this is so. We have. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The physical evidence you point to is equivocal. If you have 20 witnesses who independently recalled "a" and your interpretation of the physical evidence says "b" your interpretation has to be questioned. 20 out of 22 witnesses do not, in real life, independently recall observing something and get it wrong the same way unless there is a common reason (such as the lighting changing the observed colour of something). Saskcitation (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But in terms of what Myers did, my point is that he didn't let his preconceptions rule his interpretation, and he did what it seems you are not willing to do - gather all the physical evidence together to try to reconstruct what happened. For example, is the premise that JFK and Connally were struck by the same bullet falsifiable? Sure, if you could establish that they were in the wrong position at the presumed bullet impact. Alas, he discovered that not only were they in the right position when JFK is first seen to react, any bullet exiting JFK had to hit Connally. What I am asking, given Myers approach, is whether you did a similar analysis to determine JFK's exact position at the time in question. This is an issue of being able to falsify a premise. If your premise can't be tested by the evidence, it remains mostly conjecture.

What is the conjecture in suggesting that the 48 witnesses who said the the last two shots were distinctly closer together were right? On what conceivable basis can that evidence be rejected? Myers ignores it. So, Myers may have a neat theory but it doesn't fit the evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

48 witnesses saying two bullets closer together does not negate evidence that shows Kennedy to be in the wrong position at the time in question. That is what you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

No. I am saying that 48 witnesses do not negate the correct physical evidence. It only conflicts with what you think is evidence showing JFK to be in the wrong position. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Myers and others have looked at the physical evidence and concluded it closely matches what many witnesses in fact said. Other witnesses had different interpretations, but those interpretations are by nature subjective and can't negate other physical evidence. So far, we do have witnesses suggesting a shot at around Z160, and other evidence which seems to corroborate that - in terms of the reactions of the occupants in the car, etc. What is clear is that, so far, you've presented much less physical evidence for your contention that there was a bullet which struck between c.z224 and z313. Indeed, it exists almost completely on witness evidence you are interpreting to make your scenario. But, as I have shown, we are seeing things in terms of the physical evidence that does not match what we'd expect if your scenario was correct. That would mean either some witnesses were simply wrong, or you are interpreting what they said wrongly. Or a combination of the two. Geez, even two of the closest witnesses to the assassination disagreed when they testified, and they were sitting next to each other, the Connallys!

