Since I have never waded through Horne's five-volume ARRB epic, I did wonder if he mentions the Sprague memo or Burkley? If anyone knows, chime in.

With all the wacky things that get attention, I am flummoxed - flummoxed, I tell you - that the Sprague memo and the whole Burkley things just seems to have vanished into the JFKA mist.

  Are you claiming that Gov Connally did Not turn around a look at JFK face-to-face? How could Connally do that without moving his (R) arm? This is what we are seeing with respect to the (R) arm. Connally is turning around, while seated, in a very confined space

She was writing a story about the assassination. How does it matter whether they ate their lunch on the grassy slope or on the sidewalk? We know where they were standing. How could she not know where she was standing?

What you are seeing is JBC flipping his arm upward in an involuntary reflexive response to being shot in the wrist. That up and down arm flip began at Z226 and lasted 9 frames. It is the strongest indication we have of the validity of the SBT as it shows JFK and JBC reacting reflexively at the same instant.

"Mistaken impression"?! So eight witnesses in three different locations all "got the same mistaken impression"?! All eight of them could not tell the difference between a crack and a hole?!

So do tell us how Officer Ellis could have gotten this "mistaken impression" when he put a pencil through the hole.

Tell us how Secret Service agent Taylor, who rode in the limousine from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House garage, a 25-35-minute drive, and then watched FBI technicians remove fragments from the hole, could have mistaken a crack for a hole, especially given the wording of his report:

In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.

Do tell us how Evalea Glanges, a medical student at the time who later became head of the surgery department at a major hospital, could have "mistaken" a crack for a hole, given that she specified that she didn't see any cracks around the hole, but just the hole. This rings true because when objects make holes in windshields, cracks often don't develop from the hole until later, as I have personally seen with the windshields of two of my cars. Glanges specified that the hole was a "real clean hole." I should add that Glanges had years of experience with firearms, having been a recreational gun enthusiast since childhood. 

And Whitaker was the last person on Earth would have confused a crack for a hole. As a senior windshield technician, he had seen all kinds of testing done on windshields. He saw the windshield after it had been removed from the limo. He was able to examine both sides of the windshield from just inches away. Noted Whitaker,

And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it from the way it was broken. . . It was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it. This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back. . . .

I worked in the industry for forty years and I've seen all kinds of testing on glass, and I know it came from the front. ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963", pp. 143-144)

You lamely and dishonestly claim that Weldon found Whitaker to be credible "solely because his story conflicts" with the Warren Report. You obviously know nothing about Doug Weldon, and you apparently have not read Weldon's detailed explanation for why he found Whitaker to be credible. 

You see, you folks aren't interested in following the evidence where it leads. You keep saying, "if there was a conspiracy, someone would have talked." Well, many people have talked, but in every single case, when those people's accounts contradict the lone-gunman theory, you reach and strain for any excuse, no matter how lame, to either reject their accounts or to accuse them of lying.

This is yet another display of your ignorance of JFK assassination research.

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the main source I linked in the OP, i.e., Weldon's chapter on the windshield hole. I'm sure you didn't read any of the other linked sources either. If you had read Weldon's chapter, you would have discovered that he addresses the issue of the position of the shooter who fired through the windshield. He documents that a shooter firing the from the south side of the triple underpass would not have been "right in the open for all to see." In fact, he would have been well concealed.

Moreover, Sherry Fiester, an instructor and court-certified expert in crime-scene reconstruction and blood-spatter analysis, found another location on the south knoll, a different location than the one Weldon identified, that would have also provided good concealment. She discusses this in her 2012 book Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination and in the 2016 documentary A Coup in Camelot.

This stuff was covered years ago, but, as usual, you have no clue because your research has been so meager and biased.