The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

We are in the minority, but the rational minority.

Oh, I see. So everyone else, about 90% of the planet's population, is irrational. Got it.

Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority.

Atheists constitute a far smaller minority than did the Abolitionists. By the way, the vast majority of Abolitionists believed in God.

Before we continue, allow me to note that while you justifiably condemn slavery as inherently evil, I am guessing that you see nothing wrong with unrestricted elective abortion. If so, you are guilty of gross hypocrisy and inconsistency. Abortion apologists, as did slavery apologists, deny the humanity of the victim and seek to frame the argument as being all about the "rights" of the perpetrator. Slavery apologists did the same thing.

I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence. And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion as doing much net harm. As long as freedom of religion is respected, it’s all good to me.

Well, I'm glad to see you believe that freedom of religion should be respected.

You’re not? How about this article you wrote below?

The Tariff and Secession: Statements on the Tariff as a Major Factor in Sectional Strife and Southern Secession
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm

One of the principle arguments of the “Lost Cause” apologists, is that maintaining slavery was not the principle reason why the South seceded from the Union. That they also had higher motives. Like protecting ‘State Rights’. And because of the ‘High Tarriff’.

Okay, first of all, let's get basic English correct here: it is "principal reason," not "principle reason." Google it.

I am guessing that you did not bother to actually read the article, or else you would know that it does not argue that the tariff was the principal reason the Deep South or the Upper South seceded. Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself by making utterly erroneous claims because you failed to read the other side before attacking it?

Only four states published an article on why they were seceding. [SNIP]

Oh my goodness, you are totally out to lunch. All 11 seceding states published some kind of document that explained why they were seceding. Some were formal ordinances of secession, while others were various forms of declarations.  

In not one instance, does the word “Tariff” appear in any of the lengthy documents. . . . [SNIP]

Your Civil War scholarship is as pitiful as your JFK scholarship. Three of the seven Deep South states included economic complaints, such as the tariff, in their declarations: Georgia, Texas, and Florida.

If you read newspaper editorials and minutes of debates leading up to secession, you will see dozens of references to the tariff and to other economic complaints. That being said, the seven Deep South states seceded mainly over slavery. The tariff was a secondary issue, but it was an important one. Money always is.

The four Upper South states rejected slavery as a reason for secession and did not join in the first wave of secession. They did not see complaints about slavery as sufficient cause to leave the Union. Those four states seceded because they virulently objected to the idea that the federal government had the right to use force to compel the Deep South states to rejoin the Union. That's why those four states did not secede until after Lincoln issued a callup for 75K troops right after the Confederacy foolishly and needlessly attacked Fort Sumter, and they made it clear that they were seceding because they objected to the federal government's use of force.

And of course, there were minimum reasons for seceding from the Union up through March 1861, because the Tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. By 1857 the South had gotten the low tariff it wanted,

You are again totally out to lunch. Clearly, you did not read my article on the tariff and the Civil War. I document that the tariff was a long-standing major issue that caused bitter debate for decades before the war. The 1857 tariff was *not* as low as the South wanted; rather, it was as low as the Southern members of Congress could get the Republicans and the Whigs to agree to support.

and this held until after 7 states and seceded from the Union. And the other 4 states that followed did not secede because of the new higher tariff passed in March 1861, but because of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for each state to provide troops and allow passage to the South to suppress the rebellion.

I agree completely.

The “High Tariff” and “Defending State Rights” excuse didn’t become prominent until after the South was defeated, and the ‘Lost Cause’ apologists realized that they needed a more noble reason for secession than “To maintain the Institution of Slavery”.

Well, yes and no. I agree that after the war, many Southern apologists erroneously argued that the Deep South really seceded over the tariff and other economic complaints. But the tariff was a major reason for secession, second only to slavery, as far as the seven Deep South states were concerned.

You, Michael T. Griffith are not really a “Lost Cause” apologist?

