JC-

There is the possibility of nearly simultaneous shots heard as one shot (by most witnesses), or use of silencers.

The LNT theory remains implausible due to witnesses such as Bowers (testifies as to rapid cadence), and the smell of gunsmoke in the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. The wind was blowing from GK towards the TSBD.

Gov. JBC's testimony lines up with him being shot ~Z-295.

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)

The HSCA-1979 concluded there was a high probability of a gunshot from the GK, and of a JFKAC. That was the last official investigation (the Luna Committee not being an investigation, but rather a Gong Show).

I do not pretend to know who conspired with LHO. I know leads to Havana and Moscow were snuffed out by the WC following instructions from President LBJ. 

As the LNT is implausible, by deduction there was a JFKAC.

LBJ was reluctant to get involved in Vietnam.

"President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the first official U.S. combat troops into Vietnam on March 8, 1965, sending 3,500 Marines to Da Nang."

On other words, the whole year 1964 passed w/o US combat troops in Vietnam. LBJ, long expert at domestic affairs, was not eager to get into Vietnam.

Yes, I believe LBJ made a huge mistake (as did his advisors), just as I believe JFK should have worked with the Diems, and indeed bears culpability for their assassinations. Which JFK himself said.

As for JFK singing kumbaya with Castro and Khrushchev....JFK was an ardent anti-communist. JFK tried to have Castro assassinated a few times.

The real JFK:

Translation: MTG has no rebuttal to the points made.

LOL! Oh, yeah, you bet! I'm still waiting for you to provide credible, factual responses to the points I've made, but instead you've offered nothing but your usual error-filled, illogical, and evasive polemic.

Let's just briefly look at three examples:

But for some strange reason she [Mercer] decided that wasn't worth notifying law enforcement about what she saw.

HUH?! She gave her account to the Dallas Sheriff Department a Secret Service agent on the day of the shooting. Sheesh, how can you not know this and yet pretend to have any business talking about her account? Her account has been discussed in a zillion books on the JFK case. Even John McAdams acknowledged that she told the Sheriff Department and a Secret Service agent about what she saw on 11/22/63. Indeed, in a tacit admission that her initial accounts were credible, McAdams suggested she innocently mistook a tool box for a rifle case.

Yet you get on here and claim she didn't tell "law enforcement about what she saw"!

This is just further proof that you have no business pretending that you're in any position to credibly comment on the JFK case. You repeatedly show that you don't even know what your side's leading advocates have said on the case.

You were given two possible but mundane reasons why three cars might have entered that parking lot and then left.

You didn't offer one syllable to explain the facts I cited that show those "mundane reasons" make no sense. You ignored all the points I made and just repeated your claim. You didn't explain why a car would need several minutes to see if there was a parking space in that small parking lot. Nor did you explain why a car would need several minutes and longer to figure out that the extension road was the only way in and out of the small parking lot. Nor did you explain why three cars in a row in the space of 25 minutes would have turned onto the extension road in the first place when it obviously led to a small parking lot that was next to the railroad yard.

Keep clinging to your discredited acoustics evidence that flies in the face of the entire body of evidence. It's all you have going for you 62+ years after the fact.

LOL! Hello? Did you simply not read all of the information that I've documented about the acoustical evidence and about the errors and omissions in the attacks on the acoustical evidence in my previous replies? Was the vocabulary too challenging? What "entire body of evidence" are you talking about?

I know you've probably already tuned out and that this will go in one ear and out the other, but I present the following for the sake of newcomers to the thread:

The entire "scientific" case against the acoustical evidence was based (1) on the NRC/NAS panel's bogus assumption that there was a 60-second recording pause on Channel 2, and (2) on the resulting claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that therefore the dictabelt's impulses were recorded after the assassination. Linsker and his buddies whittled down the alleged recording pause to 35 seconds, but they did not explain, and still have not explained, how this could have occurred without disrupting the timing of the dispatcher's subsequent transmissions (those transmissions came 60 seconds apart, just as they should have, proving there was no recoding pause on Channel 2).

