Talk:Single-bullet theory

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 occupants 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).

I have to disagree. You are expressing a POV. This article should deal with the evidence. There is a very good explanation provided: the problem with the "missed shot" is that there is abundant evidence that each of the three shots struck, as I have pointed out in the section now (just re-added the parts that you removed with some changes to clarify the point). If each struck, then obviously there was no missed shot and no SBT. (There is also no evidence of what this alleged missed shot struck). It is not necessary for each of the witnesses to provide evidence that all three shots struck. I am not sure why that should be an issue at all. It is rarely the case that a single witness provides all the evidence. AMSask (talk)

09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

What about Nellie Connally? She saw JFK reacting before the second shot and saw that her husband was hit by the second shot. Again, why does the same person have to see what both shots struck? None of the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot gave evidence that is inconsistent with the second shot striking JBC. Both Nellie and Gov. Connally said that he was hit in the back by the second bullet. Powers said that JBC disappeared on the second shot. Gayle Newman said he grabbed his stomach on the second shot. There is not one witness who gave evidence that is inconsistent with JBC receiving the second bullet.AMSask (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

JFK being struck with the first bullet negates the current "second shot SBT". The "first shot SBT" has been all but abandoned, it seems. In any event, it is not that the first bullet hit eliminates the SBT. The point is that there is evidence that the first, second and third bullets all struck in the limo. All of that evidence, together, negates the SBT because if there were only three shots and each of the shots struck, there was no missed shot. The missed shot is essential to the SBT. AMSask (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, Sask. The issue is not whether one can build a case that all three shots hit the car or the occupants. The issue is why is this relevant? The WC didn't seem to think it was particularly relevant to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. AS for the "second shot SBT," you seem to gloss over - or perhaps are not are aware - that the WC itself wasn't sure which was the missed shot. Your argument that all three shots hit is fine and dandy, but the way you have inserted it fails to state why it is significant (even if correct) and borders on OR. Besides, the WC had very good reasons to conclude that one bullet hit two people, and one missed. The evidence you cited was considered, and the WC concluded otherwise, as did the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

??Your question is rather odd, since this is a section about the SBT, not about the Warren Commission's conclusion about who shot JFK. The Warren Commission also said the SBT was not needed to support the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. By your standard, there should be no Wiki article on the SBT because the SBT itself is irrelevant. But here we are discussing the SBT. This is not an article about the WC or its ultimate conclusion. So the relevance of this evidence to the WC conclusion is not even an issue.

It seems rather obvious that evidence that all three shots struck JFK or JBC is relevant to the SBT, since the SBT requires that one shot did not strike them. It is important for the reader to know that the SBT does not fit this evidence. That is all I am pointing out.

You removed the parts for a reason that is patently incorrect: irrelevance. I wish to have these parts reinstated. This evidence that all three shots hit JFK or JBC is quite relevant to whether a shot missed, which is the essence of the SBT. But I am going to be polite and not simply reinstate them without giving you a chance to respond. If you can show that the evidence that each of the three shots struck someone is irrelevant to the issue of whether one of the shots did not strike someone, then be my guest.AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not doing this simply because of the past debate above. Putting aside my critique of the theory that all three bullets struck, assuming that your evidence for this is iron-clad and the argument cogent, the basic question of why this is relevant has to be answered as does the basic question for the purposes of wikipedia who claims that this is an issue and who claims all three bullets struck.(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The raison d'etre of this whole wikipedia page is to explain the SBT and show the evidence for and against it. The SBT can only be correct if one bullet did not strike someone inside the limo. This evidence is relevant, not to the WC conclusion, but to the SBT.AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way I see this as relevant - i.e., the negation of the SBT - is if it somehow implies there was another gunman. If it only, as you suggests, means an alternate sequence of shots, different from what the WC or HSCA suggests, but still concluding that Oswald did it, then it's not relevant. If you want to argue that, well, the evidence suggests that, notwithstanding the claims of others that the SBT is crucial to explain how Oswald, alone, fired the shots, Oswald could have landed all the shots, then as far as I know that is original research and has no place here unless someone is making that precise argument, ie., the SBT is not "crucial" because evidence suggests all three bullets found their mark. AS it stands, Sask, this appears to be your own pet theory, as I am unaware of anyone making this claim. Canada Jack (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is not about who shot JFK. It is about the SBT. The negation of the SBT is relevant only to whether the SBT is correct. Whether the SBT is correct is the issue. By your standard, one can only question the SBT if one is a conspiracy advocate. That not a NPOV position. With all respect, such a position has no place in this Wikipedia article. If you cannot tell us why evidence that all three shots hit is not relevant to whether one of the three shots missed, then you cannot say this evidence is not relevant to the SBT. So tell us, why is this evidence not relevant to whether one of the three shots missed? AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You suggest that the negation of the SBT is not important unless it implies there was another gunman. But negation of the SBT would not imply another gunman; Nor would it imply there was a lone gunman. What implies another gunman is the conclusion that JFK and JBC are reacting to being shot (JFK through the neck and JBC in the back) at Zapruder frame 230. This is why the SBT was first raised. Until April 1964, the FBI thought that JBC was simply turning around to see JFK from 230-270 and that he was hit around z275. Saskcitation (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp some pertinent points here, Sask. The issue is not the cogency of the argument that three bullets from Oswald's gun struck the limousine. Nor whether this is truly relevant (though I don't think it truly is, at least the WC pretended it wasn't). The issue is whether any source is making this argument. In other words, if we want a section here which argues that the SBT is wrong because evidence suggest all three bullets from Oswald's gun in fact struck the occupants of the car, then we have to have a source saying the SBT is wrong because evidence is there that all three bullets struck the occupants of the car.

Your condescension is inappropriate. I had no difficulty understanding the pertinent points you made before. I addressed them. You are now saying something quite different. First you say it is not relevant to an article on the SBT to point out evidence that all three shots struck occupants of the car. Obviously that argument doesn't fly. So you change your argument now and say that the real reason for your objection is that there is no source making this argument. It is pretty difficult to address a moving target, which is what your objections seem to be.

First of all, why do you view the reference to this evidence as an argument? It is simply stating the fact that this evidence exists and it is relevant and important because, if true, means the SBT must be wrong. To simply point out that there is evidence that all three shots hit is not to make an argument. It is to state a fact - that such evidence (a rather abundant amount) exists. Nothing more. The reader, when assessing the evidence for and against the SBT, will be able to understand it and evaluate it.