Nope, and my comments above should put that false claim to rest. Part of the problem is that you clearly did not even bother to read my article on the tariff and the war. You might have skimmed over it very briefly, but you clearly did not learn anything from and did not process the numerous quotes from antebellum sources that prove that the tariff was a huge issue just before the war began and for decades before then.

And let me just give you a little school on Civil War scholarship: No "Lost Cause apologist" would publish numerous articles that defend Union generals George McClellan, George Thomas, John Fitz-Porter, etc. Nor would any "Lost Cause apologist" create a website that honors Abraham Lincoln and that defends and praises his Reconstruction policies. I have done all of these things. Just FYI.

I will not respond to further comments on the Civil War in this thread. If you want to start a Civil War thread in the Off Topic section, I might take a look and respond.

How about we get back to discussing the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the SBT?

[Jack Nessan]

The other day I was rather stunned when one of the Warren Commission (WC) apologists here claimed that the lone-gunman theory does not require the single-bullet theory (SBT). Before then, I had never personally encountered a WC apologist who made this claim, and I have participated in online discussions with dozens of WC apologists over the years. Perhaps it would be helpful to review some of the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the single-bullet theory.

Way back in 1966, legal scholar Alexander Bickel provided one reason that the lone-assassin story must have the SBT:

Lone-gunman theorists can't give their alleged single assassin more time immediately before Zapruder frame 210 because their single gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Therefore, in order to plausibly give him more time, they must assume that he fired at and hit Kennedy before Z166, or they must assume that he fired at JFK but somehow missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot.

There is another problem with assuming a pre-Z166 hit on JFK, or even a pre-Z166 miss, to give the alleged lone gunman more time: In the Zapruder film, JFK clearly begins to react to a wound at around Z200, but shows no reaction of any kind before that point. Even the HSCA's photographic evidence panel (PEP) acknowledged this fact. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; and he rapidly begins to turn his head toward Jackie. And during this same timeframe, Jackie makes a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward JFK. (A growing consensus among researchers is that JFK was reacting to the two non-fatal ricochet fragments that struck him in the back of the head early in the shooting sequence.)

The HSCA PEP threw a major monkey wrench into the SBT and into the lone-gunman scenario by concluding that JFK was first hit at Z188-190, during the time when the lone-gunman's view of JFK was blocked by the oak tree (Z166 to Z210). JFK would have come into the lone-gunman's view through an opening in the leaves for 1/18th/second at Z186, far, far too briefly for the human eye and brain to process the sight and respond to it by pulling the trigger. But the HSCA PEP did not feel they could ignore JFK's obvious reactions that start at Z200.

But the Zapruder film clearly shows that Connally was not hit before Z234. Starting at Z238, we see the visible results of the bullet's impact: Connally's right shoulder suddenly collapses; his cheeks and face puff; and his hair becomes disarranged. Connally himself, after carefully studying the Zapruder film, chose frame 234 as the actual moment of impact. When Life magazine showed Connally the Zapruder film and asked him about the frames leading up to and including frame 230, he replied, "there is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, studied the Zapruder film and concluded the bullet struck Connally at frame 236, "give or take 1 or 2 frames." Dr. Charles Gregory, Connally's wrist surgeon, opined that the hit occurred between Z234 and Z238.

There is no way that a Z188-190 SBT hit on JFK would not have pushed Connally's shoulder downward and caused his cheeks and face to puff until Z236. That would require us to believe that the SBT bullet hit Connally at Z191-192 but that it took over 2 seconds to push his shoulder downward and to cause his cheeks and face to puff. Connally himself, the man who experienced the wounding and the reactions, said he was certain he was not hit before Z230, and he identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which makes complete sense given his reactions that begin at Z236. 

A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313.

A hit on JFK at Z188-190, another hit at Z224, and another hit at Z313 destroys the lone-gunman theory because all WC apologists admit that one of the shots from their alleged lone gunman missed, which means that four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved.

The lone-gunman theory's miss is yet another problem. According to the WC, this shot missed the entire huge limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long and 6.5 feet wide. How on earth could even a novice have missed such a huge target from just 140-170 feet away and from 60 feet up? It boggles the mind. And this is the same gunman who supposedly performed a shooting feat that the WC's Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating?

