Arlen Specter's SBT Notebook

[Tom Graves]

Specter only concocted the SBT when he realized the timing problem of the closeness of two of the shots. His determination to push the SBT, even though his own experts said it was bunk, increased after the Tague wounding could no longer be ignored.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

If Specter's experts thought his Single Bullet Hypothesis was "bunk," then they were almost as full of beans as you are.

The Single Bullet Fact is counterintuitive, so why begrudge Specter for having to "come up" with a hypothesis that would plausibly explain Tague's wounding timing-wise, and account for all of the wounds to JFK and JBC not only over a seemingly impossible period of time, but in a scenario in which one of the three shots (the first one at or near limousine "Point A") missed everything and another one (at Z-313) "only" struck JFK's head, and based largely (luckily for you and all of the tinfoil-hat JFKA CTs out there!) on a film in which JFK and JBC passed behind a large sign right at the critical moment, and on earwitness' statements regarding the number and timing of the shots they heard or thought they heard in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza?

-- Tom

[Andrew Mason]

I suggest doing some research on the origins of the SBT. Specter only concocted the SBT when he realized the timing problem of the closeness of two of the shots. His determination to push the SBT, even though his own experts said it was bunk, increased after the Tague wounding could no longer be ignored.

Have you read David Belin's book Final Disclosure?  Belin credits Specter with coming up with the SBT after he found an expert (apparently FBI's Robert Frazier) who said that JBC could not have been hit after z240 assuming the bullet did not deflect on striking Connally's rib.  That suggests that Specter came up with the SBT, as you suggest, to deal with the timing problem that a wounding of JBC before z240 presents. Specter himself, however, maintained that the primary reason for the SBT is the absence of marks in the car from the bullet that passed through JFK's neck.  This fits with what Specter said in an interview with Life Magazine in 1966 and published November 25, 1966 (A Matter of Reasonable Doubt) at p. 48B:

• "One of our most impressive pieces of evidence,” says Specter, “is the
  FBI report on an examination of the limousine. It concludes that
  no part of the car’s interior was struck by a whole bullet.” ...
  "Where, if it didn't hit Connally, did that bullet go? This is the single most
  compelling reason why I concluded that one bullet hit both men".

I don't disagree with Specter.  I just suggest that Connally was hit in two different places that could well have been exposed to a shot from the SN through JFK's midline, the least likely of which is his right armpit. the conclusion that the bullet struck JBC on the right side after passing through JFK is not the most reasonable one.

Just FYI, Dr. Light was not the most qualified expert on wound assessment. Dr. Dolce was. Dolce had more experience with gunshot wounds than Light did.

Dr. Dolce did not testify before the WC.  He was a junior technician to the technician who assisted in JFK's autopsy.  I am not aware he had anything to do with Connally.

[Lance Payette]

I asked AI to settle this, and it came up with the following, which I thought was pretty insightful.

Is no one else finding this all kind of humorous? I do like Andrew's explanation, since a non-SBT LN narrative always appeals to me. Toss in a fragment from the head wound and I have my New Favorite Theory, thereby supplanting the Phantom Shot, which is hereby demoted to my Alternative Favorite Theory.

[Tom Graves]

I asked AI to settle this, and it came up with the following, which I thought was pretty insightful. Is no one else finding this all kind of humorous? I do like Andrew's explanation, since a non-SBT LN narrative always appeals to me. Toss in a fragment from the head wound and I have my New Favorite Theory, thereby supplanting the Phantom Shot, which is hereby demoted to my Alternative Favorite Theory.

Dear Fancy Pants Lance,

You're quite the hoot!

-- Tom

[Lance Payette]

Dear Fancy Pants Lance,

You're quite the hoot!

-- Tom

Thank you, I try. It's nice to be appreciated. Had you never heard the word "hoot" before - you seem to have become obsessed with it? I believe I originally said I found The Donald to be a hoot, which I do, so perhaps this explains why it has resonated so strongly with you.

[Tom Graves]

Thank you, I try. It's nice to be appreciated. Had you never heard the word "hoot" before - you seem to have become obsessed with it? I believe I originally said I found The Donald to be a hoot, which I do, so perhaps this explains why it has resonated so strongly with you.

No, because it rhymes with "coot," as in zombified by sixty-six years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies "old coot."

*Today's SVR and FSB

[Andrew Mason]

....I do like Andrew's explanation, since a non-SBT LN narrative always appeals to me. Toss in a fragment from the head wound and I have my New Favorite Theory, thereby supplanting the Phantom Shot, which is hereby demoted to my Alternative Favorite Theory.

I can't take credit for the three shot, three hit, one shooter explanation.  That was determined by and maintained by the FBI until Arlen Specter came up with the SBT.   

So the question is: on what basis was the original 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter explanation rejected?  It appears to me that it was rejected because everyone assumed JBC was struck by only one bullet and the bullet exiting JFK's neck was likely travelling too fast to have missed anyone and struck the car without leaving noticeable damage.  All I have done is just question the first assumption by showing that the path through JFK's midline was to the left side of JBC.