What?s the best evidence of a second shooter?

[Howard Gee]

Who are you trying to kid?  You've never listed a damn thing...

And you've never tried to dispute the evidence that's been listed over and over again, right ?

A quick perusal of your inane posts shows that just about all you do is try to dispute the evidence that's been repeatedly presented against Saint Patsy.

Then 5 minutes later it's back to the 'there is no evidence' mantra.

Absolutely hilarious watching you spend half your waking moments attempting to explain away the evidence that you claim hasn't been listed and doesn't exist.

'Oswald's rifle, LOL'

Casslown.

[John Iacoletti]

And you've never tried to dispute the evidence that's been listed over and over again, right ?

A quick perusal of your inane posts shows that just about all you do is try to dispute the evidence that's been repeatedly presented against Saint Patsy.

Not by you.  You never present anything but sarcasm and insults.  You can't even get the names of the witnesses right.

Every single bit of what little evidence there is, is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way.  Deal with it.

[Allan Fritzke]

Given the Carcano was a bolt action rifle and there is a finite loading time to it,  the real evidence of more than one shooter comes from the Jean Hill and Mary Moorman initial interviews on that day.   As things happened quickly, their stories vary slightly but some aspects of collaboration are unmistakable!  They also were not interviewed together which makes their recount believable!  If at same time, they could match their stories - this was not the case.   Certainly, they both conclude on how rapidly the shots occurred - making it impossible for a LNer to have done it all.  They were recorded on the very day of the assassination so hold a great amount of weight even though it was by the same interviewer!

[Rob Caprio]

You do realize that the acoustic evidence has been thoroughly discredited?

JohnM

Cite please.

[Andrew Mason]

True, but this wasn?t the only shot pattern. There seemed to be a location effect on the impression of shot sequence, though I think it was quite weak. Those versed in firearms (Willis, Yarborough, etc) all reported 3 well spaced shots.

Try again. Willis did say that the shots were about evenly spaced but he also said they were 2 seconds apart. According to the SBT the shots were 4 and 5 seconds apart.  Yarborough said the shot spacing was 2:1 (7 H 439):

After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot-- by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired.

There are over 40 witnesses who corroborate Yarborough's recollection.

[Allan Fritzke]

Try again. Willis did say that the shots were about evenly spaced but he also said they were 2 seconds apart. According to the SBT the shots were 4 and 5 seconds apart.  Yarborough said the shot spacing was 2:1 (7 H 439):

After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot-- by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired.

There are over 40 witnesses who corroborate Yarborough's recollection.

Your best witnesses are those that witnessed and reported on that very first day it happened.   After that, the influence of hearsay has to be factored in.  Stories soon change and adopt a fitting pattern, especially if you need to establish a storyline!  The 2 reports by Jean Hill and Mary Moorman hold the greatest unrevised "truth" in them.   No way they can be that far out to lunch unless you want to say they were part of the evidence planting process involved in the cover up!   They came hours after the shooting, not days.  Certainly there accounts at that time do NOT match a LN gunman.

Another witness that is equally important is Malcom Kilduff at PH  that came on camera and pointed to his head and gave a general idea of where he though or saw the President was shot (end of video).   It did not appear to have affected his face, something we see scrubbed out in a lot of Zapruder frames!

[Andrew Mason]

Your best witnesses are those that witnessed and reported on that very first day it happened.   After that, the influence of hearsay has to be factored in.  Stories soon change and adopt a fitting pattern, especially if you need to establish a storyline!  The 2 reports by Jean Hill and Mary Moorman hold the greatest unrevised "truth" in them.
  No way they can be that far out to lunch unless you want to say they were part of the evidence planting process involved in the cover up!   

So there really was a dog in the car in the back seat??

They came hours after the shooting, not days.  Certainly there accounts at that time do NOT match a LN gunman.

Many others were taken even sooner and do not fit with Jean Hill's account.  Both Moorman and Hill recalled more than three shots but weren't in agreement on how many.  Were they both right?

[Alan Hardaker]

DOZENS of witnesses said the last sounds they heard during the shooting were BANG-BANG.

FIRST SHOT then a pause then BAM-BAM.

DOZENS of credible witnesses say BANG-BANG for the last two shots is what they heard.

If the last TWO shots were BAM-BAM as so many witnesses say they were, then what can we see in the Zapruder film that supports BAM seconds of pause then BAM-BAM (and Patricia Ann Donaldson says one of the BAM-BAM shots hit JFK)

Not a valid vimeo URL
To add more fuel to the information that makes SOLVING the JFK assassination "mystery" possible, listen to Gov. Connally tell you during his Warren Comm testimony that the force of the blow to his back bent him over.  As can be seen in the Zapruder film, John Connally is NOT bent over at any time in the Zapruder film until a splt second AFTER JFK was shot in the head!

John Connally says he turned to look toward what he thought was a rifle shot (a slight delay after the sign)
When he was turning back, he was bent over by the force of the blow to his back.

Not a valid vimeo URL
The Connallys always talked about hearing the shot that hit JFK in the head AFTER John was shot in the back, but the Zapruder film shows that is NOT true.  In fact, the Zapruder film shows that neither Nellie nor John was looking at JFK was he was shot in the head so they did NOT know when he was shot.

SUMMARY:

1.  Dozens of witnesses say the last two sounds were BANG-BANG

2.  In the Zapruder film, we can see Gov Connally bent over very rapidly a split second AFTER JFK was shot in the head

3.  Gov. Connally said in many interviews that the blow to his back was enough force to bend him over.  Connally is not BENT over at any time in the Zapruder film until a split second after JFK is shot in the head.

4,  No blood can be seen on Connally's shirt or right sleeve even seconds after the US gov't says he was shot in the back.  WHY is there NO blood anywhere on the front of Connally's white shirt?  The answer is easy, Connally was NOT shot in the back until a split second AFTER JFK was shot in the head.

5  When you look at frame 267, as mentioned NO BLOOD can be seen on Connally's white shirt.  Look at any Zapruder frame before JFK is shot in the head and NO blood will be found on Connally's shirt.  HOW THAT POSSIBLE?  Nellie said John had a hole in his chest about the size of a baseball.  The main point for #5 is, HOW IN THE WORLD did John Connally turn around like he is seen in #267 and he (allegedly) has a serious chest exit wound?






6  It is so easy to fool Americans.  They will believe ALMOST anything the US gubermint tells them to believe.  If you want to PROVE to yourself what happened, and what I have presented so far does NOT prove the BANG-BANG premise, then you have to start thinking without the US gubermint and fools like Bugliosi telling you what to think!  IF this was easy, Americans would have known the truth decades ago!

You cannot expect anybody to accept this as proof. The case against Oswald is overwhelming.  You can't just post a load of vague might be's and could be's and effectively say " there yer go...case solved".  And in fact this case has been solved - Oswald was the lone shooter and he murdered JFK....case solved.