But the WC knew it needed a miss as a possible alternative explanation for the Tague wounding. The WC's other explanation--that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wound--is so absurd that even diehard WC apologists Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have rejected it. Tague was about 260 feet from the limo when the head shot occurred. A fragment from the head shot would have had to first clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then travel 260 feet, against the wind, and strike the curb near Tague with enough velocity to chip the curb and to send a chip streaking toward him (or, even less likely, it would have had to strike him directly). (Yes, that is a nutty theory, but we have at least two WC apologists here who believe it.)

In summary, without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has unsolvable timing problems with the shots and the Zapruder film. And without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has no chance of plausibly explaining the Tague wounding. Even with the SBT, JFK's clear reactions to two different hits mean there were at least four shots and two gunmen. This is why lone-gunman theorists either deny JFK's first wound reactions or deny his second wound reactions.

"A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313."

All very interesting, but the problem with a separate bullet having been fired into JBC's back is impossible with this scenario, JFK now has an even larger shadow over JBC than in the Z220's . If anything this just further proves JBC could not have been stuck by a separate bullet and was instead struck by the same bullet as JFK.

Dr Baden sums it up best:
....The only bullet path is the one through JFK's back/throat and it lines up with JBC's back entrance wound. This picture shows the alignment of JFK and JBC. A bullet leaving JFK's throat can only strike JBC.


Also, there was not a non fatal ricochet shot fired at Z whatever. JFK is still waving at the crowd at Z210 in the Willis photo. Hardly the act of a wounded man. The first shot struck JFK in the back/neck as stated by the eyewitnesses.

You are referencing the HSCA. Here is another conclusion by the HSCA:

HSCA Conclusion


"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

The HSCA believed what you believe and stated it in the conclusion. LHO only fired two shots.

[Paul May]

Besides Zapruder which other films taken in Dealey Plaza were altered?

[Michael T. Griffith]

"A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313."

All very interesting, but the problem with a separate bullet having been fired into JBC's back is impossible with this scenario, JFK now has an even larger shadow over JBC than in the Z220's. If anything this just further proves JBC could not have been stuck by a separate bullet and was instead struck by the same bullet as JFK.

I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first.

Dr Baden sums it up best:
....The only bullet path is the one through JFK's back/throat and it lines up with JBC's back entrance wound. This picture shows the alignment of JFK and JBC. A bullet leaving JFK's throat can only strike JBC.

But that's ridiculous, and easily debunked. Dr. Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines from JFK to Connally to match up when he considered the location of JFK's back wound as determined by Baden's panel--even that was too low. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.

Dr. Baden made a number of other claims that have now been exposed as erroneous. He claimed that the triangular skull fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the skull x-rays showed no missing frontal bone. He claimed that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. He claimed that the Harper fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the Harper fragment and the triangular fragment joined to form one large, continuous fragment. All of these claims have long since been thoroughly debunked.

And shall we discuss the fact that we now have powerful evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty on the night of the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point? I notice that no WC apologists want to engage in such a discussion.

As far as I have seen, Organ is the only one who has ventured to offer any kind of explanation for this evidence, but his explanation--that "rigor mortise" [sic] would have prohibited the doctors from probing the wound--not only does not explain the evidence but fails to address the evidence, which includes the fact that autopsy doctors removed the chest organs to enable them to see where the probe was going at the other end of the wound, and that the doctors maneuvered JFK into numerous positions to facilitate the probing. They could see, and others could see, that the back wound's tract did not penetrate the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining.

One of these days, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the back wound had no exit point.

Also, there was not a non fatal ricochet shot fired at Z whatever. JFK is still waving at the crowd at Z210 in the Willis photo. Hardly the act of a wounded man. The first shot struck JFK in the back/neck as stated by the eyewitnesses.

