JFK Assassination Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Gary Aguilar's Two-Shot Analysis

« Last post by James Slater on Yesterday at 03:40:26 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:27:42 PM

When I read this, I feel like I'm in a time warp and I've traveled back to 1991.

Where did you get the idea that Oswald only had 6 seconds to fire 3 shots. Was it from Josiah Thompson's lame book Six Seconds in Dallas? The WC never concluded 3 shots were fired in 6 seconds, only that it was a theoretical possibility. 3 shots in under 6 seconds is only necessary if one believes the second shot was the missed shot. There is a general consensus among lone assassin proponents that the first shot was the missed shot. This gives Oswald at least 8 seconds to fire the three shots and some have hypothesized 10-11 seconds. Without definitive proof of exactly when Oswald fired that first missed shot, we can't really say how long it took him to fire all 3 shots. What we can be fairly certain of is that there was almost 5 seconds between the two shots that hit JFK.

The single bullet was a product of the Secret Service recreations which showed at the time JFK was shot in the back, JBC was directly in line to be hit by the bullet that exited from JFK's throat. Such a bullet could hardly have missed him. There are no eyewitnesses to a second shooter. There is no photographic evidence of a second shooter. There is no medical evidence of a second shooter. There is no ballistic evidence of a second shooter. The three recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. It is a mortal lock that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. There is zero credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.

As for the Connallys, Nellie Connally is probably one of the worst witnesses we have. Nothing she said she saw is supported by the Z-film. John Connally was sure of one thing. He had been hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot. For some reason he had been led to believe that JFK had been hit by the first which is why he rejected the SBT. The reality is that both men were hit by the second shot.

You said there is no evidence of a second shooter yet I've yet to see evidence from any witness that stated they saw Oswald with a rifle in the TSBD or in the 6th floor window with a rifle. In a court of law in the United States first hand witnesses to the fact are first and foremost in any trial. They form the basis of most prosecutions and defences. Circumstantial and forensic evidence are used in conjunction with witnesses to the fact.
Nell and John Connally were first hand witnesses to the fact, they were in the limo and if they both state that John Connally was hit two seconds after Kennedy was first struck then that is what we have to go with. If you don't then the constitution of the United States isn't worth the paper it was written on. That would be akin to suggesting that first hand witnesses are not trust worthy in ANY trial.
There are five video's available of five railroad workers who testified on film that they saw gunsmoke and heard shots fired from the picket fence. I'll post them later. None of them were allowed to testify before the Warren commission. Show me one video or piece of evidence from anyone who saw Oswald with a rifle in Dealey Plaza.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: 10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 03:02:59 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on July 24, 2026, 01:53:32 PM

MG: The fact that Connally's entry wound was only 1.5 cm wide indicates the bullet hit at a slightly horizontal angle. If the bullet had been markedly yawing, the entry wound would have been much larger, which is why all of your fellow SBT believers who claim the bullet hit while markedly yawing misleadingly cite the post-surgery size of 3.0 cm for the wound. And if the bullet had been tumbling through Connally's chest, it most certainly would have created a much wider wound path than the narrow path that Dr. Shaw described.[/size]

JC: Slightly horizontal? Is that like being slightly pregnant?

LOL! Are you really just a child? What kind of nonsense is this? I have to wonder about your level of intelligence to make such an argument. Anyway, no, slightly horizontal is nothing like being slightly pregnant. Bullet angles are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bullets can strike at a wide range of horizontal angles, from very slight to slight to moderate to sharp. Bullets can also yaw by a wide range of degrees, from 1 degree upward. The fact that you need this explained to you says much about your credibility.

The bullet that struck Connally's back must have done so at a slightly horizontal angle or while slightly yawing because the wound path through Connally was not very wide but surprisingly narrow, as Dr. Shaw explained. Again, a bullet striking in this manner could have easily created a 1.5 x 0.8 cm entry wound, virtually identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound (1.5 x 0.6 cm), which in turn explains the surprisingly narrow wound path through Connally's chest.