Second, the WC itself made the argument. It took painstaking effort to point out the evidence that each of the three shots hit. That it why it could not conclude which of the shots missed - precisely because there is abundant evidence that each shot struck. The reader should know this in order to assess the reliability of the WC's belief that the SBT is correct. AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, I do not suggest that there is a "requirement" that you have to be a conspiracy theorist to doubt the SBT. I point out that many conspiracy theorists doubt the SBT, but that they doubt it for entirely different reasons and I am unaware of any of them arguing that in fact all three bullets said to have been fired by Oswald found their mark. Therefore, what you are arguing here is something else, as far as I know a novel suggestion, and therefore Original Research.

But I am not arguing anything in the article. Nor should I be. I am simply pointing out facts - ie. that this evidence exists. My reasons for pointing this out are irrelevant and are not part of the article. This section of the article is under the general heading "Criticisms of the SBT" (the article should be restructured to show this clearly. All of the sections that follow this are criticisms down to the popular culture section). The fact that evidence that each shot struck is evidence that is fundamentally inconsistent with the SBT. This evidence must be taken into consideration when evaluating the evidentiary basis of the SBT. Now, if I have misquoted or misrepresented that evidence, you can object.

And, let's be clear here. Even if you have each and every quote here suggesting that three bullets struck properly sourced and cited, the argument that three bullets from Oswald's gun struck is the over-arching conclusion which needs to be sourced. Who is suggesting this? So far, only you as far as I can tell. And, again, this is not a comment on the strength of the argument you are making, just a problem that you seem to be the only one making it, therefore it is Original Research.

Well, the FBI was suggesting it until April 1964. So it is hardly original research. Any reader reading this evidence may suggest it to themselves. Mark Fuhrman (Simple Act of Murder, Harper, 2006) rejects the SBT for these reasons and others but still maintained that Oswald did all the shooting. The reader can look at this evidence and decide for themselves. AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But a note on relevance. The WC didn't say the issue was crucial, but the HSCA did. If the SBT was wrong, as the HSCA and many others have suggested, then that meant there had to be a second assassin firing from the rear. Literally hundreds have made this precise assertion on the importance of the theory to the WC's conclusion. But you are suggesting something entirely different - that the SBT was not crucial to the WC's conclusion. Unless you, again, have someone arguing that the SBT was not crucial (and the WC doesn't count because they said two, not three bullets struck), then we can't insert text which suggest precisely that. So, without an argument from someone, the issue is irrelevant as the only dispute sourced is whether a second gunman was present. Canada Jack (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The FBI (until April 1964) and Mark Fuhrman (2006) have maintained that all three bullets hit JFK or JBC. Re the HSCA: The HSCA was spectacularly wrong on a lot of things. The only reason the HSCA thought that the SBT was critical to the lone assassin conclusion was because it ignored the evidence of the shot spacing. Heck, it ignored all the evidence that there were only three shots too. Look where it got them.

What Wiki rule are you referring to here anyway? Is there a rule that says that facts cannot be mentioned unless they form part of someone's published theory? If not, then you have to let these facts get mentioned.

By your standards, one cannot point out the shot pattern evidence. The shot pattern evidence is inconsistent with a second shot SBT if there were only 3 shots in total. So it is relevant to the SBT. The WC pointed out the shot pattern evidence but it did not make an argument about it at all. What is wrong with pointing it out here? AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta apologize here, Sask. A re-reading of the article reveals a basic problem - there is no discussion as to the relevance of the SBT to the WC's conclusions, nor a discussion as to how the WC came up with the SBT in the first place. Because if there was - and there most definitely should be - then the problems I have identified become clear.

For example, the whole premise of this section is that the theory "requires" that a shot missed. Which in itself is ludicrous, because the original assumption was that all three bullets struck.

Not only is the premise not ludicrous, it is demonstrably correct. The essence of the SBT is that one bullet caused JFK's throat wound and all of JBC's wounds. The head shot accounts for the other bullet. If that is the case, a pristine third bullet could not strike anyone or anything in the car. That is not "theory". That is just unassailable logic. (Fragments from one of the other shots struck the windshield/frame but they were certainly not a direct hit from a pristine bullet).Saskcitation (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is what the FBI concluded in their initial report. However, as the WC gathered evidence they were struck by two problems: 1) only two bullets seemed to have been recovered and 2) JFK and Connolly seem to be reacting too close together to have been hit by separate bullets fired by Oswald. Therefore, far from "requiring" that a shot missed, the theory was created to account for the lack of a third bullet and evidence which suggested that JFK and Connally were struck by the same bullet.

This is not the basis for the SBT. The basis for the SBT is the following: 1) The bullet through JFK had to have hit something in the car. The only thing it could have hit was JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet: in the back; and 2) If JBC is reacting by z240, as FBI "expert" Robert Frazier stated (except that he said this is the case only if the bullet did not change direction in passing through JBC) there is not enough time for two shots to be fired from Oswald's gun if Oswald did not make the first shot while the car was obscured by the tree (which the WC thought was until z210). The WC mentions both (at WR p. 106 and 111) but relies mainly on 1):

"From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President’s neck and then most probably passed through the Governor’s body, (b) a subsequent shot penetrated the President’s head, (c) no other shot struck any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants." WR 111

"Based on the evidence analyzed in this chapter, the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds." WR 117

Also see generally: Belin, Final Disclosure (New York: Scribners, 1988), chapter 7. See also: “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt”, Life Magazine, Vol 61, No. 22, November 25, 1966, p. 48B. Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we add a section which traces a) the evolution of the SBT and b) explains why it was crucial to explain a single gunman. It's a bit ridiculous on this page to have sections of minutia explaining every layer of clothing pierced by the single bullet with virtually no discussion as why the WC concluded there had to be a single bullet. Which is a fundamental point.

The article can certainly be improved. A section on the evolution of the SBT from the first shot SBT (thought to be the consensus of those in the WC who supported the SBT) to the second shot SBT (HSCA, Posner) would be useful. The way in which the theory has changed shows how uncertain the evidentiary basis is for the SBT. But I would disagree on having the article state as a fact that the SBT is crucial to explaining the single gunman. It is only crucial for explaining the single gunman if the second premise is accepted (see above).Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is there where the evidence for a third bullet to strike - and the WC's reasons for rejecting that theory - should lie. It is, after all, what the FBI concluded initially and why they rejected that theory is important to note. IOW, we don't need a section which says why the SBT requires a missed bullet, we need a section which explains why the WC and the HSCA says only one bullet caused the damage and why that is crucial to their conclusion as to their being a single gunman. Canada Jack (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the WC did not outright reject the "theory" that three bullets struck. (It is not really a theory anyway. It is what the witnesses said occurred - hence my references to the evidence. The "theory" is that the evidence is mistaken.) The WC simply said that it is probable that all the wounds were caused by two bullets and one bullet, therefore, missed. Only 4 of the 7 WC members accepted the SBT (Sen. Richard Russell, Rep. Hale Boggs and Sen. John Cooper disagreed but accepted the conclusion so, presumably they did not reject the three shots three strikes scenario).