As mentioned in previous replies, several scientists pointed out years ago that for the recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have had to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there isn't one. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation.

The new research, including a new PCC test, done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 proves (1) that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which means the tape's impulse patterns must have been recorded during the assassination, and (2) that the Decker transmission is an overdub created during the copying process and wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions.

BTW, are Linsker and his colleagues (all of whom served on the NRC/NAS panel) ever going to respond to Dr. Thomas's 2010 53-page demolition of their 2005 attack on Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence? Just wondering. Are they going to respond to the appendices on the acoustical evidence written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen in Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas? Again, just wondering.

It bears repeating that the NRC/NAS panel made no effort to explain the presences of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt and the windshield-distortion correlations identified in the tape's impulse patterns. What's more, the NRC/NAS panel (1) acknowledged there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the HSCA's acoustical experts occurred because the dictabelt was recorded during the assassination, and (2) acknowledged there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll, and they only rejected the HSCA's 95+% probability for the grass knoll shot by introducing two egregious errors into their calculations.

You might want to know that, contrary to what your fellow WC apologists usually pretend, we're not "only" talking about Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy as the HSCA's acoustical experts, although they were outstanding acoustical scientists who were recommended to the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. There were actually 10 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence: BBN scientists James Barger, Daniel Kalikow, Theodore L. Rhyne, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared Wolf, Scott P. Robinson, and Nancy M. McMahon, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss, Ernest Aschkenasy, and Ali Ghozati.

You should Google those scientists and see all of their accomplishments and the recognition they achieved in the field of acoustical science. Some of them are still active. Not a single critic of the acoustical evidence had/has credentials in acoustics that even come close to the credentials of HSCA acoustical scientists Barger, Rhyne, Schmidt, Wolf, Robinson, McMahon, Weiss, and Aschkenasy, and to the credentials of Dr. Mullen, the BBN acoustical scientist who conducted the new PCC test and authored an appendix in Thompson's 2021 book.

Many bullets enter bodies without exiting. This is not uncommon.

When that happens, the bullet remains in the body. There were no bullets in JFK's body. Only tiny fragments.

The back-wound bullet clearly did not come from the sixth-floor window -- it came came at the wrong time and at the wrong angle to have come from that window. The shot may have been a misfire from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building (Harold Weisberg identified photographic evidence that suggests a gunman was firing from a lower floor that building), or it may have been a large fragment from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limo early in the shooting (the small back-of-head bullet fragments could only have come from this bullet). 

Harold Weisberg was a your typical CT. He assumed a lot of things for which there was zero evidence, such as a shooter in the Dal-Tex building. Even a shooter from that building would be shooting at a downward angle so that pretty much shoots down your claim the bullet entered JFK's back on an upward angle.

The throat-wound missile ranged downward into the chest, as indicated by the damage described by Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark. This projectile may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that made the hole in the windshield (eight witnesses saw the hole, and one of them -- a police officer -- even stuck a pencil through it).

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Haven't you been the one telling us that the throat wound was a neat little round hole? How does a shard of glass make that kind of wound?

I recommend reading Dr. David Mantik's extensive analysis of the back wound and the throat wound in his recent book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis.

Sure, if you want to piss away $21 plus shipping so a radiation oncologist can give you his take on the JFKA.

I think it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Humes was deliberately misrepresenting the back wound's location in his CE 385 SBT diagram. He surely knew this was not even close to what he had seen. If you compare the autopsy photo of the back wound with CE 385, it is obvious that Humes mislocated the wound at least 2.5 inches higher than where the photo shows it.

The evidence that the back wound was clearly below the throat wound is truly extensive and impressive. For example:

-- As mentioned earlier, JFK's official death certificate, dated 11/23/63, prepared by Dr. George Burkley and marked "verified," placed the back wound at around T3: "a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image1.htm). Needless to say, Dr. Burkley got a long, up-close look at JFK's body during the autopsy and after the autopsy when he witnessed the embalming.

Given how far backward JFK's head is titled in the autopsy photo, the photo certainly does not rule out the death certificate's placement of the wound. Moreover, the "at about the level of" T3 placement is confirmed by the hard physical evidence of the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt.