To believe your whacky theory, we'd have to assume that your supposedly sideways-streaking bullet magically straightened out almost completely a few milliseconds after penetrating the back so that it could create a narrow wound path through Connally's chest.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:53:53 PM »

Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 01:09:33 PM

I will have to confess to finding my Mary Woodward factoid-hunt way more fun than I perhaps should.

1. As a journalism major who worked in that field for seven years before law school, I find it fascinating in the extreme that a 23-year-old reporter for a major newspaper would so blatantly fill her article with whoppers on a story of the magnitude of the JFKA. I am amazed that (1) Mary was able to continue to work in the field and (2) she was allowed for 54 years to get away with attributing the most insignificant of her whoppers to a "hearing problem" with NO ONE pointing out, "Uh, Mary, that doesn't begin to account for the whoppers in your article." You have to admit, claiming that she had thought "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" would be a serious BBC documentary is also "just a bit" out there. Maybe I'm morphing into Milicent Cranor (would that be good?), but there is something disturbing about all this that I can't quite put my finger on.

2. Exposing someone like Mary just always sort of makes my day. It's what we factoid-busters live for, like finding a previously unknown butterfly or something. Sorry that Mary was a seemingly pleasant and likeable dingbat, but she was indeed a dingbat.

3. Exponentially adding to the mirth is when someone such as TG digs in his heels and tries to preserve a character like Mary as supportive of his JFKA views. This is one of the most comical aspects of the JFKA - the inability of virtually everyone, CTer and LNer alike, to simply say "Oops, got that wrong, never mind." NO, WE CAN NEVER ADMIT WE HAVE MADE FOOLS OF OURSELVES on even the most insignificant issue because ... because ... well, I'm not sure why, but we can't. Early on at the Ed Forum, I made two rather large and comical mistakes, and a longtime CTer who became one of my biggest supporters congratulated me for having the honesty to say "Oops, got that wrong, never mind." Try it sometime.

4. And, of course, even more exponentially ratcheting up the mirth is when the heel-digger is TG, who inevitably ends up throwing a name-calling hissy fit and reveals who really is - i.e., fundamentally nuttier than almost anyone here. Indeed, fundamentally nuttier than almost anyone I've ever encountered on any internet forum. Indeed, fundamentally nuttier than ... oh, well, let's not overdo it.

RIP, dingbat Mary. You were a hoot, as are TG's efforts to prop you up. (Speaking of propping up, how many people know that English philosopher Jeremy Bentham specified in his will that his corpse would be preserved, appropriately clad, and occasionally wheeled out to preside at university meetings - and it was! Just one of those little tidbits of weirdness that fill approximately 2/3 of my brain.)

I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

When I first saw the conversation she had at the Sixth Floor Museum, I was pleasantly surprised to discover she had a fairly accurate account of the JFKA. Thanks to Andrew Mason, I had been led to believe that her account was that JFK had been hit by the first shot. Then I come to find out that she clearly remembered hearing a shot that hadn't hit anybody (with the possible exception of Tague who she was unaware of at the time). She did have the false impression that the shots had come from behind her which she acknowledged did not happen. She is absolutely correct in her belief that Oswald was the assassin. On that point, there should be no doubt although CTs have spent over six decades trying to manufacturer doubt.