I don't see why we should not reinstate the references to the evidence for each shot hitting. If you like, we can just set out the evidence from the WR from the section on the Shot that Missed. How could you object to that? Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the premise not ludicrous, it is demonstrably correct.

Sask, with respect, you seem not to be able to see the forest here for the trees. This is an article about the SBT. This article should therefore trace why the WC came up with the theory and why it is important to their conclusion. Therefore, to have a section which states "the SBT requires a missed bullet" is ludicrous as that issue is something which properly should be considered within the evolution of the SBT, not as a counter to it.

Any difficulty in seeing the forest is because you keep moving the trees. First you say:

"For example, the whole premise of this section is that the theory "requires" that a shot missed. Which in itself is ludicrous, because the original assumption was that all three bullets struck. "

Now you appear to be withdrawing the words in italics and substituting the words: "as that issue is something which properly should be considered within the evolution of the SBT, not as a counter to it."

With all due respect, this argument of yours makes no sense. The reason the "missed shot" is a criticism of the SBT is because the SBT implies a missed shot and there is really very good evidence that each of the shots struck a target in the car. It is really that simple. The WC realised this but could not solve the mystery of which shot missed. It never reached a conclusion. The WC pointed out the abundant evidence that the first and third shots struck. However, it glossed over the evidence that the second shot struck. It suggested (likely from John McCloy) that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot but did not feel it. This, obviously, was not accepted by the Connallys who carried their distinct recollections of the second shot hitting and the impact that Nellie saw and the Governor felt all their lives. Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

IOW, the WC realized that the evidence as they saw it required two bullets, not three, as there were only two bullets they could account for. You have it precisely backwards. As if they come up with a theory which, by omission, required one bullet to disappear. The problem was there was no third bullet!

Arlen Spector came up with the SBT to solve the problem presented by the two issues set out above. You really should at least read the Warren Report, if not Belin's book. This is not the reason the SBT was created. This is a matter of record, not opinion. The SBT was created because the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet. This was the main reason given by Specter and by the WC. The other reason for the SBT, which Belin cites as the main reason for the SBT (Belin was a Commission lawyer as was Specter) was that if JBC was hit in the chest by z240, as they started to believe by April 1964, there was not enough time for two shots to have been fired by Oswald.

If that is the case, a pristine third bullet could not strike anyone or anything in the car. That is not "theory". That is just unassailable logic. But there was no third bullet. Three shots were fired according to the vast majority of witnesses, three bullet shells were found, but this extra bullet was not found. The presumption by the WC and the HSCA is that this missing bullet missed the limo entirely.

Are you just making this up? Where in the Warren Report do you see the WC concluding the SBT must be correct because the fragments in the car did not come from two bullets? The WC actually said:

"Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification. However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets." WR 85

This is not the basis for the SBT. The basis for the SBT is the following Seems you are rather confused on this point, Sask. You are referring to the alignment and the testimony from Frazier which came after the creation of the SBT. How could the SBT have anticipated Frazier's testimony? No, the SBT came about once it was realized only two bullets were accounted for and an examination of the Zapruder film revealed that JFK and Connally were reacting too close together to have been hit by separate bullets. So a working theory was developed which suggested that a single bullet caused these wounds. This working theory was confirmed, to the satisfaction of the WC, by the re-enactment and by Frazier's testimony, and the HSCA further confirmed the theory by doing alignment trajectories and closely examining Connally's wounds (the WC paid rather cursory attention to his wounds).

I'm confused? If you don't want us to believe that you are just making this stuff up you better provide a cite to your authority. The SBT was not created because there were only two bullets. The WC did not know whether they had fragments from one or two bullets. Besides, some of the fragments were known to have left the car (eg. the strike on Tague's cheek). It is not possible to know how much bullet material left eh car and did not strike anyone and were never recovered. Read Belin's book. Belin said in Ch. 7 that he found the expert (he must be referring to Frazier but he does not name him) who said that JBC could not have been hit after z240. Belin said that he was going to use that as evidence of a conspiracy.

Your comments on the alignment and Frazier's evidence make no sense. First you say that Frazier's evidence and the alignment issues came after the SBT. Then you wonder how it would be possible that the SBT could have come before Frazier's evidence!! Something wrong with your logic there.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why this article needs an explanation of why the WC came to this conclusion, as it addressed several problems they saw with the evidence, and why it became crucial for the determination that a single gunman was present. Now, I realize that you have a one-gunman/three bullet scenario here, but the reasons that the WC and the HSCA rejected that should be the focus here, not a section which lays out this alternate theory of yours.

What alternate theory? I am pointing out evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Do you not think people reading the article should be aware of this evidence? Why in a section on "Criticism of the SBT" would you want to put material that does the opposite of criticising the SBT?

A section on the evolution of the SBT from the first shot SBT (thought to be the consensus of those in the WC who supported the SBT) to the second shot SBT (HSCA, Posner) would be useful.

But this rather misses the key point - that a single bullet caused the damage. The WC didn't have a preference and indeed had witnesses which stated any of the three shots could have been the missed shot. Frankly, the missed bullet - which one it was - is a complete non-issue.

Again, the point keeps changing every time you write. What do you mean "that a single bullet caused the damage" (I think you are referring to the damage except the head shot)? The reason the WC concluded this is because they had accepted that the bullet through JFK had to have struck JBC in the back. It was assumed that all of JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet. The missed bullet may be a non-issue to you. But it is a necessary consequence of the SBT. If there is evidence that no shot missed (and there is - that is the evidence which you deleted), it is quite obviously a relevant factor to be taken into account by the reader in taking a critical look at the SBT.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The way in which the theory has changed shows how uncertain the evidentiary basis is for the SBT. How has it changed? It went from the WC which gave scenarios for any of three shots possibly being the missed shot to the HSCA which declared it was the first shot which missed. That's a refinement, giving a definitive answer when before there was none.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? I can't believe you said that. There is a significant difference between the WC, HSCA, Posner and now Bugliosi. After the WC, the consensus was that it was a first shot SBT (second shot missed). The HSCA thought it was a second shot SBT fired around frame 190 (it thought that an earlier first shot between z143-160 missed):

"... the shot may have been fired between frames 181 and 192, and impacted in the limousine between frames 182 and 193. This conclusion is reinforced somewhat by the Photographic Evidence Panel's visual observation of the Zapruder film which reflected a reaction by President Kennedy to some severe external stimulus by frame 207 when the President disappears behind a sign frame." 6 HSCA 28.

