A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Iacoletti]

Well, in order to conclude that it was not in the location shown on the autopsy photos one would have to conclude that the wound location observations and autopsy photos were faked by all three doctors.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?  Based on what?  The location of the hole in the shirt?

That's one discrepancy that hasn't been sufficiently accounted for, yes.  Along with the autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate.  But the location shown on the autopsy photos isn't even indisputable -- it's a matter of interpretation.

For starters, Norman, Williams and Jarman.  Also Jackson and Mrs. Cabell and Amos Euins. Then there are the pigeons seen flying from the TSBD roof at the time of the shots.  Do you think they were all part of the conspiracy too?

This is what I mean about misrepresenting the evidence.  Jackson and Cabell didn't see any rifle being fired.  And pigeons aren't as selective about location as you pretend.  Williams originally reported hearing 2 shots from somewhere above him.  Nothing is as clear cut as you try to present it.

In any fact-finding process (courts, commissions of inquiry or other fact-finding bodies such as NTSB accident investigations) "proof" is another term for evidence upon which people base conclusions of fact.  There is nothing absolute about proof.

Then it's not "proof" in the general case, and certainly not proof in this specific case as it's completely reliant on several subjective assumptions and conjectures.  Every bit of it.

[Andrew Mason]

That's one discrepancy that hasn't been sufficiently accounted for, yes.  Along with the autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate.  But the location shown on the autopsy photos isn't even indisputable -- it's a matter of interpretation.

If you have a bullet hole in the clothing that does not quite match the hole in the skin you would not conclude that that clothing had moved? How else can itbeexplained? What is uncertain about the autopsy photo?

This is what I mean about misrepresenting the evidence.  Jackson and Cabell didn't see any rifle being fired.  And pigeons aren't as selective about location as you pretend.  Williams originally reported hearing 2 shots from somewhere above him.  Nothing is as clear cut as you try to present it.

Individually these witnesses may not be conclusive, but together they provide overwhelming evidence that a gun was fired from the SN. Norman, Williams, Jarman heard what sounded like a gun in the SN and Jackson Cabell and Euins saw what looked like a gun barrel stickinv out the SN window. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck....

Then it's not "proof" in the general case, and certainly not proof in this specific case as it's completely reliant on several subjective assumptions and conjectures.  Every bit of it.

It is not subjective to reach reasoned a conclusion based on all the evidence. It is not a conclusion based on assumption or conjecture. It is based on independent objective evidence . Again, what do you think constitutes "proof"?

[John Iacoletti]

If you have a bullet hole in the clothing that does not quite match the hole in the skin you would not conclude that that clothing had moved? How else can itbeexplained? What is uncertain about the autopsy photo?

What about a hole in the skin that moves?  For one thing, which spot on the alleged autopsy photo is a wound?

Individually these witnesses may not be conclusive, but together they provide overwhelming evidence that a gun was fired from the SN. Norman, Williams, Jarman heard what sounded like a gun in the SN and Jackson Cabell and Euins saw what looked like a gun barrel stickinv out the SN window. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck....
It is not subjective to reach reasoned a conclusion based on all the evidence. It is not a conclusion based on assumption or conjecture. It is based on independent objective evidence . Again, what do you think constitutes "proof"?

Of course it's conjecture to think that something seen sticking out a window "must have" been a rifle that fired shots.

[Andrew Mason]

What about a hole in the skin that moves?  For one thing, which spot on the alleged autopsy photo is a wound?

The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.

Of course it's conjecture to think that something seen sticking out a window "must have" been a rifle that fired shots.

Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Amos Euins said (statement to Sheriff, 22Nov63, CE 2003, 24 H 2017):

"I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stopped back behind some boxes.  I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting.  I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing.  This was  a white man, he did not have on a hat.  I just saw this man for a few seconds.

