JFK Assassination Forum

I doubt that you [Fred Litwin] have read all the files that pertain to Clay Shaw.

British researcher Malcolm Blunt said in a September 2021 YouTube interview on the subject of "Yuri Nosenko and the JFK assassination" that he believes Bruce Leonard Solie in CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security was a KGB mole, himself, and states that Solie "was all over the Kennedy investigation, and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."

"Moreover, we don’t need the Zapruder film at all to tell us what happened. Indeed, less than .01 percent of all murders, if that, are captured on film, yet law enforcement has done quite well, thank you, without such films in proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly what happened. And here, even without the Zapruder film, there were well over a hundred witnesses to the murder in Dealey Plaza—here again, a fact that sets the assassination apart from nearly all other murders. The overwhelming majority of premeditated murders don’t even have one eye or ear witness, yet law enforcement normally is successful in proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is because virtually all authors of books on the assassination have had no background in law enforcement that a remark like the following, from anti-conspiracy author Gerald Posner, could be made: “To think that if the Zapruder film did not exist we would never be able to prove with any certainty what happened in Dealey Plaza.”6

So traditionally—and the Kennedy case is no exception—guilt (and the existence or nonexistence of a conspiracy) in a murder case is proved not by a film or eyewitnesses, but rather by other evidence. And in this case, the physical evidence isn’t just persuasive or even overwhelming, it’s absolutely conclusive that only three shots were fired, and that one of the two shots that hit Kennedy also went on to hit Connally. Hence, Connally was not hit by a separate bullet, which would have established a second gunman and a conspiracy.
Yet the Zapruder film remains the focal point for most conspiracy theorists who are drawn to this unique and grisly spectacle. Over the past forty years, the film, for many, has become the Holy Grail of the case for conspiracy. At first, the apparent backward snap of the president’s head at the moment of the head shot, and the alleged delayed reaction between Kennedy and Connally around the time the Warren Commission claimed they were hit by a single bullet, were touted as absolute proof of two assassins. Today, even though the overwhelming majority of evidence has shown that neither allegation is true, most conspiracy theorists, embracing the philosophy of “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind,” still cling tenaciously to these arguments. However, some theorists, knowing that the evidence has obliterated their position, are now actually arguing that the film itself has been altered as part of a massive cover-up to hide the truth about the “conspiracy.” In this chapter, we’ll examine the facts and the myths surrounding the timing and number of shots, the single-bullet theory, the president’s head snap to the rear, the source of the gunfire, and allegations that the most famous home movie of all time has been altered to conceal the truth. We’ll also learn that the “magic” bullet was not magic and the “pristine” bullet (same bullet) was not pristine."
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

What if Zapruder hadn't filmed the assassination?

Oswald comes out guilty without the Zfilm, no question.  The SBT would still have been considered because the neck bullet did not stop at JFK and the only thing in front of JFK that was hit were three places on JBC, a couple of points on the windshield and frame and the curb near James Tague.

How would it have affected our knowledge of the assassination? Would the Single Bullet Theory have ever been developed?

According to David Belin as he related in his book Final Disclosure, Specter came up with the SBT after Belin had found an expert witness (whom he does not name but appears to be FBI Robert Frazier) who said that JBC was turned too far to the right after z240 for him to have received his torso wounds. That presented a real problem because that didn’t leave much time for two shots to have been fired if JFK was hit no earlier, than z210.  So it does appear that the zfilm was important in creating the SBT.

The original FBI models could have been based on witness evidence as far as the relative spacing is concerned, not necessarily on the Zfilm.

Without the zfilm the placement of JFK at the time of the first shot could be bracketed from witnesses and photos: eg as being between the Croft and Betzner photos and the Phill Willis photo.[Betzner gave a detailed statement on 22Nov63 and turned over his film.  Croft turned his film over later and the FBI had it developed, but he never gave a statement. Neither photo was included in the WC exhibits.]

The location of the head shot could be fairly accurately determined from the witness and other photographic evidence (eg Nix film). 

The second shot could then have been inferred as being between the first and third based on the shot pattern and without the zfilm the early FBI models would have been hard to refute.

However, there was the Altgens 6 photo that Altgens said was taken after just the first shot. The Belin expert could have used that photo to conclude that JBC must have been hit in the torso before then because of way he was turned. So, that may have led to suggest first shot SBT: that both men were struck on the first shot.  But with all the problems that creates it may not have persuaded the WC.

I have my doubts although there would be a dilemma for the finding that there were 3 shot and 3 hits, 2 on  JFK and 1 on JBC. Why were there only 2 bullets recovered if three had struck the victims. Maybe somebody would have developed the theory but it would be much more difficult to support.

I don't think the fact that not all the bullets were recovered plays much of a part in the SBT.

Ken Rahn spent a lot of time trying to prove the SBT by showing that the NAA data proved that all fragments came from the same bullet. That was until the Nation Academy of Sciences weighed in.  The FBI eventually admitted that using metallurgical science to identify bullets by comparative bullet lead analysis was fundamentally flawed.

But even if were proved that all the fragments came from one bullet, that would not prove the SBT. The fragments add up to less than half a bullet. So we are missing at least large parts of two bullets.

Try thinking before you write something as stupid as this.

You rely on the WC findings, right?

The WC relied completely on Hoover's FBI for the bulk of the investigation. Everything went through Hoover so if he was completely clueless than so was the WC! 

You're just trolling.

All I have done is show that the recollections of witnesses overwhelmingly put the first shot hitting JFK in the neck and the second shot striking JBC in the right armpit after the midpoint between the first and third, and the third striking JFK in the head.

So, according to that evidence the second shot occurred when JBC was turned sideways.  That is not my “theory”. That just follows from that witness evidence. And, this is exactly what Nellie and Gayle Newman recalled seeing shortly after the events.

Now you are saying that you can prove that, despite being independent and mutually consistent, this evidence is all wrong. So it is up to you to show that what the witnesses said happened could not have occurred.  So why don’t you show us why the bullet path through JBC ‘s torso doesn’t work at z271 but does at z222?

It's pointless even discussing any of this other crap because if you can't show it's even possible for JBC to be shot in the back at Z271, the rest of your theory collapses like a house of cards. I'm not even asking you to prove he was shot in that back at or about Z271. Just show us that it was possible. Apparently, you can't do that.