Posner believes it was a second shot SBT at z224. Posner came up with the theory that you can actually see the second bullet flipping JBC's lapel at z224 after passing through JFK's neck. First shot missed at z160 or so.

Bugliosi doesn't like Posner at all. He agrees with the missed first shot (z160) and the second shot SBT but puts it a bit earlier than Posner at about z207-222 (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 482).Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But I would disagree on having the article state as a fact that the SBT is crucial to explaining the single gunman. It is only crucial for explaining the single gunman if the second premise is accepted Then source it. By far the consensus for both pro and anti-conspiracy researchers is that the WC's case falls apart if JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. And, I would add, if all you have is the single case of Mark Furhman who argues all three bullets strike, then this would not rise to the level of being included. It's not a representative argument. You have to do better than that. And, again, this is beside the strength of your argument.

I am not making the argument that the SBT is or is not crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. The fact is that it is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. My point is that you cannot say that it is crucial (ie. as a fact). That is stating an opinion.

First of all, the WC did not outright reject the "theory" that three bullets struck. (It is not really a theory anyway. It is what the witnesses said occurred - hence my references to the evidence. The "theory" is that the evidence is mistaken.)

It was what some witnesses said. But others said otherwise. And we have contradictions - the best you have is Nellie's testimony. But she says Connally was hit after he yelled out - he was adamant he was hit before he yelled out. Which would mean he was struck the same time as JFK. In the end, contradictory witness evidence is trumped by physical evidence.

It is not a simple matter of physical evidence trumping witness evidence. In the end it is all evidence and it all has to be considered. It is a matter of seeing how the evidence does or does not fit together. There are, in fact, no witnesses who said that they saw JFK did not react to being hit on the first shot. There are at least 22 (many cited by the WC) who said he did. There are no witnesses who said that JFK waved and smiled after the first shot. Dozens said he did this before the first shot. Nellie said JBC was hit after he yelled out and JBC actually agreed with this in 1966 (Life, 25 Nov. 1966, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt") because this is what he said:

“Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”

What you cannot do in assessing evidence is ignore several independent consistent witness recollections and conclude they were wrong because you prefer a theory. Saskcitation (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should not reinstate the references to the evidence for each shot hitting. If you like, we can just set out the evidence from the WR from the section on the Shot that Missed. How could you object to that?

Because, as it stood, it was Original Research. It is not enough to simply supply citations which support an argument - in this case, three bullets found their mark - you must supply citations of someone who argues that. [1]

Again, you have a rather strange way of interpreting original research. Amassing the evidence without drawing any conclusions is not original research. Saskcitation (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How is pointing out the evidence original research? I think we will have to get a ruling on that one. I will redraft the section and point out the evidence cited by the WR. How can you argue with that? This is not about stating a conclusion. It is about pointing out the evidence that the WC itself pointed out that.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

I have no doubt that one can fish out evidence from the WC to come to a conclusion. However, to avoid the charge of OR, one must frame this conclusion as an argument. We need not do it for the WC themselves because this article is about the argument they made. But we do need to do it for any counter-argument. Because, obviously, the WC, while at one point assessing the three-bullet scenario, quite clearly rejected it. Which is why I suggest a discussion on the evolution of the SBT should be made which would explain why the WC rejected the FBI's initial conclusion and the three-bullet scenario. Canada Jack (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I really, really, don't understand why you can't comprehend this, Sask. Please, do me a favour and carefully read the page on Original Research. What I have done here is suggest a way to frame this issue on three bullets which would pass muster. AS it stood, it was Original Research, pure and simple. You had a bunch of links to the WC suggesting all three bullets struck. But the point is that you have to frame this evidence - i.e. conclude that three bullets struck - from someone who actually claims that the SBT is wrong and all three of Oswald's bullets struck! You seem to pretend simply inserting sourced quotes is fine. It isn't. Read the section I directed to you in Original Research.

Take your line The reason the "missed shot" is a criticism of the SBT is because the SBT implies a missed shot and there is really very good evidence that each of the shots struck a target in the car. Fine. BUT WHO IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SBT IS WRONG AND ALL THREE BULLETS STRUCK? The best you can do here is note that that was what the Connallys claimed. But that's as far as you can go as they didn't make a case beyond their own testimony and beliefs that three struck and the WC said TWO bullets struck. You CAN'T make a case by pulling evidence from the WC testimony without framing that evidence around someone who claims that the evidence says three bullets from Oswald struck the car.

Can you not make a point without using such condescending tone? Is it because you are from Toronto? If so, I can accept that your inability to carry on a conversation without sounding condescending is perhaps a congenital disability and I won't be critical.

You ask "who is making the argument that the SBT is wrong and all three bullets struck"? I am not making that argument in the article. You seem to be wanting to make it for me. All I want to do is show the evidence, fairly, that conflicts with the SBT. But to answer your question, certainly the Connallys made the argument. The three dissenting members of the WC made the argument. I think that would be enough to merit mentioning of that view.Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your utter confusion on this matter is clear. What I have done is simply map out a way, via the emergence of the SBT via the FBI and Warren Commission to state the evidence for three bullets striking and why the WC ultimately rejected that evidence.

Arlen Spector came up with the SBT to solve the problem presented by the two issues set out above. You really should at least read the Warren Report, if not Belin's book. This coming from someone who says Spector came up with the theory? (He didn't come up with it by himself, btw.) And earlier claimed it was Frazier's testimony which compelled the WC to come up with the SBT? Sask, you are hardly in a position to sagely suggest I read something when you are so confused on some basic points!