(FBI statement 29Nov63, Commission Document 205 at p. 10):

"He stated since he could no longer see the Preddent's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding froa the window near the top of the Texas School Book Depodtory Building. He stated he saw a man's band on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was rifle becauae he heard the shots fired.  He stated he could not tell anything about the aan and that he never anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock."

(FBI report 14Dec63, Commission Document 205 at p. 12):

"..he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what apeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spoint on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him.  He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.  Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds. All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

[John Iacoletti]

The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.

Which spot on the photo you are talking about did the autopsy doctors identify as a bullet hole and when?

Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Because it is.  Just because somebody saw something sticking out of a window, it doesn't just follow that it was a rifle being discharged.  None of them (except arguably Euins) saw a rifle being fired.  You're just assuming that what they saw was a rifle that had been fired.  But if you're going to take Euins' word for it, then you have to deal with the bald spot and the fact that he initially told a reporter that the shooter was black.  Under your standard where a conclusion based on evidence is automatically "proof" you would have to concede that it's proven that Oswald was not holding the rifle in question.

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.

Ok, but that doesn't tell you where the loud sounds originated.  It's just your assumption that the loud sounds must have originated from Mrs. Cabell's "projection".  There's no evidence of that.

  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.

Unfortunately that doesn't tell you when the fragments allegedly found in the President's car were fired.  And like so much of the evidence in this case, there is no solid documented chain of custody for these fragments between their alleged discovery in the limo and Robert Frazier.  Furthermore, Frazier took these mangled fragments and lined up the markings "in his mind" because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's nothing "clear" about any of it.

Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds.

Yes he did eventually say that.  That raises lots of questions though like why didn't he hear the guy's necessary mad dash to the stairwell which would have been necessary had it been Oswald up there or why he and the others lollygagged looking out the western windows of the 5th floor in view of the staircase if they had any inkling of a shooter upstairs.

All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

I didn't say it was just a guess, but it does have several built-in assumptions that are not evidence-based.

[Richard Smith]

The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.
Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Amos Euins said (statement to Sheriff, 22Nov63, CE 2003, 24 H 2017):

"I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stopped back behind some boxes.  I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting.  I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing.  This was  a white man, he did not have on a hat.  I just saw this man for a few seconds.

(FBI statement 29Nov63, Commission Document 205 at p. 10):

"He stated since he could no longer see the Preddent's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding froa the window near the top of the Texas School Book Depodtory Building. He stated he saw a man's band on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was rifle becauae he heard the shots fired.  He stated he could not tell anything about the aan and that he never anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock."

(FBI report 14Dec63, Commission Document 205 at p. 12):

"..he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what apeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spoint on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him.  He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.  Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds. All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

You are arguing with someone who suggests that just because witnesses confirmed a rifle was pointing in the direction of JFK's motorcade an instant after the shots were fired that doesn't mean they saw him shot by that rifle.  LOL.  Not to mention that there were the fired bullet casings found by that window.  Forget logical inferences.  By John's pedantic standard, for example, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.  They just heard a bang and looked in that direction to see Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Perhaps someone else in Ford's Theatre actually fired the shot.  Maybe it was suicide and Booth had the misfortune of picking up the pistol off the ground.  He panicked and fled!  It's possible - right?  That's the best he can manage.  And I will bet if you look at the historical record, you can find some witness who got a minor detail wrong about Booth's appearance, clothes or height etc.  And maybe no one can confirm with certainty where he bought his ammo.  Why would a famous person like Booth throw away his good fortune by committing murder where he was sure to recognized?  Surely he wouldn't have done it.  Thus we can disregard the mountain of evidence that links Booth to that crime.  Mission accomplished for the lazy contrarian.

[John Iacoletti]

The best "Richard Smith" can manage is a false equivalence to Lincoln, when nobody can place Oswald anywhere near that window at that time with that rifle.

He talks about mountains of evidence, but never seems to get around to enumerating what that mountain of evidence consists of.  I wonder why that is?  Could it be because all he has is his empty rhetoric?