Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Quote
Galbraith: Bowers said he didn't see anyone behind the fence at the time of the shooting.

No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.

Quote
Mitch Todd: He saw three cars cruising around a parking lot. Like people do when they are looking for a place to park for an impending event about to occur nearby. The sort of thing that people see every day, everywhere. There is no mystery here, no matter what you and your fellow CTs so desperately want to believe.

LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."

Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.

And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?

Quote
Mitch Todd: The "acoustic evidence" is crap, based on a novel and unproven procedure.

Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.

Quote
Mitch Todd:With the changes that were made by the courts in the 1990s, it probably wouldn't be admissible in a trial today.

Nonsense. The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire. 

BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.

I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).   

Quote
Mitch Todd:And we're back to that happy little game where every movement someone in the limo makes is "a reaction" and then "a reaction to a gunshot."

You know that's not what I'm talking about. I'll let readers decide if this is a case of "every movement" being "a reaction to a gunshot" when they read my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film."

I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).

Quote
MG: You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area.

Corbett: One deployed his men to the railroad yard and one to the overpass.

Wow, you just can't admit anything, can you? What area do you suppose Curry wanted to "see what happened there" by ordering to "get a man on top of that triple underpass"? What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! Huh? The obvious answer to anyone with a functioning brain and some integrity is that Curry believed shots came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."

And that's the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there."

Quote
Corbett: Both [Curry and Decker] were guessing.

LOL! They were just "guessing"?! They ordered men deployed to check out the same area because they were just "guessing"?! Of course this is just pure silliness. A police chief and a sheriff are not going to deploy their men after shots have been fired at a presidential motorcade in which they themselves were riding based on just a guess. You'll never admit it, but it's obvious that Curry and Decker deployed their men to check out the same general area because they clearly believed that shots had come from that area. 
2
The "boom" sound from a high-powered rifle is issued from the rifle-barrel, and "crack" sound from the supersonic bullet issued from the rifle, as it passes through air.

AI: Characteristics The Noise: It (a supersonic bullet) sounds like a sharp whip-crack, a snap, or a breaking stick rather than a deep boom

Curiously enough, few (if any) DP witnesses describe hearing "crack" sounds. That is yet another oddity about the JFKA. In theory, many witnesses should less-loud cracking sounds from supersonic bullets, and booms from the M-C rifle. I can't recall any witnesses saying anything like they heard cracking sounds, even vets and police officers.

Bowers only heard three shots. Not a cracking sound and then three booms.

Bower said the last two booms were on top of each other.

Bowers mentioned no change in pitch or volume of the shot noises, which would indicate he heard "crack" and boom sounds.

Bowers testimony lines up with the "bang...bang-bang" cadence many witnesses heard.



 
3


You can discover the most important discovery of our generation...

The JFK internet bullies and hijackers are not interested in it and will bully it off the board...
4


Please don't pretend you are not aware of Dr McClelland's drawing of the rear head wound...It is easily searched...
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / The Kennedy Center
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 03:27:29 PM »

10 years ago Greg Burnham and Charles Drago fell out over the fact Burnham was trying to make Trump a Kennedy-like figure...Burnham was making the case that Kennedy and Trump were directly analogous...Drago jumped ship from Burnham over the comparison...

I wonder what Burnham's opinion is on the philosophical stand that is being made over keeping Trump's name off the Kennedy Center...

Rich white people who are otherwise tolerating the CIA assassination of the man the Center is named after...
6
So to you it is "useless crap" to note that a renowned forensic pathologist who served on both the RC medical panel and the HSCA FPP said there is "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the skin "in a sharply upward direction" and that the missile "traveled upwards within the body"?! That's your idea of "useless crap" when your SBT requires that the bullet hit at a downward angle and traveled downward through the neck?!

Oh my. So you are still peddling the preposterous claim that the Connally bullet traveled at a 45-degree downward angle through his chest?!

I notice you once again said nothing about the fact that Dr. Shaw measured the downward angle through Connally on Connally himself as being 25 degrees, and that the WC agreed with this. Let's read what the Warren Report says about this -- yet again:

When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (Warren Report, p. 93)

And allow me to again remind you that in their final report, the FPP corrected the obvious misstatement in Dr. Baden's report about a 45-degree downward angle through Connally, and they adjusted the downward angle to 10 degrees. Let's read from the FPP's report -- yet again:

Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)


I again ask you if you have ever bothered to look a diagram of Connally's chest wounds. If so, how can you possibly believe that the downward angle from the entry wound to the exit wound was 45 degrees? How?