I think you are confused about the confusion. There really is not much confusion as to the reasons for the SBT. They are as I have stated. Belin said that he found an expert who said that JBC could not have been hit after z240. He said that he wanted to use that evidence to suggest that there were two shooters because if JBC is hit by z240 there is a timing problem if the first shot was after z210. He says Arlen Specter then came up with the SBT to explain the timing problem. Now you can debate whether Belin's historical account is correct. But you can't debate whether he said what he said. That is why I suggested you read his book. No one connected with the WC ever said that the SBT was created because there was evidence of only two bullets striking the car. No one. There was no evidence of only two bullets striking the car. They tried the NAA route and that was inconclusive. If you disagree, then please enlighten me on who it was, what that evidence was, and provide a cite.The only thing I am confused about is why you keep changing your "key point". Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of record, not opinion. The SBT was created because the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet. And how would they know this before the reenactment? You should reaquaint yourself with the timeline here, Sask. The reenactment confirmed the theory, which came before the reenactment, and Frazier's testimony strongly suggested that any bullet which struck JFK would have had to hit Connally. But this was in no way obvious before the reenactment. To suggest the theory came after this testimony is, in a word, wrong.

as they started to believe by April 1964, there was not enough time for two shots to have been fired by Oswald. Which is precisely what I said. Since there were only two bullets accounted for, and the Zapruder film seemed to indicate a near-simultaneous hit, the SBT was created as a working theory. The later reenactment confirmed that. The way you had it it was the reenactment itself and testimony from Frazier which caused the theory to emerge. No, that confirmed, for the satisfaction of the WC, the theory.

The reenactment was not done until May 1964. The SBT was first documented in a memo dated April 22, 1964 by Melvin Eisenberg following conferences on April 14 and 21 to deal with the sequence of the shots. You can read it for yourself: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm It is not that difficult to see, without a re-enactment, that there is a problem for a downward bullet from right to left through soft tissue in JFK's neck missing everything else in the car.

Belin credits Arlen Specter with coming up with the SBT: see Ch. 7 of Final Disclosure. He was a co-counsel with him. Arlen Specter has for 45 years accepted the acknowledgment that he came up with it. To be fair, Specter maintained that it was fairly obvious that the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC so he does not take a lot of credit for it. Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification. However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets." WR 85

But the WC concluded that the fragments were likely from the fatal shot, the intact bullet a second bullet. So, they concluded, the third bullet was not accounted for. Sask, they had limited evidence, not conclusive, but they put together what the most likely scenario was and they concluded the fragments added up to two, not three, bullets. Your laser-like focus on minutia I have seen causes you not to see the forest for the trees.

I repeat my previous comment. The conclusion of the WR that the bullets added up to two not three bullets was BECAUSE they accepted the SBT! (the majority anyway). Apart from the SBT there was nothing to establish that the fragements were from one or two bullets. It is still debated with the NAA data. You are quite wrong on this point. If you disagree, cite a reliable source.Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First you say that Frazier's evidence and the alignment issues came after the SBT. Then you wonder how it would be possible that the SBT could have come before Frazier's evidence!! Something wrong with your logic there. ??? I never "wondered" about how the theory emerged before Frazier, indeed, I quite clearly state it emerged before Frazier's testimony. You were the one who claimed otherwise. Let's run through this (I don't have the sequence at hand, otherwise I could provide precise dates). The FBI issues its report on, oh, Dec. 9, I think. Three bullets, three strikes. Autopsy report Dec 23 - the bullet emerged thru JFK's throat, so the FBI's conclusion was called into doubt as they went by the FBI men at the autopsy who reported the (then) belief that there was no exit wound. January - the WC starts to watch Zapruder, realize there is a timing problem. Also realize that there seems to be only two bullets accounted for (true, it was not definitive that the big fragments were from different bullets, but those fragments, some of them at least, would have been more clearly associated with Connally as the bullet through JFK's neck would have been relatively prisitine, but they weren't - those were the working assumptions). So, the commission staff (not just Spector) came up with the working theory, the SBT, by April. The reenactment took place on May 24. It was during the reenactment that it became clear, to the satisfaction of the WC, that the working theory, the SBT, was correct, and Frazier who could only have known the alignments from May 24, subsequently testified to his belief that a bullet thru JFK would have had to hit Connally to, I think, frame 240.

What alternate theory? I am pointing out evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Uh, that's an alternate theory, Sask. To suggest a differing scenario that what was concluded is an alternate theory. And this is Original Research if it is not connected to those who claim it is an alternate explanation. Just as if I were to, for example, (and on this you can relate), pull out a lot of quotes which suggest the first shot missed. I could make a compelling case for that. But because the WC did not argue that, I would have to frame it in the context of someone who did. For example, I could cite the HSCA, or Posner or Bugliosi. You can't get around this, Sask. That's the basic problem here, and it is completely outside of any dispute I have with the theory itself. I have no problem with a bunch of stuff suggesting it was "impossible" for the SBT to work for various reasons because there are many who say the SBT is impossible for various reasons. I do have a problem with three Oswald bullets, three strikes, as no one is arguing that. The closest you have are two witnesses who claim that (even though their testimony contradicts) but as far as I am aware the only person actually making this case is one Mark Furhman. Which means this is a distinctly minority position and I submit should not be on the page as virtually no one is making this argument.

The missed bullet may be a non-issue to you. But it is a necessary consequence of the SBT. I truly feel like I am beating my head against the wall here... CLEARLY, this is a big issue for YOU, but it isn't an issue for any researchers I am aware of! Why? Because the ONLY concern for researchers is if a negation of the SBT means the premise that a single gunman was wrong. And THAT is the consensus. What YOU are saying is that the SBT is wrong - but Oswald was still the lone gunman. BUT NO ONE IS MAKING THAT CASE!!!! That is the key here, and that is what we, at wikipedia, must do, frame the issue in context of someone who argues that. And since, as far as I can tell, only a single person actually says as much - Furhman - compared to probably literally HUNDREDS of researchers, pro- and anti-WC - who say the WC's case collapses if the SBT is wrong. You believe otherwise, and that's fine. YOU MAY EVEN BE CORRECT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS NO ONE IS MAKING THE CASE. AND THEREFORE TO INCLUDE THE CONTENTION WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH AS YOU ARE DRAWING ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? I can't believe you said that. You claimed that the WC consensus was that the 2nd bullet missed. In fact, they gave no opinion on which bullet missed, and they gave evidence which suggested it could have been the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd bullet. Then the HSCA said it was the first bullet which missed. Posner and Bugliosi both agree (though, yes, Bug hates Pos). That fundamental scenario has been in place for 30 years. There will always be debates on the precise timing as the visual evidence is ambiguous. But I never pretended otherwise. On the issue of the missed bullet, there has been little debate amongst those we mention here. Indeed, all that happened WC-HSCA was the latter chose to answer the question of the missed bullet, the WC didn't bother to come to a conclusion.

I am not making the argument that the SBT is or is not crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. The fact is that it is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. My point is that you cannot say that it is crucial (ie. as a fact). That is stating an opinion.

