I happen to be rereading Gerald Knight’s CT-oriented but excellent Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why. Knight was a respected professor of history. He makes the point that the FBI’s working hypothesis all along, which was shared by the Secret Service, was that JFK had been hit by two bullets and JBC by a third. This was the FBI’s final report that was expected by everyone concerned to serve as the guide for the Warren Commission and the basis for what it was “expected” to conclude. The SBT was really prompted by the WC’s need to account for the wound to Tague, which had been conveniently omitted from the FBI report. I am no great student of the SBT and would not be qualified to speak about the medical and ballistic aspects even if I were, but I have read enough (lots) to regard it as problematical in several regards. There seems to be a tendency on the part of LN advocates to keep saying things like “There is no doubt!” as though saying this often and loudly made it true. From my informed layman’s perspective, I think there is a fair amount of legitimate doubt. As I’ve said previously, I wish there could be a fresh look by world-class experts from other countries who know and care nothing about JFK or the JFKA and thus have no preconceived notions or agenda. Maybe we can get Elon Musk to work on this!
You say you regard the SBT "as problematical in several regards" yet you never specify what those problems are. This seems to be typical of critics of the SBT. They say it's impossible without ever saying why. They think it is enough just to say it because so many other people have said it so it must be true.
There is no doubt in my mind that the SBT is a fact. It is the only plausible explanation ever given for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. I've challenged many CTs over the years to tell us another way it COULD HAVE happened. I just made that challenge to MTG and I have yet to see a response, not that I was expecting one. I don't ask them to prove another way it happened. Just give us a plausible alternative. I believe the reason the CTs fail to respond to the challenge is because they quickly realize that any alternative explanation would require one or more magic bullets. This approach fits with the overall approach by CTs in general. The rarely try to tell us how they think the JFKA went down. They just want to tell us it didn't happen the way the WC said it did without ever giving us a plausible alternative to the WCR.
PS. I see somebody (Duncan?) has grabbed a screen shot from my session with Fred Litwin to be my avatar. That's too bad. The one I had was a lot younger and a lot better looking than me.