LOL! This is pure hokum! Math is clearly not your thing, as you've already proved with your fantasy of a 45-degree downward angle through Connally.

Umm, no, if a shooter is 200 feet away, that does not mean he is also 200 feet off the ground. How in the world can you think this? Let's try this: The sixth-floor gunman was 265 feet from the limousine at Z313, but of course the gunman was not 265 feet off the ground, right? Right? He was 60 feet off the ground, as you should know.

Hint: You have no clue what you are talking about. The Connally back-wound bullet was not yawing when it hit and did not yaw when it transited his chest. The back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear entry wound. A 1.5-cm-wide entry wound indicates the bullet struck at a modest horizontal angle or that the target was turned somewhat, just as with the head wound. Moreover, as Dr. Shaw noted, the bullet was not yawing through the chest but created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149) that "stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

I have pointed out these facts at least 10 times in the last six months, but you guys simply ignore them and keep repeating your yawing-bullet delusion. How about if you explain how a yawing bullet could have created a small tunneling wound that smashed 4 inches of rib bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Hey?

While you're at it, how about if you explain the fact that every single SBT wound-ballistics has contradicted the SBT? How about if you explain the fact that the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done, and done by a respected forensic engineering firm no less, determined that the SBT is impossible?

Let me give you a short lesson in basic logic: If numerous facts clearly seem to prove that your theory is impossible, you can't dodge those facts by insisting that you will not explain them until someone provides you with an alternative theory that you find acceptable. That's not how it works. If you were to try that stunt in a graded and judged college debate, you would get demolished and flunked -- and probably kicked off the debate team for remedial tutoring.

You and other SBT true believers can't even get a bullet out of JFK's throat in the first place without ignoring a mountain of facts: the fact that the back wound was below the throat wound, the fact that the bullet would have transited the neck at an upward angle, the fact that the trajectory through the neck cannot be aligned with the sixth-floor window unless you assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit, the fact that the throat wound had all the textbook characteristics of an entry wound, the fact that the only theory you can offer to explain the throat wound's entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory, the fact that all four of the Parkland medical staff who saw the throat wound before the clothing was cut off and who commented on the wound's location said the wound was above the collar, the fact that your only answer to the hard physical evidence of the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's coat and shirt is the ridiculous and debunked bunched-clothing explanation, the fact that JFK's tie concretely proves that no bullet exited the throat, the fact that the shirt slits were below the collar band and had no fabric missing from them, the fact that we now know that Humes knew about the throat wound at least an hour before the exam phase of the autopsy was completed, the fact that we now know that at the autopsy the autopsy pathologists established for an absolute and observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, the fact that ARRB and other recorded interviews with autopsy witnesses have revealed that the men standing around the autopsy table could see that the back wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity (even after all the chest organs had been removed), and the fact that the transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session confirms that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

So to you it is "useless crap" to note that a renowned forensic pathologist who served on both the RC medical panel and the HSCA FPP said there is "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the skin "in a sharply upward direction" and that the missile "traveled upwards within the body"?! That's your idea of "useless crap" when your SBT requires that the bullet hit at a downward angle and traveled downward through the neck?!


Yes, no problem. Explain the location of the shooter and how that is even possible.

---------------------------------------

Oh my. So you are still peddling the preposterous claim that the Connally bullet traveled at a 45-degree downward angle through his chest?!

I notice you once again said nothing about the fact that Dr. Shaw measured the downward angle through Connally on Connally himself as being 25 degrees, and that the WC agreed with this. Let's read what the Warren Report says about this -- yet again:



And allow me to again remind you that in their final report, the FPP corrected the obvious misstatement in Dr. Baden's report about a 45-degree downward angle through Connally, and they adjusted the downward angle to 10 degrees. Let's read from the FPP's report -- yet again:

Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)



You cannot read this, is that the problem. It looks like you personally edited the quote for your pathetic theory. You would really do that?

