The Magic Bullet

[Andrew Mason]

The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.

Three bullets caused those wounds. The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?

[Ray Mitcham]

Three bullets caused those wounds.

According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.

The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?

Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald.

[Bill Chapman]

No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make.  The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so.  But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point.  The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.

But that is not all. A second shot SBT is also excluded by the Connallys and about 22 other witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (in distinctly different way than the smiling and waving seen prior to z195 or so).

Again, that is not all: a second shot SBT is excluded by dozens of witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade who put the first shot after z186-z191.

A first shot SBT is excluded if you believe that the Connallys were right in their observation that JBC was not struck in the chest on the first shot.

So the demise of the SBT does not imply multiple shooters unless you are convinced that all these witnesses are wrong. 


Three shots fired from the SN fits all the evidence. It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.

Describing JBC's chest wound as him being 'hit in the chest' implies a shot from the front, at least as far as I understand the written word. You are ignoring the back wound suffered by the guv, it seems to me.

Are you claiming a shot from the front indeed hit JBC?

[Bill Chapman]

David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shots

 Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?

The wound could be accurately referred to as the 'back/neck' wound since the entry was at the junction where the neck anatomically meets the back (according to an article on MacAdams site).

Can you link to your David Wimps work? I have seen other work that reveals the passengers did not lurch forward at the rear entry head hit to JFK.

[Jerry Freeman]

[Matt Grantham]

The wound could be accurately referred to as the 'back/neck' wound since the entry was at the junction where the neck anatomically meets the back (according to an article on MacAdams site).

Can you link to your David Wimps work? I have seen other work that reveals the passengers did not lurch forward at the rear entry head hit to JFK.

 Glad to see you are interested. Part of Wimp's claim is in regard to something called 'ramping up' which deals with how the brain interprets movement with dark and light borders and how this phenomenon can distort the perception of movement Kellermen is the only individual that can be seen lurching forward with JFK around 313 But the effect of movement is of course highly variable to the individual circumstance of each passenger For instance Greer holding the steering wheel could mute the effect on him Josiah Thompson seems rather convinced his analysis is correct for whatever that is worth Wimp is around the 38 minute mark Side note whoever did wimp's makeup that day looks kinda funny

 Ken Rahn appears on this video as well This guy seems near a nervous breakdown imo

[Andrew Mason]

Describing JBC's chest wound as him being 'hit in the chest' implies a shot from the front, at least as far as I understand the written word. You are ignoring the back wound suffered by the guv, it seems to me.

Are you claiming a shot from the front indeed hit JBC?

The chest is the whole part of the human body between the abdomen and the neck, also called the thorax. There was no shot from the front. I am not sure why you would ask since my point was that all shots were fired by a single shooter in the SN.

[Andrew Mason]

The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.

According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.

Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald.

Ok. So the you now think one shooter could have made these wounds. I am puzzled. Does this mean "that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows"?