As for TG, he and I differ by about 1.3 seconds as to when the first shot was fired and we have had serious disagreements on political matters having nothing to do with the JFKA, but he is essentially correct about how the shooting went down. One miss, followed by a single bullet striking JFK and JBC followed 4.9 seconds later by the fatal headshot.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Gary Aguilar's Two-Shot Analysis

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:27:42 PM »

Quote from: James Slater on Yesterday at 01:52:48 PM

I don't know who fired the shots but there was more than one shooter and it can be proven. Arlen Specter came up with the single shot theory not just by chance but because in the time period they had which was about six seconds, four shots cannot be fired. They tried and the most you can do with the Carcano is three shots. All of which the Warren commission accounted for. The Tague bullet, the neck shot which according to the WC also went through Connally and the head shot. The problem is the testimony of Nell and John Connally which never changed actually stated that Kennedy was hit in the neck first then two seconds later Connally was struck.
Here the two are interviewed in 1988:-
And here in at 2:25 into this video in 1966 Connally states the same. This means there has to be fours shots and two shooters. Now we have Tague bullet, Kennedy neck, Connally then Kennedy head shot.

When I read this, I feel like I'm in a time warp and I've traveled back to 1991.

Where did you get the idea that Oswald only had 6 seconds to fire 3 shots. Was it from Josiah Thompson's lame book Six Seconds in Dallas? The WC never concluded 3 shots were fired in 6 seconds, only that it was a theoretical possibility. 3 shots in under 6 seconds is only necessary if one believes the second shot was the missed shot. There is a general consensus among lone assassin proponents that the first shot was the missed shot. This gives Oswald at least 8 seconds to fire the three shots and some have hypothesized 10-11 seconds. Without definitive proof of exactly when Oswald fired that first missed shot, we can't really say how long it took him to fire all 3 shots. What we can be fairly certain of is that there was almost 5 seconds between the two shots that hit JFK.

The single bullet was a product of the Secret Service recreations which showed at the time JFK was shot in the back, JBC was directly in line to be hit by the bullet that exited from JFK's throat. Such a bullet could hardly have missed him. There are no eyewitnesses to a second shooter. There is no photographic evidence of a second shooter. There is no medical evidence of a second shooter. There is no ballistic evidence of a second shooter. The three recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. It is a mortal lock that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. There is zero credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.

As for the Connallys, Nellie Connally is probably one of the worst witnesses we have. Nothing she said she saw is supported by the Z-film. John Connally was sure of one thing. He had been hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot. For some reason he had been led to believe that JFK had been hit by the first which is why he rejected the SBT. The reality is that both men were hit by the second shot.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Gary Aguilar's Two-Shot Analysis

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 02:23:41 PM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on July 25, 2026, 03:35:32 AM

Dr. Gary Aguilar gives his view of two shots striking JFK on 11.22, including one shot from the GK.

Aguilar is obviously intelligent, literate and informed on topic.

Interesting presentation, whether one agrees or not.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

And, as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley documented, there are two separate, unconnected wound paths in JFK's brain -- one is cortical and the other is sub-cortical.

You also have the fact that you have fragments on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays that are far removed from any other fragments. For example, the 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm fragments above and just behind the right orbit are well forward of the right-frontal fragment cluster that forms part of the high fragment trail, and that fragment cluster starts with tiny particles and progresses rearward with larger (though still relatively small) fragments, indicating, according to everything we know from ballistics and physics, that the bullet hit the right-frontal region. The heavier the fragments, the farther they will travel.

Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who was allowed to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives, explains this while discussing the same right-frontal entry wound that Dr. David Mantik has identified:

This is what I saw on the original right lateral skull x-ray at the archives. There is a gap in the bone -- not very big, maybe 3 mm, but remember that this is a composite of all the material between the x-ray machine and the film—when viewed from the side, a hole in the frontal bone may not be seen at all, and if it is, it won’t appear as wide as its actual width. I think that this defect is probably due to a combination of an entry wound and associated radial fracture line(s).

The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the farthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. Tiny fragments were seen on the inner side of this right front skull defect, and the largest fragments were noted in the back of the skull.

When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back, and there are dozens of very tiny dustlike fragment particles up in this location.

Dr. David Mantik: Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these x-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. . . .