Okay. Now this is, with respect, I believe you are dead wrong and I believe where, perhaps, you have been somewhat misled here in respect to wikipedia. In terms of the argument you are or are not making, by presenting evidence which tends to negate the SBT, I would say you are making a case - if not that there was a lone assassin, then that the SBT itself was flawed. Either way, a case is being made. As for the latter, you are so wrong that I fear you don't understand some basic wikipedia precepts. We most certainly can say that the SBT is "crucial," as long as that is explicitly linked to those who claim as much. Indeed, this article needs to say that, as it is the mainstream understanding that the WC's contention stands or falls on the premise that the SBT is correct. I could probably get literally 100 citations as to this belief from both sides! Which is why I say we can't put in the view that the SBT is wrong, but Oswald did it, as no one is making that case!

The Connallys did. Simply pointing out evidence which shows that conflicts with the SBT is neutral. Everyone agrees that there is evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Heck, that is what makes the SBT interesting. The fact that there is evidence that conflicts with it is the reason it took 6 months for the WC to come up with it. What flows from that is up to the reader.

Re your opinion that the SBT is crucial to the lone assassin conclusion: the WC did not say it was crucial, the Connallys did not say it was crucial and the HSCA did not say it was crucial. So if you write an article saying that the SBT is in FACT crucial to the lone assassin theory you are misleading the reader. The reader should be able to determine from this article why the SBT is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. That hinges on the second reason for the SBT: the timing problem. The timing problem only arises if Connally is reacting to being hit in the back by frame 240. Since we cannot see any wounds or blood on Connally it is not unequivocally clear where he begins reacting to being shot. The reader should be aware that the point at which Connally is hit in the back was the subject of much debate and discussion among members of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and is still a matter of debate.

What you cannot do in assessing evidence is ignore several independent consistent witness recollections and conclude they were wrong because you prefer a theory.

Sask, with respect, do you understand the function of the page? You seek to keep pushing a theory you believe in, and you cite a ton of evidence to show it is correct. But that utterly misses the point. You are treating this as if this is a court case or something. It is not. It is a page which a) describes the topic at hand, and b) describes the main pro and con arguments for it. It is not an article where we can insert evidence - no matter how compelling - which an editor or editors feel tell a different story or alternate account which is not already present in the mainstream literature on the subject. And, I say this again, even if your argument is perfect and air-tight, if it is not a mainstream, citable ARGUMENT, (as opposed to the evidence) WE CAN'T INCLUDE IT ON THIS PAGE. PERIOD.

For the umpteenth time, I am not making that argument. You seem to be. Let's get Wiki to make a simple ruling on whether it is against the rules to point out this evidence.

Again, you have a rather strange way of interpreting original research. Amassing the evidence without drawing any conclusions is not original research. The text as you had it suggests no bullet missed. That is drawing a conclusion. It is therefore Original Research as this conclusion is not linked to someone who explicitly (i.e., using the same evidence) makes that contention.

How is pointing out the evidence original research? I think we will have to get a ruling on that one. I will redraft the section and point out the evidence cited by the WR. How can you argue with that? This is not about stating a conclusion. It is about pointing out the evidence that the WC itself pointed out that.

This is basic wikipedia stuff, Sask. You are wrong on this fundamental point, which is MY fundamental point. You can go to an arbitrator but they will - I guarantee it - agree with me. It's a no-brainer. This is not a place to make a court case, it's a place to reproduce the mainstream arguments on a particular subject. No Original Research. I have offered a solution, and that is to spell out the emergence of the SBT with reference to some of the evidence for three bullets which was rejected by the WC. But, post April 1964, virtually no one on the planet has made the published claim that the SBT is not needed to establish a lone assassin. And that is what is needed here to make the section stay.

The Warren Report was delivered in September 1964, by the way. It maintained that the SBT was not needed to support the lone assassin conclusion.

Okay. I will try one last time. No one is trying to publish a claim that the SBT is not needed to establish the lone assassin. My only goal is to point out the evidence that conflicts with the SBT. The reader can think for him or herself. Now I know that you disagree with the evidence that conflicts with the SBT but I don't think that is a defensible reason for saying it can't be mentioned. The evidence exists. So long as I do not offer a conclusion, which I agree would be inappropriate for the article itself, the reader gets a fair picture.

I hope before you respond that you take it in good faith what I am saying here. Do some reading on the Original Research page and you will understand that what you are attempting to do here - which, by the way, I see as being in good faith - is against wiki policy. And that my suggestion, while not offering the perfect venue for the three-bullet scenario, nevertheless would include some of this evidence while underlining the main "fact" needed on the page - that the WC concluded otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are off-base on your objection to citing evidence. You think mentioning evidence that conflicts with the SBT should not appear here. It is not that it is my opinion that it conflicts. It does conflict. You can't have an SBT, the essence of which is that one shot missed, and have all three shots hitting. So evidence that each of the three shots is by its very nature in conflict with the SBT. I think the reader should have the opportunity to be aware of that. I think we should have Wikipedia decide the issue since we don't seem to be getting close to an agreement. Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will try one last time. No one is trying to publish a claim that the SBT is not needed to establish the lone assassin. My only goal is to point out the evidence that conflicts with the SBT.

Quite simply, Sask, you are not permitted to do that. I am at a loss as to why you can't understand this. Have you read the page on Original Research - it most definitely includes drawing original conclusions, a common error for editors who think as long as the citations for claims are there, one can draw a conclusion. Nope. The conclusion - in this case that the evidence you mention is in conflict with the SBT - has to be cited. Period. Take it to arbitration, you will lose. Might as well do it my way, Sask. We can do it together, if you wish as this page needs some major clean-up. Canada Jack (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least we appear to join issue on not being able to understand why the other does not understand that the position he takes lacks merit.

