NEW ARTICLE: JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible

[Andrew Mason]

Where is his hand seen in the Willis photo?:

I don't have any problem seeing it in the picture. Where do you think it is?

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.

After Z210. The second shot struck him. She is unsure even in her statement.

So I gather you also reject the Connallys' evidence that JBC was struck by a second shot before the head shot....

There is no evidence that JBC was struck by any other shot than the first shot that passed through JFK.

No evidence?  I gather you don't think that:

• Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
• Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
• SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
• the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

[Tom Graves]

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
No evidence?  I gather you don't think that:

• Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
• Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
• SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
• the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

JFK's and six other witnesses' conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were all captured on film between Zapruder frames 142 and 150.

Oswald's three shots were

1) a difficult, a steeply-downward-angled shot at hypothetical "Z-124, i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming after a 17-second film-saving pause

2) between Z-221 and Z-224 (impossible to determine precisely due to the visual obstruction of the Stemmons Freeway sign)

3) at Z-313

Total elapsed time = 10.2 seconds, more than enough time for former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to fire the second and third shots accurately from his bolt-action short-rifle.

[Andrew Mason]

JFK's and six other witnesses' conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were all captured on film between Zapruder frames 142 and 150

...and completely reconcilable with normal head turning when passing along a street with people on both sides:

Total elapsed time = 10.2 seconds, more than enough time for former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to fire the second and third shots accurately from his bolt-action short-rifle.

And so is 6.45 seconds.  The difference is that according to all the evidence, the first shot was after z186.

[Jack Nessan]

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
No evidence?  I gather you don't think that:

• Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
• Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
• SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
• the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.

Unbelievable, you know JFK was waving at Z210, what again is this post about?

What is interesting is you do know he is waving at Z210, but you thought you would just make up this nonsense in an effort to try and prove this theory? This three shot scenario is not only improbable, but also unbelievable. You never asked yourself if it made sense for two different bullets to strike JBC’s thigh? They would have fractured his thigh in this instance. All you have done is split SBT and create a second shot where there was not one.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you can’t prove a third shot? Now you are proposing some kind of goofy logic to add credibility to opinions you consider are some kind of evidence to support this oddball theory. 

Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"

This is just wrong. Nellie saw JFK react to the first shot, and Nellie along with Jackie acknowledged JBC’s verbal reaction to having been struck by a bullet as having occurred after the first shot but before the second.

Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"

All the eyewitness in total were of the exact same opinion.

SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"

SA Hickey saw the bullet impact JFK’s head and make his hair fly forward on the second shot. 

The statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

Over 50+ eyewitnesses saw JFK react to the first shot. All of them stated he reacted to the first shot.

What again is the difference between your unproven three shot act and Michael Griffiths? Your theory has two bullets in JBC’s thigh and Michael has shooters everywhere, but no other bullets or fragments except for the ones matched to LHO’s carcano, are ever found.