(Volume VII, Medical and Firearms Evidence, Addendum G — Baden’s 9/6/78 memorandum). This is the only place where the HSCA publishes the actual numeric angles:

“Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front, downward at approximately a 45° angle to the horizontal and slightly medially at approximately a 10° angle for a distance of 12½ inches through the body.”
— HSCA Volume VII, Addendum G, Report of the Physical Examination of Governor John Connally, Memorandum by Michael I. Baden, M.D., 9/6/78

I am sure you do not like the reality of Baden's measurement.
It makes your whole show look silly.
----------------------------------

When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (Warren Report, p. 93)



You don't grasp what is wrong with placing Dr Shaw in the same room with Gov Connally when they testified weeks apart from each other. Connally did not strip down for the WC nor do you use a caliper to measure angle. What would they possible learn from having him take his shirt off.  Do you ever think for yourself?

-------------------------------------------
Let me give you a short lesson in basic logic: If numerous facts clearly seem to prove that your theory is impossible, you can't dodge those facts by insisting that you will not explain them until someone provides you with an alternative theory that you find acceptable. That's not how it works. If you were to try that stunt in a graded and judged college debate, you would get demolished and flunked -- and probably kicked off the debate team for remedial tutoring.

You and other SBT true believers can't even get a bullet out of JFK's throat in the first place without ignoring a mountain of facts: the fact that the back wound was below the throat wound, the fact that the bullet would have transited the neck at an upward angle, the fact that the trajectory through the neck cannot be aligned with the sixth-floor window unless you assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit, the fact that the throat wound had all the textbook characteristics of an entry wound, the fact that the only theory you can offer to explain the throat wound's entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory, the fact that all four of the Parkland medical staff who saw the throat wound before the clothing was cut off and who commented on the wound's location said the wound was above the collar, the fact that your only answer to the hard physical evidence of the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's coat and shirt is the ridiculous and debunked bunched-clothing explanation, the fact that JFK's tie concretely proves that no bullet exited the throat, the fact that the shirt slits were below the collar band and had no fabric missing from them, the fact that we now know that Humes knew about the throat wound at least an hour before the exam phase of the autopsy was completed, the fact that we now know that at the autopsy the autopsy pathologists established for an absolute and observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, the fact that ARRB and other recorded interviews with autopsy witnesses have revealed that the men standing around the autopsy table could see that the back wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity (even after all the chest organs had been removed), and the fact that the transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session confirms that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.


Congratulations. Just when I think you have maxed out the idiot meter you come up with this. Life is too short to correct this mess. You just keep believing it. It shows how harmless this whole nonsensical theory really is. In fact, can you expound on it and make it even better?

If you cannot explain how a separate shot impacts the SBT, especially one that is at 45 degree angle, you have a completely useless theory and in conclusion, you have a completely useless theory.

Angles are rise to run. A 45 degree angle is 1 to 1. See if that helps explain how a shot from 200 feet away would have to have been taken from a height of 200 feet if it traveled at a 45 degree angle.
7
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2026, 02:49:48 PM
I'm sure readers have noticed that WC apologists, as evidenced by Tim Nickerson's labored and errant replies, still have not been able to explain the fact that the back-wound bullet could not have come from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the missile struck, and that no photo or frame shows JFK's head tilted anywhere near that far forward, if at all.

Incredibly, Nickerson can't even admit what the HSCA's SBT diagram plainly shows, and he's still erroneously denying that Rydberg drew CE 385 under Humes's direct and point-by-point supervision, even though Humes and Rydberg themselves made this clear. I find it amazing that Nickerson actually cites Humes's descriptions of the back wound to support the claim that the wound was in the neck and not in the back, never mind the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's clothing, never mind the autopsy photo of the back wound, never mind the autopsy face sheet, never mind the "certified" death certificate, and never mind the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram. I see Nickerson even resorts to the ridiculous bunched-clothing theory, ignoring the fact that no photo or frame shows the jacket bunched nearly enough to make the holes align with a wound several inches higher, and ignoring the fact that Willis slide 5, taken much closer to the moment of impact, shows the jacket virtually flat on JFK's back.