Even if showing evidence that conflicts with the SBT is drawing a conclusion, it is certainly not an original conclusion because it is precisely what the Connallys and the WC stated. The WC even editorialized:

"On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile." WR 111

I am not sure why you think that stating evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot is stating any conclusion at all (I take it your concern is really with the recital of the evidence relating to the first shot).Would it be contrary to Wikipedia Rules, in your interpretation, to simply quote the Warren Report? If it would, why? Here is what I suggest we quote:

"Other eyewitness testimony, however, supports the conclusion that the first of the shots fired hit the President. As discussed in chapter II, Special Agent Hill’s testimony indicates that the President was hit by the first shot and that the head injury was caused by a second shot which followed about 5 seconds later. James W. Altgens, a photographer in Dallas for the Associated Press, had stationed himself on Elm Street opposite the Depository to take pictures of the passing motorcade. Altgens took a widely circulated photograph which showed President Kennedy reacting to the first of the two shots which hit him. (See Commission Exhibit No. 900, p. 113.) According to Altgens, he snapped the picture “almost simultaneously” with a shot which he is confident was the first one fired. Comparison of his photograph with the Zapruder film, however, revealed that Altgens took his picture at approximately the same moment as frame 255 of the movie, 30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds) later than the point at which the President was shot in the neck.a43 (See Commission Exhibit No. 901, p. 114.) Another photographer, Phillip L. Willis, snapped a picture at a time which he also asserts was simultaneous with the first shot. Analysis of his photograph revealed that it was taken at approximately frame 210 of the Zapruder film, which was the approximate time of the shot that probably hit the President and the Governor. If Willis accurately recalled that there were no previous shots, this would be strong evidence that the first shot did not miss." WR 112.

A person can read that and the referenced evidence and decide for him or herself whether it is is reliable.

Do you also object to mentioning the evidence that some say supports a conclusion that the first shot was early (z160) and missed? If so, how does the reader get a balanced view of the evidence?

As far as working together on this, so far you don't seem very willing to work together. You prefer to act unilaterally rather than collaboratively. I am certainly not willing to work with you if you want yourself to be the final arbiter of everything. But I do agree that the article needs substantial work. Saskcitation (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least we appear to join issue on not being able to understand why the other does not understand that the position he takes lacks merit.

You have clearly not read, or not understood, the "Original Research" policy, which is fundamental here. AS is clear from the following from you: Even if showing evidence that conflicts with the SBT is drawing a conclusion, it is certainly not an original conclusion because it is precisely what the Connallys and the WC stated. The WC even editorialized...

The point is not the the idea is "original," the point is that someone has to be making the argument. Is the WC making the argument that three bullets struck? No, they are saying there is conflicting evidence and some suggested the first shot struck. But this was never central to their conclusion as they suggested #2 or #3 might be the bullets which missed. Indeed, I could do precisely what you did and pull WC testimony and have a section which states "Second Bullet missed" or "Third Bullet missed." But who is making those argument? I think you'd see that it was the EDITOR who would making that argument in those cases, even though the evidence is there to suggest those scenarios.

And then you say this: A person can read that and the referenced evidence and decide for him or herself whether it is is reliable. Uh, no. It is not the place of wikipedia to make a case pro or con without reference to those who make the case, or without establishing this is a mainstream interpretation of whatever it is the subject is about. We can use the quote, but it has to be to uphold an argument, an argument which someone is making. Are the Connallys saying that because of what Hill, Altgens etc said they believe there were three shots which struck? No, they are basing their contention on their own experience. And the WC certainly wasn't arguing that, based on that testimony, that the SBT was wrong.

Do you also object to mentioning the evidence that some say supports a conclusion that the first shot was early (z160) and missed? If so, how does the reader get a balanced view of the evidence?

There's a fundamental difference here, Sask. And that is the HSCA and others have made precisely that case. That's all this is about - who is arguing X? In the case of the missed shot Z160, we have several who argue that, and it's the most-argued position by supporters of the SBT. So we can put it in. How about the second shot missed? I think that there have been arguments over the years which claim that, but I don't know them. Third shot missed? The WC cites witnesses who claim as much, but I am unaware of who is making that argument, so it can't be included even though there is evidence a third shot missed.

And, to be succint, in terms of wikipedia, the "balance" we seek is a balanced presentation of the prominent, main arguments in a case. It is not to present a "balanced" presentation of the evidence which may exist. For the simple reason that it is, by definition, only the opinion of an editor what evidence is or isn't important, so to avoid POV presentations, we have to frame evidence around those who cite that same evidence to make their case that contention X is the truth.

As far as working together on this, so far you don't seem very willing to work together. You prefer to act unilaterally rather than collaboratively. I am certainly not willing to work with you if you want yourself to be the final arbiter of everything. But I do agree that the article needs substantial work.

That's rather insulting, Sask. I'm the one who offered, but I stronlgy suggest you follow the wikipedia guideleines which you are pretending do not apply to you. And I have further suggested we can incorporate the three-bullet stuff within a section which traces the creation of the theory and its importance to the WC's conclusion.

I was intended to be a complaint about your autocratic approach. If you find that insulting then perhaps you should be less autocratic. Who made you the sole judge and interpreter of Wiki Rules for this article? You say you are being balanced but you do not wish the public to know about all the evidence that conflicts with the SBT. It is not me who says it conflicts. The WC said there is evidence that conflicts with the first shot missing.

Supporters of the SBT debate whether it is a first shot or second shot SBT. They are not all in agreement as to when the shots occurred. There are many theories of the SBT. Some of those who advocate the first shot SBT such as Brian Kelleher of Cupertino Cal (who thinks there only two shots fired) say that the evidence that the first shot struck JFK is overwhelming. See: http://www.kelleherassoc.com/jfk.html

John McCloy was certainly of the view that the first shot hit. The general tone of the WR certainly suggests that this was the consensus.

Since the general view of SBT supporters NOW is that the first shot missed, this difference has to be addressed somewhere in the article if the reader is to understand the SBT. I would be interested to know how you could possibly object to that.

On that final point, because I saw it elsewhere here, we most certainly should state that the SBT is considered central to the WC's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. This is unquestionably the oft-stated belief of both pro- and anti-WC researchers, even though the WC itself did not say it was central. (THis could be covered with reference to Richard Russell etc.) Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I still think we should explain why it is considered to be essential. Just saying that people believe it is essential without saying why is not very illuminating.Saskcitation (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was intended to be a complaint about your autocratic approach. If you find that insulting then perhaps you should be less autocratic. Who made you the sole judge and interpreter of Wiki Rules for this article? I don't think you will find many experienced wiki editors who will agree with your interpretation of how to present this evidence. That's all. I know you want to present the evidence, I have offered a way to do so within the scope of how wikipedia operates. You will note I have not quibilled over the more direct attacks on the SBT. Why? Because these are published well-cited critiques (though I think more work here needs to be done to supply the citations).

The WC said there is evidence that conflicts with the first shot missing. But they didn't conclude the first shot missed. So it's not particularly relevant to their conclusion. And even if you say that, well, the HSCA said so, unless you have someone saying why sticking with the 1st bullet negates the SBT, then you have nothing to include here. It's as simple as that. And, recall, because the WC stated there is evidence of bullet one hitting, they cited evidence for any of three bullets missing. So what makes bullet 1 hitting special? You have to cite someone who sees this as important in terms of three bullets hitting.