Kinetic energy explains why larger fragments travel farther than smaller fragments. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mv2, where m = mass and v = velocity. Thus, a particle with more mass has more kinetic energy. Besides that, though, smaller fragments decelerate faster—the drag forces on them are relatively greater. Hence, the tiny particles near the forehead suggest an entry near that site. The larger fragment at the right rear provides additional evidence for a frontal entry. As expected, larger fragments travel farther. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 192-194)

Also, the two fragments near the right-orbit are much larger than the dozens of fragment particles in the forward part of the high fragment trail and are at least 1 inch forward of the particles. Dr. Mantik believes these two fragments are the remnants of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The autopsy report says the low fragment trail ended near the supraorbital ridge, which is the upper part of the right orbit, so those two fragments are exactly where they should be if they're the remnant of the low fragment trail.

WC defenders, amazingly, simply ignore the fact that the current skull x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The only fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays is some 4 inches higher, i.e., the high fragment trail, which includes the right-frontal cloud of about 30 tiny particles near the entry site identified by Drs. Mantik, Chesser, Henkelmann, Aguilar, Wecht, Robertson, DeSalles, and others.

Either the low fragment trail was removed from the x-rays in order to buttress the case for the 4-inch upward relocation of the rear head entry wound or Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole were so unbelievably incompetent that they mistook the high fragment trail for a trail that started some 4 inches lower and that ended at a spot well forward of the high fragment trail. It is hard to imagine a first-year medical student making such an unbelievable blunder, especially given the fact that the three autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials in 1966 and reaffirmed the EOP entry location.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Gary Aguilar's Two-Shot Analysis

« Last post by James Slater on Yesterday at 01:52:48 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on July 26, 2026, 11:38:33 PM

If you have credible evidence that Oswald had one or more confederates, please provide that. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

I don't know who fired the shots but there was more than one shooter and it can be proven. Arlen Specter came up with the single shot theory not just by chance but because in the time period they had which was about six seconds, four shots cannot be fired. They tried and the most you can do with the Carcano is three shots. All of which the Warren commission accounted for. The Tague bullet, the neck shot which according to the WC also went through Connally and the head shot. The problem is the testimony of Nell and John Connally which never changed actually stated that Kennedy was hit in the neck first then two seconds later Connally was struck.
Here the two are interviewed in 1988:-

And here in at 2:25 into this video in 1966 Connally states the same. This means there has to be fours shots and two shooters. Now we have Tague bullet, Kennedy neck, Connally then Kennedy head shot.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat

« Last post by James Slater on Yesterday at 01:21:21 PM »

Quote from: Steve Barber on June 26, 2026, 03:15:15 PM

Here are three crucial Zapruder film frames that dispel the theory that President Kennedy "grabs","grabbed" or "clutched his throat".

Note that his right hand immediately jerks upward, and either in front of his mouth or over it. His upper body is also thrust forward, twice as his right hand appears to cover his mouth.

Note that, except for the forefinger on his left hand, his fingers are curled, and is either against the under side of his right hand, or just below it. Neither hand goes toward his throat, or anywhere near it.

Also note in frame 248, JFK's right hand is at cheek level. He has turned his head slightly to his left, while his hand is still at the same level it was in over/in front of his mouth.

Hi Steve. your copies of the Z film frames seem to be better than the ones I have. Could you show frame Z230 in the same way you have showed the frames above? I'd like to see that particular frame because I can't seem to fathom it. Thanks....James.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 01:09:33 PM »

I will have to confess to finding my Mary Woodward factoid-hunt way more fun than I perhaps should.

1. As a journalism major who worked in that field for seven years before law school, I find it fascinating in the extreme that a 23-year-old reporter for a major newspaper would so blatantly fill her article with whoppers on a story of the magnitude of the JFKA. I am amazed that (1) Mary was able to continue to work in the field and (2) she was allowed for 54 years to get away with attributing the most insignificant of her whoppers to a "hearing problem" with NO ONE pointing out, "Uh, Mary, that doesn't begin to account for the whoppers in your article." You have to admit, claiming that she had thought "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" would be a serious BBC documentary is also "just a bit" out there. Maybe I'm morphing into Milicent Cranor (would that be good?), but there is something disturbing about all this that I can't quite put my finger on.