Why do you say the Connallys disagreed? If the second shot was at z272, they agree quite well. It is only if you insist the second shot was at z224 do you get a problem.Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who seems to spend a lot of time in court, I'd say you'd know better than most that there are often irreconcilable points of views from different witnesses on the same events. But I would also add that you haven't likely been involved in a case where you have such a wealth of physical evidence to test many of these witness statements. Canada Jack (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Witnesses disagree on occasion and when they do you have to determine who saw what, their motives to lie, their ability to observe, collusion between witnesses, suggestions made by investigators etc.: ie. the things that make their observations not independent. In this case, there are too many witnesses who all observed the same thing INDEPENDENTLY ie. there is nothing to suggest that there was collusion, suggestions by investigators etc. Nor were they all independently lying. If they were independently lying their lies would be all over the place. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, there were other images from the same point of time, or very near the same point of time to test your premise. And if JFK was as far to the left as it seems he was in the Muchmore image, the Nix film, then your premise that his hair moves, indicating a bullet narrowly missing, then striking Connally in the manner you suggest will not work. Now, if you were at trial, the opposing lawyer could make the rather pointed remark, if you fall back on what the various witnesses said, and that remark would be "why ignore the physical evidence?" If you determine JFK's precise position more accurately, this would either corroborate your theory or negate it. But why ignore it? And if I was that lawyer, I'd go one better and produce that other image or images, which show JFK almost collapsing into Jackie's arms and say the overhead diagram is wrong and therefore this particular scenario is wrong. Here are the positions at the head strike, frame 313[65] As one can quite clearly see in the reenactment frame, the agent playing JFK is leaning over to his left at something like a 45 degree angle. Of course, this is some 43 frames after the point in question. The frame number for the Muchmore image at this point is 42. Frame 19 is here [66], which would (assuming the frame counts were similar) correspond with z290. As one can quite clearly see, JFK is in the same position as he is in later, leaning over at something like a 45 degree angle. Are therer earlier Muchmore frames to examine? Here is a copy of Muchmore [67] with the frame counts, and though it is hard to see here, it does seem that JFK is indeed leaning into Jackie at the same position (and therefore at something approaching 45 degrees) around Z270, again assuming constant frame counts (frame 1 Muchmore would correspond to z271). Then, take a look at where JFK's head is in the reenactment image and tell me that a shot fired and just missing, even by a foot, would strike Connally in the manner you suggest. That bullet would sail into the midline of the car, and Connally's wife would have been more likely the one getting hit. And you believe a judge and jury would ignore this evidence and instead embrace witnesses who say otherwise? I don't see how you could win this particular point, Sask. Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The FBI re-enactment done for the Warren Commission in 1964 is wrong, and is one of prime SOURCES of all the hell about the trajectory of the Magic Bullet, ala Stone, ever since! If you look at the car used, it's basically the same model as the trailing VP car (Johnson's Queen Mary, which was a 1955 Cadillac convertable). See the car *behind* JFK's 1961 Lincoln in the Algens photo- a near match (for all I know, they used this very car for the reenactment). If you look at the Cady, it has no jump seats, just a divider and 4 (more or less equal) passenger seats, behind the driver seats. You can see the solid divider between the two passenger seats in the Caddy in the "reenactment" telescopic sight views. All this allows the FBI to get Connally's position in the Lincoln wrong (as you see through the sight), which puts everything else wrong. So forget it. The KGB at least used the right car! And so, later, did Myers. So see Myers. SBHarris 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that JFK's head was over the middle of the car at z271, suggesting this is seen in the Muchmore film. If he was that far left, his head and Jackie's heads would be practically touching. But the Muchmore film does not show that. It shows a significant separation between JFK and Jackie at that point. The separation does change significantly by z313 (which fits the zfilm showing JFK and Jackie getting closer together up to z313. At z271 JFK appears to me to be about as far left as the FBI showed him to be in their reconstruction at z255. Of course, the FBI used the wrong car (they used the Queen Mary because the Presidential Lincoln was being re-worked). That created some serious misrepresentations of the relative positions of JBC and JFK at z207 which prevented the WC from seeing alternative paths for the neck bullet. But the car has little to do with their recreation of the amount of lean of JFK.

It looks to me like we will just have to join issue here and say that we just disagree on how far JFK is leaning left at z271. Saskcitation (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that JFK is leaning far over to the left at z313. I agree. At 319 he is practically prostrate. What does this have to do with his position at z271, 2.3 seconds earlier? At z271 he is sitting up and is in virtually the same position that he was at z255 about a second earlier and, as shown in the FBI reconstruction, his head is just to the left of a bullet from the SN going into JBC's right armpit. Where is the sideways motion evident in frames z255-271? From about z280 to z313 the car is sideways to Zapruder so it is harder to see JFK leaning left because it is directly away from the camera. Saskcitation (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that JFK is leaning far over to the left at z313. I agree. At 319 he is practically prostrate. What does this have to do with his position at z271, 2.3 seconds earlier? Do you some sort of blind spot which prevents you from reading evidence that might counter your arguments? I suggested a calibration with the Muchmore film, and suggest that that film, in its early frames (which correspond to about z271) show Kennedy in the exact position I have suggested. Again, why are you ignoring physical evidence here which might further clarify the issue? BTW, there is a way to see how far JFK is leaning in the Zapruder film, and that is by looking at the sequence in question stereoscopically. Canada Jack (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All you see in the Muchmore film is a view from the side opposite Zapruder. There is a significant separation between JFK's head and Jackie's. He appears to be leaning mostly forward. You get a much better view in the zfilm. Again, I am not ignoring the physical evidence, if you mean the photographic evidence. I am simply saying that correct interpretation of ambiguous photographic evidence requires examining the rest of the evidence. I am simply saying that it is much more likely to be correct if it fits the evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JFK and Connally not only probably were hit by the same bullet around Z224, they had to have been hit by the same bullet. And this was based on the trajectories which dictated not only where bullets striking flesh had to go but where they had to come from. It would seem that your approach is to find witnesses which seem to suggest the bullet sequence you assume, then ignore or pretend evidence to the contrary does not exist, or used extremely strained logic to dismiss what seems readily apparent - that Connally is reacting to a bullet strike at 230 - while suggesting "evidence" that only you seem to see significant - that rustled hair indicates another bullet at 270, etc.