It is worth remembering that Dr. Werner Spitz, a prominent forensic pathologist who served on the RC's medical panel and on the HSCA FPP, informed the RC in 1975 that there was "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the back "in a sharply upward direction" and that it traveled "upwards within the body":


There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)

Same useless crap.

So to you it is "useless crap" to note that a renowned forensic pathologist who served on both the RC medical panel and the HSCA FPP said there is "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the skin "in a sharply upward direction" and that the missile "traveled upwards within the body"?! That's your idea of "useless crap" when your SBT requires that the bullet hit at a downward angle and traveled downward through the neck?!

Stop being such a coward, stop hiding. Explain a separate wound to JBC if you don't think SBT is correct. Here are the facts you can use. 45 Degree downward angle through JBC's chest with a 10 degree medial angle right to left, this should help with your explanation.

Oh my. So you are still peddling the preposterous claim that the Connally bullet traveled at a 45-degree downward angle through his chest?!

I notice you once again said nothing about the fact that Dr. Shaw measured the downward angle through Connally on Connally himself as being 25 degrees, and that the WC agreed with this. Let's read what the Warren Report says about this -- yet again:

When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (Warren Report, p. 93)

And allow me to again remind you that in their final report, the FPP corrected the obvious misstatement in Dr. Baden's report about a 45-degree downward angle through Connally, and they adjusted the downward angle to 10 degrees. Let's read from the FPP's report -- yet again:

Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)


I again ask you if you have ever bothered to look a diagram of Connally's chest wounds. If so, how can you possibly believe that the downward angle from the entry wound to the exit wound was 45 degrees? How?

I will start you off locating the shooter. For every 1 foot horizontal, you go 1 foot vertical. Maybe math is not your thing. If the shooter was 200 feet away, he would also be 200 feet off the ground. Should be easy to locate that building in Dealey Plaza or maybe not. Explain the different medical wounds JBC would have suffered with a direct nose on bullet instead of one that was in the process of yawing after having passed through JFK. Hint: the rib damage would be way different.

LOL! This is pure hokum! Math is clearly not your thing, as you've already proved with your fantasy of a 45-degree downward angle through Connally.

Umm, no, if a shooter is 200 feet away, that does not mean he is also 200 feet off the ground. How in the world can you think this? Let's try this: The sixth-floor gunman was 265 feet from the limousine at Z313, but of course the gunman was not 265 feet off the ground, right? Right? He was 60 feet off the ground, as you should know.

Explain the different medical wounds JBC would have suffered with a direct nose on bullet instead of one that was in the process of yawing after having passed through JFK. Hint: the rib damage would be way different.

Hint: You have no clue what you are talking about. The Connally back-wound bullet was not yawing when it hit and did not yaw when it transited his chest. The back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear entry wound. A 1.5-cm-wide entry wound indicates the bullet struck at a modest horizontal angle or that the target was turned somewhat, just as with the head wound. Moreover, as Dr. Shaw noted, the bullet was not yawing through the chest but created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149) that "stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

I have pointed out these facts at least 10 times in the last six months, but you guys simply ignore them and keep repeating your yawing-bullet delusion. How about if you explain how a yawing bullet could have created a small tunneling wound that smashed 4 inches of rib bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Hey?

While you're at it, how about if you explain the fact that every single SBT wound-ballistics has contradicted the SBT? How about if you explain the fact that the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done, and done by a respected forensic engineering firm no less, determined that the SBT is impossible?

C'mon you can do it. Your MTG weaver of tall tales.

Let me give you a short lesson in basic logic: If numerous facts clearly seem to prove that your theory is impossible, you can't dodge those facts by insisting that you will not explain them until someone provides you with an alternative theory that you find acceptable. That's not how it works. If you were to try that stunt in a graded and judged college debate, you would get demolished and flunked -- and probably kicked off the debate team for remedial tutoring.