2. Exposing someone like Mary just always sort of makes my day. It's what we factoid-busters live for, like finding a previously unknown butterfly or something. Sorry that Mary was a seemingly pleasant and likeable dingbat, but she was indeed a dingbat.

3. Exponentially adding to the mirth is when someone such as TG digs in his heels and tries to preserve a character like Mary as supportive of his JFKA views. This is one of the most comical aspects of the JFKA - the inability of virtually everyone, CTer and LNer alike, to simply say "Oops, got that wrong, never mind." NO, WE CAN NEVER ADMIT WE HAVE MADE FOOLS OF OURSELVES on even the most insignificant issue because ... because ... well, I'm not sure why, but we can't. Early on at the Ed Forum, I made two rather large and comical mistakes, and a longtime CTer who became one of my biggest supporters congratulated me for having the honesty to say "Oops, got that wrong, never mind." Try it sometime.

4. And, of course, even more exponentially ratcheting up the mirth is when the heel-digger is TG, who inevitably ends up throwing a name-calling hissy fit and reveals who really is - i.e., fundamentally nuttier than almost anyone here. Indeed, fundamentally nuttier than almost anyone I've ever encountered on any internet forum. Indeed, fundamentally nuttier than ... oh, well, let's not overdo it.

RIP, dingbat Mary. You were a hoot, as are TG's efforts to prop you up. (Speaking of propping up, how many people know that English philosopher Jeremy Bentham specified in his will that his corpse would be preserved, appropriately clad, and occasionally wheeled out to preside at university meetings - and it was! Just one of those little tidbits of weirdness that fill approximately 2/3 of my brain.)

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Gary Aguilar's Two-Shot Analysis

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 12:55:51 PM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 02:08:19 AM

JS-

I could never make heads or tails of any of the acoustics evidence.

Of course you couldn't. This "evidence" is not a recording of the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

Quote

I have looked at Z-film more times than I could ever want.

Gov. JBC is pushed forward ~Z-295, and JFK is shot Z-313.

Now you are just imagining things.

Quote

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 above happens about ~Z-295.

Not it doesn't. It happens much early, in the Z230s. That followed his sudden arm flip beginning at Z226.

Quote

In the Z-film, it sure looks like JFK's head is reacting to a shot from the GK. But who knows? Maybe there is a "carom effect" from a rear shot in combo with a back brace.

The "bang....bang-bang" cadence heard on 11.22 tends to rule out a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

I have reasonable doubts LHO acted alone.

Nobody cares about your doubts, reasonable or unreasonable. They have nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza onn 11/22/1963.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: A question for John Corbett

« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 12:50:16 PM »

Quote from: Tom Graves on Yesterday at 10:40:32 AM

Dear John,

Based on someone's "jiggle analysis" of the Zapruder film, you seem to believe Oswald fired his missing-everything shot at Z-148.

Question: Was anyone in Dealey Plaza or in the limo caught on film consciously reacting to said shot about a second later, i.e., around Z-166?

Yes. JBC at Z164. Rosemary Willis started to slow down about a half second later.

Quote

-- Tom

PS We know that JFK stopped waving and quickly turned his head to his left in Z-144, and that at about the same time, Secret Service Agents Glen Bennett and George Hickey started leaning over in the back seat of the follow-up car -- Bennett to around Dave Powers after hearing what he thought was a firecracker, and Hickey to look down at the pavement where he thought a firecracker had exploded near the limo.

It requires an assumption to believe JFK stopped waving and turned his head at Z144 in response to hearing a gunshot. It doesn't require an assumption to believe JBC's turn at Z164 was in response to a shot. He told us that's what he did.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10