"At about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" means it was not exactly at T3, so it could have been between T2 and T3. The distance between the center of T2 and the center of T3 on the average male is just shy of 3/4ths of an inch, 1.8 cm/0.70 inches. If the wound were perceived to be more than halfway between T2 and T3, "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" would be a perfectly valid description.

Furthermore, as we will see below, the T2-T3 placement is supported by numerous and mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts and wound diagrams. 

-- Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said in his 11/30/63 report that the back wound was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" ("The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963: Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, Concerning His Activities and Official Duties on November 22, 1963," 11/30/63, p. 5; CE 1024, p. 744).

Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat and to the placement of the back wound on the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified") and in the official death certificate (also marked "verified").

-- In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the WC, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade. Rankin even referred to a picture which he said
showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" and that it entered below "where the bullet came out":

. . . we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front. (p. 20, https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm)

-- Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman got a very good look at JFK's body at the morgue. Kellerman was the one who called Clint Hill to the morgue to view Kennedy's wounds, and he pointed out the wounds to Hill. Kellerman told the HSCA that the back wound was a "back wound," and he put the wound several inches below the neck in his HSCA wound diagram (Kellerman's HSCA wound diagram).

-- When interviewed by the HSCA, FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill both independently put the back wound far too low for the SBT to be even theoretically possible. Sibert and O'Neill actually drew wound diagrams that put the back wound about 4 inches below C7/the base of the neck (Sibert's HSCA wound diagram; O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram). O'Neill even went out of his way to note during his interview that "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat" (HSCA affidavit, 11/8/78, p. 5, ARRB record number MD 47).

When the ARRB asked O'Neill about his HSCA wound diagram, he said that he stood by the diagram, and that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill, ARRB, 9/12/97, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O'Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram.

O’Neill further said that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point (pp. 30-31, 94).

-- In his ARRB interview, Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, recalled that the back wound was in the "upper right back," and called it a "back wound" (Testimony of John H. Ebersole, Medical Panel Meeting, HSCA, 3/11/78, pp. 3-4, ARRB record number MD 60). In a recorded interview with Harrison Livingstone, Ebersole said he believed the back wound was near T4 (Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case, 1993, p. 721).

Finally, as I have documented in previous replies, even the HSCA FPP's placement of the back wound at T1 destroys the SBT because it requires an upward trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound, and because the only way to align that trajectory with the sixth-floor window is to assume that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.

Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs.
.....
Commander HUMES - The angle which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our point of entrance labeled "C" on 385 and "D" point of exit is one that the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the vertical.
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously identified as a Commission Exhibit?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes; I am.
Mr. SPECTER - All the facts set forth therein are correct in accordance with your analysis and evaluation of the situation?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And specifically, as to the points of entry and points of exit which have been testified to by Doctor Humes, do his views express yours as well?
Commander BOSWELL - They do, yes.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present here today and did you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D, and general angle on the flight of the missile?
Colonel FINCK - I certainly do.
==========

"This wound is located approximately at the point where the bullet would be expected to exit, given the nature of the entrance wound in the upper right back and the damage to the transverse process of the lower cervical and first thoracic vertebras, which are situated on a line between the entrance and exit points."- HSCA Volume VII, page 175

That may be why they said this:

"the entrance perforation is medial to the scapula and superior to the ribs." - HSCA Volume VII, page 87

T1 being the uppermost vertebra for the ribs.

And there's this from the HSCA photographic analysis panel:

168. "the evidence indicates that the bullet passed near, but did not strike, the right lateral processes of the seventh cervical and first thoracic vertebrae (nor any other bony matter) (59)"- HSCA Volume VI, page 56

(59) sources paragraphs 272-289 of the FPP report.
================

The midpoint is estimated to be 13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck, as positioned within the photograph, 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease and 5 cm below the upper shoulder margin. - HSCA Volume VII, page 85
------

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck."- Clark Panel



===========

"back in the neck...just above C7". - Paul O'Connor, HSCA interview