What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.
Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.
Look how Barb Junkkarinen researched this question vs. how Michael Griffith looked into it (Junkkarinen was a conspiracist not a lone assassin believer). She didn't uncritically accept any claims about seeing a hole, she looked into them, tried to re-create where they were, what they could see. Were they credible? She sifted through the evidence pro and con, weighed them, and came to a conclusion. Whether it was right or not is second to the question of *how* she studied the issue.
Michael Griffith simply accepts the bullet hole claims (how would a spectator not at the scene know what caused the "hole"?), does no deeper research into the accounts, dismisses counter claims and then concludes that the evidence by itself "refutes" the long assassin theory.
Meanwhile, at the same time he accepts the acoustic analysis which theorized there was no frontal shot at that time. It didn't happen they said. If he believes the acoustics analysis then he can't believe in a early frontal shot and certainly not here at circa Z 260 or so.
Recent Posts
doesn't make it so.