The importance of the evidence from the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot, not by smiling and waving but by leaning left and bringing his hands up, is not just in relation to how the WC viewed the evidence. The WC dodged the issue, after all. They said one shot missed but refused to be pinned down as to which shot missed, citing evidence that supports each of the shots hitting. But the HSCA, Posner, Bugliosi etc. all are firmly of the view that the SBT is correct and that the first shot missed. The importance of this evidence that the first shot hit is not in disproving the SBT but in showing that it is that it is in direct, obvious conflict with the first-shot-miss-SBT. Since this is the most widely held view of the SBT, I think it is relevant and important for the reader to be aware of it. What conclusions the reader draws is up to the reader and how much the reader wishes to go into the detail. Otherwise, the reader will get the impression that there is no "other side" to the first-shot-miss SBT. It is not all about making the case against the SBT. I don't wish to make that case here. It is all about having the reader understand the subject.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of the SBT debate whether it is a first shot or second shot SBT. They are not all in agreement as to when the shots occurred. There are many theories of the SBT. Some of those who advocate the first shot SBT such as Brian Kelleher of Cupertino Cal (who thinks there only two shots fired) say that the evidence that the first shot struck JFK is overwhelming.

But how does this negate the SBT? The WC itself said it wasn't germane, Bugliois cites timing which could allow, theoretically, bullet 1, 2 or 3 missing, but this does not negate the SBT. The central thrust of the theory is not which bullet missed, but whether a single bullet hit the two men in question. In other words, it's a giant non-issue in terms of the veracity of the theory. Unless, of course, you can cite some commonly expressed published opinions which state otherwise. i.e., the issue of which bullet missed calls into question the SBT itself.

It doesn't have to negate the SBT to be relevant to the subject. If it negates the current widely held view of the SBT (ie the first-shot-miss-second-shot-hit SBT) it is relevant.

We most certainly can discuss the various opinions on which bullet missed, as these are readily citable. However, to conclude from those discrepancies something else, well we can't do that. IOW, we could say "various supporters of the SBT have disagreements over which of the three bullets fired was the SB - the first or the second." We can't say, without citation something like "The lack of agreement over which bullet was the SB calls into question the veracity of the theory..."

John McCloy was certainly of the view that the first shot hit. The general tone of the WR certainly suggests that this was the consensus. But the WC expressed their view on this, quite clearly, as there was evidence for any of three bullets being the missed bullet, no conclusion of which bullet missed could be determined. If there was a consensus with the WC, it would have been presented. So to present an opinion from a WC counsel as if this was a representative opinion, again, requires at the least a citation from someone who claims this was a representative opinion, the WC conclusion notwithstanding. Otherwise, this is merely the opinion of an editor that the "general tone of the WR" "suggests" and "consensus."

Since the general view of SBT supporters NOW is that the first shot missed, this difference has to be addressed somewhere in the article if the reader is to understand the SBT. I would be interested to know how you could possibly object to that.

But I don't see how this is of any importance to the SBT. Because the central point, again, is not which shot missed but whether one bullet (and it doesn't matter if it #1 or #2) did all that damage. There is certainly room to mention disagreements over which shot missed, but this issue isn't of much weight unless there is a substantial published opinion out there saying this issue somehow negates the SBT. (Like, for example, there is with the dispute over the antimony, etc.)

The statement: "One shot missed" is exactly equivalent to: "the SBT is correct" (if one accepts that that there were three shots and one shot hit JFK in the head only). I don't see how anyone can say that evidence that establish that the first shot missed is not relevant to an evaluation of the correctness of the current widely held view of the SBT. It does not disprove the SBT. It merely says that if the SBT is correct, it must have occurred on the first shot. And that is very relevant to an understanding of the SBT.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should explain why it is considered to be essential. Just saying that people believe it is essential without saying why is not very illuminating. Absolutely. Which is my main critique with the article. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we seem to agree on something. Progress.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.197.84 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 2.8 million articles in English alone. Thus, is it not a "basic encyclopedia," but a library of 10,000 volumes, at least. Why you believe that something which is NOT a basic encyclopedia should perform the function of a basic encyclopedia, is beyond me. If you want a basic encyclopedia, buy one. SBHarris 06:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 76. I mean, buried in the long-winded argument I am in the midst of above with Sask is my point that, uh, the reasons why he Warren Commission saw fit to come up with the theory in the first place are lacking, something which if fixed would make this article somewhat more coherent. AS for the sneering criticism of the theory, I am shocked - shocked! - that the various sneering writers haven't documented each layer of skin the bullet pierced - "...the bullet then pierced the epidermis layer of skin, followed by the dermis layer, and finally the hypodermis layer before proceeding to penetrate the muscle..." .

When the reasons the Warren Commission came up with the theory are made clear, and the various corroborative pieces of evidence were arrived at, one can see this was not simply some desperate attempt to "explain away" something here but the only solution to some evidentiary problems. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions on "Shot Pattern" section and "The Right to Left Trajectory from 6th Floor Window" section

A cursory look at these sections reveal the same problem I note above with the "missed shot" section. While I think a lot of work needs to be done on stuff here which will presumably be retained if there is editing to be done on the page - such as supplying some citations for "the critics" of various aspects of the SBT (and I am well aware of critiques of many of these aspects out there) - it seems that the sections I mention here in the head are NOT critiques arising from various published sources, those who fault the SBT in whatever form. Correct me if I am wrong on this, anyone out there who knows more about those aspects than me, but I am unaware of these arguments being made in published sources. So, if we don't have critics citing a) shot pattern or b) right to left trajectory as reasons for faulting the SBT, then those sections must be omitted. As far as I can tell, there is simply a lot of links to WC testimony, nothing linked to an author making the argument. At the very least, we need to know, when it says "A further criticism..." in the first section, who is making that "further criticism," and when it says "...has also been criticized on the grounds that it does not fit the shot pattern recalled by most of the witnesses," who is making those criticisms. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

Second paragraph, "...a three-inch-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet..."

The bullet itself is only a little over 1-inch. The OAL (overall cartridge length) is about 3 inches. Perhaps the confusion comes from the photo at right which appears to have a *centimeter* scale inset. Note that the bullet itself has a diameter of 6.8mm (.270 caliber) which matches up nicely if you imagine that the photo inset scale is in centimeters.

Recommend edit to "...three-centimeter-long..." to avoid confusion. --24.89.11.232 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (a gun guy)