Three Problems with the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Jerry Freeman]

Skelton said he was standing on the underpass when he observed all of this. 

Be that as it may...saying 'shots towards the President's car' wouldn't otherwise make any sense.

Question: How could JFK and JC get shot in their backs from someone shooting from the knoll or underpass?

No one has ever asserted that. However, locations of more than one shooter would easily explain that.
I know..prove there was more than one shooter---It goes around in circles.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Be that as it may...saying 'shots towards the President's car' wouldn't otherwise make any sense.No one has ever asserted that. However, locations of more than one shooter would easily explain that.
I know..prove there was more than one shooter---It goes around in circles.

Well, he later said "Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away." "Towards the President's car" and "Right around the motorcycles" is muddled as heck.

Anyway, my point (there was one) is that if one cites the earwitnesses who said all of the shots sounded like they came from the knoll then that can't be right. At least one shot came from behind the limo. If there were two shooters/locations then they need to say they sounded like they came from multiple locations wouldn't they?

For what it's worth, I think putting a shooter behind the fence or on the underpass makes no sense at all. It's too open among other problems. If these were professional hitmen that seems to be risky. I would guess. Doesn't mean it didn't happen just that it's dumb.

[John Iacoletti]

Royce Skelton

So which was it:  concrete, dust, or smoke?  And if he saw 2 things hit the pavement were they both a "missed first shot"?  And how do you know they didn't hit something before hitting the pavement and in fact were not missed shots at all?

Or you can just interpret this to tell whatever story you feel like believing.

[John Iacoletti]

Question: How could JFK and JC get shot in their backs from someone shooting from the knoll or underpass?

Why automatically assume there was exactly one shooter?

[John Iacoletti]

Later in the same testimony Skelton makes it clear when he saw the smoke and it wasn't after the first shot:

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?
Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.

There was no early missed shot.

  Thanks Dan.  Not only that, but he's just guessing that it was a bullet.

[Bill Chapman]

Why automatically assume there was exactly one shooter?

No assumption needed: There's no evidence of a second weapon being fired.

[Martin Weidmann]

No assumption needed: There's no evidence of a second weapon being fired.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't you learned anything yet?