This is simply wrong. JFK clearly begins to react to an external stimulus at around Z200. Even the HSCA PEP admitted this. We also see some people in the plaza appear to react to the sound of gunfire during this timeframe. This is also the timeframe when a strong blur episode occurs in the Zapruder film, i.e., when Zapruder jiggled his camera in an involuntary response to the sound of gunfire. There are at least four strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film.

You are referencing the HSCA. Here is another conclusion by the HSCA:

HSCA Conclusion

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

Uh-huh, and the HSCA also said that the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll could not be dismissed as simply mistaken because of echoes. The HSCA also said that a gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. You might want to read the entire HSCA report and its accompanying volumes, instead of skimming through it to cherry-pick statements you like.

The HSCA believed what you believe and stated it in the conclusion. LHO only fired two shots.

No, the HSCA said that Oswald fired three shots, and that another gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Again, you might want to read the entire HSCA report and the supporting volumes.

[Bill Chapman]

I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first.

But that's ridiculous, and easily debunked. Dr. Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines from JFK to Connally to match up when he considered the location of JFK's back wound as determined by Baden's panel--even that was too low. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.

Dr. Baden made a number of other claims that have now been exposed as erroneous. He claimed that the triangular skull fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the skull x-rays showed no missing frontal bone. He claimed that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. He claimed that the Harper fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the Harper fragment and the triangular fragment joined to form one large, continuous fragment. All of these claims have long since been thoroughly debunked.

And shall we discuss the fact that we now have powerful evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty on the night of the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point? I notice that no WC apologists want to engage in such a discussion.

As far as I have seen, Organ is the only one who has ventured to offer any kind of explanation for this evidence, but his explanation--that "rigor mortise" [sic] would have prohibited the doctors from probing the wound--not only does not explain the evidence but fails to address the evidence, which includes the fact that autopsy doctors removed the chest organs to enable them to see where the probe was going at the other end of the wound, and that the doctors maneuvered JFK into numerous positions to facilitate the probing. They could see, and others could see, that the back wound's tract did not penetrate the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining.

One of these days, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the back wound had no exit point.

This is simply wrong. JFK clearly begins to react to an external stimulus at around Z200. Even the HSCA PEP admitted this. We also see some people in the plaza appear to react to the sound of gunfire during this timeframe. This is also the timeframe when a strong blur episode occurs in the Zapruder film, i.e., when Zapruder jiggled his camera in an involuntary response to the sound of gunfire. There are at least four strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film.

Uh-huh, and the HSCA also said that the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll could not be dismissed as simply mistaken because of echoes. The HSCA also said that a gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. You might want to read the entire HSCA report and its accompanying volumes, instead of skimming through it to cherry-pick statements you like.

No, the HSCA said that Oswald fired three shots, and that another gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Again, you might want to read the entire HSCA report and the supporting volumes.

The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?

It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.

[Martin Weidmann]

The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?

It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.

It's not enough that you behave like a complete idiot and pollute every thread?
Now you want recognition for it as well?

[Bill Chapman]

It's not enough that you behave like a complete idiot and pollute every thread?
Now you want recognition for it as well?

A little grumpy tonight, Martin?

[Michael T. Griffith]

The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?

It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.

This is your answer to my response?  You seem to follow a pattern: You make some invalid claims. The invalid claims are refuted. And then you reply by ignoring the refutation and changing the subject.

It is just a bit odd to see you sarcastically dismiss the conspiracy position when the last official federal investigation into the assassination concluded that there was a conspiracy, that the conspiracy might have involved elements of the Mafia and some anti-Castro Cubans, that four shots were fired, that two gunmen were involved, that two of the shots were less than 2 seconds apart, that Jack Ruby had considerable Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement, that Ruby had help getting into the basement, that the man who called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and who claimed to be Oswald spoke "terrible" Russian whereas Oswald was known to be native fluent in Russian, etc., etc.

You might also want to remember that every poll taken within the last few years shows that about 58-63% of the American people believe there was a conspiracy. 5-10% are undecided. About 30-35% agree with you. Given the established media's long-standing efforts to prop up the lone-gunman theory, it is revealing that the theory still has such limited support among the population.