Your point would be persuasive if it was not possible for the left thigh to have been hit directly.Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in the interest of accuracy, I ask you again, since you seem to be pretending that any lean by JFK at 270 or so was not significant, have you in fact ensured the accuracy of this assumption by calibrating JFK's position from one of the several films made on the opposite side of Elm from Zapruder? Or will you not bother in case the other films suggest you are wrong on this and therefore the trajectories will not work? Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And, again, the lean is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his hair flies up at that point. The reason is irrelevant. What is important is that two witnesses oberved it at the same time as the second shot. Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sask: Just to clarify, what is the sequence you are suggesting here and the damage done by the specific bullets? Is JFK hit in the back by a bullet which also passed through Connally circa Z220? And then a second bullet which stuck only Connally in the wrist and thigh circa z271? Then the fatal head shot? Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The sequence that fits the evidence is the sequence described by Nellie and John Connally: First shot through JFK's neck. Second shot strikes JBC in the back. Third shot hits JFK in the head. Those are the primary striking targets. This is the sequence that is also supported by the other witnesses. According to the witnesses, the first shot was after z186 (22 witnesses) and struck JFK (16 witnesses). So there could only be one shot from Oswald's rifle by the time JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign showing clear signs of his neck wound. This is also the necessary conclusion from the evidence of Altgens, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and about 48 witnesses who said that the space between second and third shots was noticeably shorter than the space between the first and second (meaning there was only one shot before the midpoint between shots 1 and 3).Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, as far as what the bullets struck in addition to those primary targets, is a little more difficult to determine since we do not have direct evidence (no one said what the bullet through JFK's neck struck, or how JBC's wrist and thigh were hit or how the damage to the windshield and frame or the curb near Tague were caused). It is pretty clear that the first shot through JFK did not stop in JFK. It made a hole in his shirt and nicked his tie. It struck no solid bone in JFK. It likely continued in a straight line - downward at 18 degrees and right to left at about 12 degrees. That means it must have crossed the plane of JBC's jump seat to the left of centre. The first bullet did not strike JBC in the back, according to all the witnesses. It did not strike the car (it would have left a mark of some kind and there was none). It did not strike JBC's right wrist (the position is not right). That leaves only one other thing that was struck: the thigh. This possibility was never investigated because the FBI reenactment using the wrong car showed no such path from JFK's neck to JBC's thigh. The first shot is after z162 (Croft) after z186 (Betzner) after z191 (VP followup car witnesses) after z197 (Mary Woodward)and before z202 (Philip Willis) and before z204 (Rosemary Willis turns suddenly). That makes it pretty narrow - z197-202. Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The second shot was after the midpoint between the first and third shots, so it was after z258 (half way between z197 and 313). This fits with Altgen's recollection that his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shot. It was enough after z258 so as to be perceptibly closer to z313 than to z197. SA Hickey and SA Kinney noticed JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head at the moment of the second shot. Greer noticed a concussion from the second shot and he immediately turned around. Tague said he thought he was hit on the second shot (he wasn't entirely sure but that was his view because he was pretty sure it was not the first and he heard a shot after he was hit). Nellie said that JBC was visibly moved by the second shot and she did not look back to the back seat after the second shot . Examining the zfilm, we see JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head from z272 to z275. We see a change in appearance of JBC's right wrist from z271-272. His wrist is in a position where the chest exit and wrist entry wounds are together with the back of his wrist against the front of his chest. We see Greer looking forward are z270 but is turned around at z280. We see the top of the left sunvisor move at z271-72. And we see JBC start sailing forward uniformly between z272-280 as he is then pulled down by Nellie. We see Nellie looking back at JFK at z255 but not looking back after z270. All of this fits a second shot between z270 and z272 narrowly missing JFK's head, striking JBC in the right armpit (which is fully exposed over the back of the jump seat and facing the sniper's nest), striking the right wrist and fragments deflecting up off the radius (one small fragment continuing through the wrist or perhaps a bone fragment) striking the windshied, frame and going on to strike Tague. Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The third shot obviously struck JFK in the head at z312-313. Possibly a fragment struck the windshield or frame. Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Several real problems with this. One is the bullet should not have slowed down enough, after passage through JFK's neck, to only make a superficial thigh wound. A reenactment with two ballistic-gell, hide and bone bodies, has the bullet go through JFK, keyhole through JFB's chest, go on through the wrist (the correct side also), and then BOUNCE off the thigh. It hit two ribs rather than one, so the slightly less penetration is explained. Remove the whole chest and wrist and you have a bullet which should have penetrated thigh deeply, not gone in an inch or so and fallen out spontaneously on a stretcher.

