I agree that there has been only one shot by z240. z240 is quite consistent with JBC doing what he said he did, and what Nellie and Gayle Newman and Bobby Hargis observed JBC did, in response to the first shot. In fact, Hargis thought that JBC was hit on the first shot because of the way he reacted. 

The problem with your scenario is your insistence that JBC falsely imagined he was not struck on the first shot. 

It is also at least interesting that JBC does not move his right arm after z271. In z240 he has yet to swing his right forearm from somewhere below to right in front of what would become the chest exit wound.

Have you forgotten about his sudden and rapid arm flip at Z226?

Anyone who can look at the footage immediately following JFK's reemergence at Z225 and can't see that JBC has obviously been hit is not a person who should be taken seriously. Trust me on this. We don't take you seriously. Neither the LNs nor the CTs.

MG: They were also extensively cited in later scholarly books on evidence of Mafia involvement written by historians Dr. Richard Mahoney and Dr. David Kaiser.

JC: I always get a chuckle when you throw around the word "scholarly".

Oh, so are you saying that Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Kaiser are not scholars? Do you know anything about their education and credentials?

Just to give you some idea of how discrediting and unserious your comment is, here is some information on Dr. Mahoney's and Dr. Kaiser's education and credentials:

----Dr. Richard Mahoney----

Dr. Mahoney was educated at Brophy College Preparatory, Princeton University, Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University.

Mahoney has lectured as a visiting professor at Templeton College (Oxford University), The JFK School of Government (Harvard University), the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador (Quito campus).

In addition to his JFKA book The Kennedy Brothers, he has authored JFK: Ordeal in Africa, Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Getting Away with Murder. He has also authored numerous articles and monographs on presidential history, foreign policy, and international trade.

----Dr. David Kaiser----

Dr. Kaiser earned his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University.

He was a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College from 1990 until 2012. He has taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College, and Harvard University.

In addition to his JFKA book The Road to Dallas, his published works include Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler, and Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race.

I guess Mahoney and Kaiser are two more people who, according to you, have "lost their ability to think rationally" because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Maybe, just maybe, they're not the ones who cannot think rationally.

MG: Anyway, do you plan on providing your list of six books that you'd recommend to a newcomer, or are you just here to snipe and posture?

JC: No.

Gee, I wonder why.

Perhaps because you haven't read six books on the assassination?

Rational people who are acquainted with the evidence as whole know Oswald shot JFK from TSBD6 and murdered Tippit. There’s no real doubt about this. Any conspiracy theory that deviates from these truths is edging toward the lunatic fringe, simple as that.

I could be cynical and say it includes everyone who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

Well, there you have it, folks. According to these two guys, anyone who doubts that Oswald shot JFK and Tippit is "edging toward the lunatic fringe," or, anyone who just doubts that Oswald shot JFK is part of the "lunatic fringe."

Now, this is mighty interesting. Here's a partial list of the people who doubt that Oswald shot JFK:

-- Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist whose had numerous papers published on radiology issues in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives and also JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, M.D., who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Barry Krusch, B.S. in psychology and author of Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.

-- Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who said it was not clear that Oswald shot JFK, and that no one had yet been able to prove he fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window.

-- Dr. Halbert Fillinger, a renowned forensic pathologist, who said the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

-- Dr. John Nichols, a professor of pathology and a court-certified expert in pathology and forensic pathology.

-- Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB.

-- Dr. David Wrone, historian, a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and author of The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

-- Jacob Hornberger, B.S. in economics and a Juris Doctor degree, a former professor of law and economics at the University of Dallas, and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former Deputy Chief Council for the HSCA, former district attorney for New York County, former Chief of the Criminal Courts, New York County, and a former professor of  Advanced Criminal Procedure at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

-- Dr. Walt Brown, Ph.D. in history from the University of Notre Dame, and a former professor of history at Ramapo College in New Jersey.

I suspect that Lance Payette and John Corbett are posting their extreme, discrediting polemic in an effort to offset the fact that they are in a decided minority on the JFK case. Recently, I've been pointing out that repeated surveys have shown that only about 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans and Europeans believe the lone-gunman theory and that about 2/3 to 3/4 believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

I suspect that Payette and Corbett are also posting their extreme polemic because lately I've been emphasizing the fact that the last federal investigation into the JFK assassination, i.e., the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that scientific acoustical evidence proved that more than three shots were fired, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassinations weeks in advance, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to kill Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he killed Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, among other findings.

I suspect that at least part of the reason Payette specifies that one must believe that Oswald was the alleged lone gunman, instead of just believing that only one gunman fired at JFK, is that the HSCA concluded that Oswald was one of the gunmen (the sixth-floor gunman). Payette knows that if he merely required belief in only one gunman, regardless of his identity, he would have to label the HSCA as part of the "lunatic fringe."

Personally, I don't really care who the gunmen were. I have no ideological objection to Oswald being one of the shooters. I just don't happen to think he was. The core of my position is that there was more than one gunman, and that is how many conspiracy theorists view the matter. If hard evidence surfaced that proved Oswald was one of the gunman, this would have zero impact on my theory of the shooting and minimal impact on my theory of the assassination as a whole.

And this coming from the guy who insists that the Warren Report is still "the definitive account" of the JFK assassination, a fantasy that was shredded by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.

We've already seen in spades that you know so little about the JFK case that you're in no position to be deciding what is "nutty."

Uh-huh. We both know you haven't read any of the hundreds of pages of research that supports the case for pre-autopsy surgery, research done by the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, Doug Horne.

I'm fairly certain you don't know, for example, that we now know that Tom Robinson, one of the autopsy morticians, saw Humes sawing on the skull before the autopsy. Robinson added that the top-of-head damage seen in the autopsy photos "was what the doctors did."
 
You know this is false. You seem to be melting down. I've answered your silly argument at least twice. But, you ignore the contrary facts and counterarguments I've presented and then repeat your argument as if it has not been answered.

I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once. "I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".

If this forum had a minimum-knowledge requirement for posting, this comment would get you disqualified. The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.

Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.

OMG!!! I didn't even think you were gullible enough to believe that ridiculous story of post-mortem surgery concocted by David Lifton. That is probably the nuttiest conspiracy theory anyone has ever come up with.

And this coming from the guy who insists that the Warren Report is still "the definitive account" of the JFK assassination, a fantasy that was shredded by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.

We've already seen in spades that you know so little about the JFK case that you're in no position to be deciding what is "nutty."

No one who takes that story seriously should themselves be taken seriously. That includes you. You seem willing to swallow just about any BS story as long as it claims there was a conspiracy.

Uh-huh. We both know you haven't read any of the hundreds of pages of research that supports the case for pre-autopsy surgery, research done by the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, Doug Horne.

I'm fairly certain you don't know, for example, that we now know that Tom Robinson, one of the autopsy morticians, saw Humes sawing on the skull before the autopsy. Robinson added that the top-of-head damage seen in the autopsy photos "was what the doctors did."
 

Never mind JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226 which coincided with JFK starting to raise his arms in reaction to being shot. You dodge this inconvenient fact every time it is brought up because you have no explanation for it.

You know this is false. You seem to be melting down. I've answered your silly argument at least twice. But, you ignore the contrary facts and counterarguments I've presented and then repeat your argument as if it has not been answered.

Whether the bullet did or did not nick the tie upon exiting JFK's throat is not an essential element of the SBT. I believe it did, but the SBT works either way.

If this forum had a minimum-knowledge requirement for posting, this comment would get you disqualified. The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.