Did the authorities make any attempt to investigate it?...

Who was that un-named "manager" the cops spoke to on the stairs at the Theater?...

I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting.  I never claimed it did.  But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.  Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests. 

I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally.  I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with.  The work is actually fun to me.  I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions.  I’m currently working on the head shot.  Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.

Elements of a shooting can be replicated individually to demonstrate what is possible. For example the Haag forensic team demonstrated by firing a Carcano round through ballistic gel that such a round tends to yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove the bullet that left JFK's throat yawed upon exiting but combined with the fact that the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated, it seems highly likely that is what happened. Likewise, an Australian documentary team used animal carcasses to simulate JFK's and JBC's bodies. It took them a number of tries before they got the bullet to pass through the simulated soft tissue and bone that the single bullet would have but when they did, the bullet ended up looking very similar to CE399. The nose was intact and there was flattening at the base. The bullet was bent more than CE399 but it is unreasonable to expect such an experiment could perfectly replicate CE399.

HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.

Any record of Young saying that before 2001?

Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.

I'd like to see the documentation for this claim. The Secret Service conducted the search of the limo for physical evidence. Do you really think they would have let two Navy non-coms to just show up and search the limo. The story makes no sense, but CTs never seem to care if the myths they choose to believe make any sense.

JC-

Yes, you are correct about AI.

In this case, AI-Gemini accurately summarized the historical record on LBJ instructions to Warren and Russell.

You may regard my human intelligence with low regard, and have expressed as much many times, but I used human intelligence to monitor the AI intelligence results.

I regard you as
a smart guy, who happens to have different views on the JFKA than me.

You have yet to document any order LBJ gave to the WC that told them to do anything but find the truth of the JFKA. The staff lawyers who did most of the actual investigating, to a man said they wanted to find evidence of a conspiracy and were unable to do so. Do you think they would have done that had they been ordered to conclude Oswald acted alone?

I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting.  I never claimed it did.  But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.

Exactly. As you note, it is an impossible standard (many would say a very unreasonable standard) to expect that wound-ballistics tests will always duplicate every single aspect and every single result of an alleged shooting incident.

Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests.

Yes, indeed. And, conversely, if repeated wound-ballistics testing fails every single time to replicate most or all of the results of an alleged shooting incident, this is a solid basis for doubting it, if not for rejecting it.

Two SBT wound-ballistics tests (one of Lattimer's tests and an Australian test) actually duplicated all the wounds posited by the SBT, but in both cases the bullets emerged visibly more damaged than CE 399.

And, of course, both of those tests assumed that JFK and Connally were aligned in a way to make the wounding possible in the first place, when in fact the most advanced, sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the 2023 Knott Lab analysis, found that the two men were not aligned in a way that would make the SBT theoretically possible. In addition, the few pro-SBT trajectory analyses have had to make demonstrably invalid assumptions about the size of Connally's back wound (doubling its size), the size and nature of the wound path through Connally's chest (ignoring the fact that it was rather narrow), and JFK and Connally's positions and rotations (putting the men in positions and/or rotations that are wholly unsupported by the photographic evidence). 

I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally.  I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with.  The work is actually fun to me.  I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions.  I’m currently working on the head shot.  Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.

This is very interesting to hear. You are joining a long list of experts who initially believed in the lone-gunman theory but who changed their minds after doing more research into the case. These experts include Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist, radiologist, and physicist), Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist), Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroanatomist), Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound-ballistics expert), and Howard Donahue (firearms and ballistics expert).

I, too, grew up believing in the WC's version of the shooting, since that's what I was taught in school. Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused me to start reading about the case, partly because I thought "this just can't be true."

The first big doubt that I formed involved Oswald's alleged shooting feat. I did 21 years in the Army and qualified at all three marksmanship levels (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). When I became aware of the details of the alleged shooting performance, I recognized right away that it would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, highly skilled rifleman, and far beyond the ability of someone whose best day at the Marine Corps rifle range was to barely qualify in the sharpshooter category using a semi-automatic rifle against targets he'd practiced against for hours and with vastly more time to fire than the alleged lone gunman would have had.