The Hole in the Limousine's Windshield: Proof of a Second Gunman

[John Corbett]

   Why should your opinion need to be buttressed by some lame "approval rating"? Polls are a dime a dozen. Buck up.

I cited the poll to show that my low opinion of Congress is shared by the vast majority of Americans. We can always debate the validity of that opinion. Suffice it to say that I don't find getting elected to Congress an indication that person has a great deal of intelligence. Some do but it is not a prerequisite for getting elected. Hell, even this person not only got elected 18 times but is now the ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=dKx%2f2Y%2bY&id=B12CD0A59C020812F625131E767D0DF96CE76C63&thid=OIP.dKx_2Y-YAWeyKsH5WyQzlgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.foxnews.com%2ffoxnews.com%2fcontent%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2fRosa-DeLauro.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.74ac7fd98f980167b22ac1f95b243396%3frik%3dY2znbPkNfXYeEw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=pictures+of+the+blue+haired+congresswoman&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=2FF3A90E0CE29E75ACC426927892818C&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I cited the poll to show that my low opinion of Congress is shared by the vast majority of Americans. We can always debate the validity of that opinion. Suffice it to say that I don't find getting elected to Congress an indication that person has a great deal of intelligence. Some do but it is not a prerequisite for getting elected. Hell, even this person not only got elected 18 times but is now the ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=dKx%2f2Y%2bY&id=B12CD0A59C020812F625131E767D0DF96CE76C63&thid=OIP.dKx_2Y-YAWeyKsH5WyQzlgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.foxnews.com%2ffoxnews.com%2fcontent%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2fRosa-DeLauro.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.74ac7fd98f980167b22ac1f95b243396%3frik%3dY2znbPkNfXYeEw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=pictures+of+the+blue+haired+congresswoman&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=2FF3A90E0CE29E75ACC426927892818C&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

What does public opinion of Congress *today* tell us about how the HSCA conducted its investigation some 45 years ago? How does the first relate to the second?

American don't like Congress today, they think it does a poor job and that means the HSCA also did a poor job? A completely different Congress and committee almost half a century ago? In your thinking the fact that most Americans *today* think it's doing a poor job means every Congress and every committee in American history, everything done before now, was incompetent and worthless. Regardless of what they did.

That's not logical.

In their very first paragraph of their report, the HSCA said this:



Should we reject all of the above because *today* Americans view Congress so negatively?

[John Corbett]

Let's back up a bit. My initial comments about Congress were in response to Benjamin Cole's comment that the HSCA was a "smart group". I find it laughable to assume that being a member of Congress is an indication of superior intellect. There have been some outstanding people who served in Congress over the years but there have been some real dumbasses as well as more than a few sleaze bags. Eric Swalwell and Matt Gsetz being just two recent examples of that. I see no evidence that the people we send Congress are our best and brightest people. A few are, but they seem to be the exceptions.

I judge the HSCA on their work, not their credentials. They had an opportunity to provide a valuable service to country and they blew it. They spit the bit before they crossed the finish line and all they did was muddy the waters. Those who wrote the dissenting opinions showed both intelligence and character but unfortunately, they were in the minority on that body.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Additional support for the front-to-back windshield shot comes from former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's 2023 disclosure that he recovered a moderately damaged bullet from the top of the back seat of the limo and that he also saw two bullet fragments on the back seat, next to where Jackie had been sitting.

His disclosure of seeing two bullet fragments on the back seat is almost as important as his account of finding an extra bullet. The two limo fragments that were later entered into evidence, CE 567 and CE 569, could not have been the fragments that Landis saw recovered from the front end of the limo's interior: one was found on the seat beside the driver, while the other was found along the right side of the front seat. We can add the back-seat bullet fragments to the sizable list of fragments that were excluded from the official record and whose whereabouts remain unknown.

Two articles on Landis's disclosure:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-makes-a-big-splash-in-2023-ahead-of-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-kennedy-assassination-but-how-credible-is-he

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman#intcid=_vanity-fair-verso-hp-trending_55769946-16e1-4879-9a1f-360e0a2eb3c7_popular4-1

Landis insisted he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, since he assumed it came from JFK's body. However, there is compelling evidence that another bullet was found on Connally's stretcher, a fact that Connally himself confirmed, and that the Connally stretcher bullet was not CE 399 (see, for example, Robert Harris's article "The Connally Bullet" and Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson's article "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?").

The bullet that Landis found could have come from the windshield shot. The limo's safety glass would have caused little deformity to a rifle bullet, although it could have slightly altered the bullet's course.

[John Corbett]

Additional support for the front-to-back windshield shot comes from former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's 2023 disclosure that he recovered a moderately damaged bullet from the top of the back seat of the limo and that he also saw two bullet fragments on the back seat, next to where Jackie had been sitting.

His disclosure of seeing two bullet fragments on the back seat is almost as important as his account of finding an extra bullet. The two limo fragments that were later entered into evidence, CE 567 and CE 569, could not have been the fragments that Landis saw recovered from the front end of the limo's interior: one was found on the seat beside the driver, while the other was found along the right side of the front seat. We can add the back-seat bullet fragments to the sizable list of fragments that were excluded from the official record and whose whereabouts remain unknown.

Two articles on Landis's disclosure:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-makes-a-big-splash-in-2023-ahead-of-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-kennedy-assassination-but-how-credible-is-he

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman#intcid=_vanity-fair-verso-hp-trending_55769946-16e1-4879-9a1f-360e0a2eb3c7_popular4-1

Landis insisted he put the bullet on JFK's stretcher, since he assumed it came from JFK's body. However, there is compelling evidence that another bullet was found on Connally's stretcher, a fact that Connally himself confirmed, and that the Connally stretcher bullet was not CE 399 (see, for example, Robert Harris's article "The Connally Bullet" and Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson's article "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?").

The bullet that Landis found could have come from the windshield shot. The limo's safety glass would have caused little deformity to a rifle bullet, although it could have slightly altered the bullet's course.

Landis' 60 year old account is rather dubious on the surface. I understand he wasn't an experienced crime scene investigator but even a layman would understand that a bullet found in the limo would be a critical piece of evidence and it is hard to comprehend that he would have casually placed such a critical piece of evidence on JFK's stretcher. Even if true, that bullet is almost certainly CE399 which precludes it from having been fired from the front since it was proven to have been fired by the rifle found in the TSBD to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The only bullets in evidence are CE399 and the fragmented bullet found in the limo, both having been fired by Oswald's Carcano. No bullets or spent shells from any other weapon were recovered from Dealey Plaza following the shooting.