You and other SBT true believers can't even get a bullet out of JFK's throat in the first place without ignoring a mountain of facts: the fact that the back wound was below the throat wound, the fact that the bullet would have transited the neck at an upward angle, the fact that the trajectory through the neck cannot be aligned with the sixth-floor window unless you assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit, the fact that the throat wound had all the textbook characteristics of an entry wound, the fact that the only theory you can offer to explain the throat wound's entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory, the fact that all four of the Parkland medical staff who saw the throat wound before the clothing was cut off and who commented on the wound's location said the wound was above the collar, the fact that your only answer to the hard physical evidence of the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's coat and shirt is the ridiculous and debunked bunched-clothing explanation, the fact that JFK's tie concretely proves that no bullet exited the throat, the fact that the shirt slits were below the collar band and had no fabric missing from them, the fact that we now know that Humes knew about the throat wound at least an hour before the exam phase of the autopsy was completed, the fact that we now know that at the autopsy the autopsy pathologists established for an absolute and observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, the fact that ARRB and other recorded interviews with autopsy witnesses have revealed that the men standing around the autopsy table could see that the back wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity (even after all the chest organs had been removed), and the fact that the transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session confirms that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

8
Lee Bowers has been mentioned herein, so worth noting----

Lee Bowers herein tells Mark Lane that the latter two shots were very closely spaced, as in "knock-knock" on his table top.


at 5:35

Bowers demonstrates on his table the cadence, with two rapid knocks for the final two shots. This is indisputably Bowers' testimony.

AI: The typical time between two distinct knocks in a standard double knock is about 0.2 to 0.4 seconds (a quick, rhythmic beat).

Bowers' testimony is nearly identical to that Dallas Sheriff Seymour Weitzman, who also remembered the second two shots as nearly simultaneous. As did many other ear-witnesses.

This "bang.....bang-bang" cadence lines with Gov. JBC being shot ~Z295 and JFK at Z-312.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

That happens ~Z-295 or even a few frames later. Hard to tell---but certainly not near near Z-220 or so.

Very hard to square the reports of Bowers, Weitzman and JBC, none of whom seemed to have any axes to grind, all of whom seemed credible, with a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt-action on 11.22. 

IMHO, LHO was involved in the JFKA, and is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.

But no way LHO fired two shots in less than one second, armed with the M-C short rifle. 

I have reasonable doubts, even compelling reservations, about the LNT.

The people who reported two near simultaneous shots at the end in all likelihood were hearing a double sound from the last shot. I have experienced that phenomenon myself. I have a neighbor who sometimes fires a muzzle loading rifle. When he is taking target practice, I sometimes hear a single shot and other times I hear B-BOOM. It seems to depend on where I am standing on my property. It is not possible for a muzzle loader to be fired that rapidly.
9
Syncing the Dictabelt recording to the films is an exercise in futility because the Dictabelt did not record gunshots.
10
Specter didn't hold the rod at the level of the chalk mark. As you can see below, the rod was somewhat above where the chalk mark on the jacket was.



In that photo, he is holding the rod above the chalk mark. He is demonstrating the right to left trajectory of the bullet. In the photo taken from the other side, he is holding the rod lower to the side of the chalk mark to show the downward angle of the shot. He couldn't shot both at the same time without skewering the agent.
Quote

What that picture shows is a fairly good representation of the path of the bullet through Kennedy. Not perfect though, But it does show that the vertical angle of single bullet trajectory could work.

The picture I posted shows the vertical angle. The picture you posted has the rod well above the entry point and is showing the right to left trajectory.
Quote

There are numerous photos of Kennedy throughout the motorcade that show his jacket to be bunched up.

There are other photos in which the jacket is not bunched. The question is whether it was bunched at the time the single bullet struck.
Quote

The photo that you linked to is of rather poor quality. The Croft photo is the closest to the time of the single bullet shot in which the bunchup can be seen. You can't see it the best but it's there.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Gallery/Croft%20Gallery/croft~0_small.jpg

The Croft photo was taken much earlier in the motorcade somewhere between Love Field and downtown. The photo I showed is of good enough quality to show there was no bunching of the jacket and it appears to be in front of the TSBD, just seconds before the first shot. That tells me the jacket was not bunched when the single bullet struck JFK in the back.

You are trying to use the bunched jacket argument to show that the entry wound wasn't vertically 5 1/2 inches below the top of the jacket. The entry wound wasn't that low but not because of the bunched jacket. It was because the jacket was not vertical on JFK's back and the sloping angle made the vertical separation less than the 5 1/2 inch distance between the top of the collar and the bullet hole in the jacket. I would estimate the vertical separation would be about 4 inches.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10