  Second, you have the same problem if you want a primary bullet to hit Connally freshly in the armpit without hitting anything first. THAT bullet should be traveling nose-on, and exit nose on, as the JFK neck shot clearly was. It wasn't-- it was traveling side-on and clearly tumbling. This very stable 160 gr 6.5 mm bullet is not tumbled easily-- it's a tremendously long, thin, and gyrostable bullet. When it hit Connally, as we see by his keyhole coat and wounds, it had ALREADY hit something substantial. Reenactments show it doing exactly that if it passes though a JFK mockup without hitting sig bone. It has room to tumble between the two men and hit side on. But not unless. So that's two major problems in your scenario. Nevermind that it requires the 2nd shot going through Connally to then basically jump out of the car and never be seen again, when the angle is wrong for that also. So, problem #3 SBHarris 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

REPLY by Saskcitation (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC) You make some fair points. But the real problem is separating plausible opinion from scientific fact. You cannot state with certainty that a bullet through JFK's neck would not have caused JBC's thigh wound. There is at least one way that this could happen, and it is exactly what Dr. Shires offered in his testimony to both the WC and the HSCA: the bullet struck the thigh at an oblique angle.

First, we don't really know how fast the bullet would have been moving after passing through JFK's neck because no one has actually duplicated the shot with ballistic gel and human skin. Living skin has the stopping power of 6 inches of ballistic gel and this extra stopping power has been omitted from all the re-enactments that have been done to date.

Second, If it was tumbling (as would be the case after passing through JFK and losing its rotation and stability) and struck butt-first in the thigh (as Dr. Gregory said it appeared to be the mark of an intact bullet striking butt first) at an oblique angle (as Dr. Shires observed), the bullet could easily have caused that wound in the thigh and exited either later or at that time (perhaps bouncing off something in front and landing in JBC's clothing).

The problem with any other explanation is that the facts simply do not fit. Either you have to believe that JBC and Nellie were hallucinating as were about 43 observers who heard a long pause after the first shot and two quick last shots (that pattern makes it impossible to have more than one shot before JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign), or you must conclude that the shots were just as all the witnesses described. If the latter, the first shot must have struck JBC in the thigh after passing through JFK's neck. Oddly enough, the trajectory is also perfect.

Saskcitation (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

>> MAGIC BULLET THEORY is a mass media theory and has no relation to this article! Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.148.225.5 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The missed shot

I have omitted most of the text for the section on the missed shot for the very simple reasons there are a) no explanation as to why there is a "problem" with the SBT requiring a missed shot (given that the WC identifies witnesses which could place any of the three shots as the "missed shot" - including the third) and b) because the "witnesses" who it was claimed say ALL bullets struck the occupents most certainly do not support the contention that all three bullets indeed did so, with the sole exception of Nellie Connally who said JFK was hit, then her husband (John Connally, btw, claims he was hit with the second bullet, but from his description that "first bullet" could have been fired at 160 as he didn't see JFK and his self-described movements match his reaction from that point). NONE of the other witnesses noted who heard or saw JFK struck with the first bullet say that they then saw Connally or JFK hit with a second bullet (besides the fatal head wound). The closest is Newman who describes a second shot, then Connally grabbing his chest, which appears to be more consistent with Nellie pulling him towards her. Indeed some, such as Hill and the Chisms, only heard TWO shots, so can't be used as a witness to claim all three shots hit their mark when, obviously, they only heard and saw two hit their mark.

The section, IOW, needs to be rewritten to clarify why, if Kennedy was struck with the first bullet, that this somehow negates the SBT when the WC itself doesn't seem to have a problem as they suggest scenarios whereby a second bullet missed (fired around 255) or a third bullet missed (just before the limo went into the underpass). Canada Jack (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Basics

This article is far too long and detailed, while at the same lacks in-line citations for many of its claims. It is biased throughout, nowhere providing a clear, concise and objective description. For example, the introduction contains a sarcastic criticism of the theory. The remarkable length of this talk page and the theory-wars within it is indicative of authors who misunderstand the basic function of an encyclopedia.