Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive 3

Shot timing (moved down to break very long section)
A couple of things to add here. One is that there were three empty brass found in Oswald's sniper's nest, and he had to have planted one of them if he only fired twice. If he fired three times, he had to have time to do it.
 * He had time to do it because there is overwhelming evidence that he fired three shots. The problem is created only by interpreters of the zfilm who seem to think that Connally is hit by z230. However, the zfilm does not provide the answer to when Connally was hit. You have to look at other evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly Connolly is hit by z232-- his right shoulder has already started to come down by then to the very unnatural position you see in z240. That's a reaction to a hit in the right armpit. When do YOU think he's hit?
 * You have to be careful here. He is definitely reacting. But is he reacting to being hit by it or reacting to the sound of it? Connally said that he reacted to the sound of the first shot not to being hit by it. He said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and he reacted by turning around to see JFK. There is a large amount of very consistent witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving to his left and bringing his hands to his throat. No one said he waved and smiled after the first shot. I don't see anywhere prior to z235 any sign of JBC turning his head to see JFK.
 * Actually, you don't see any evidence of JBC turning his head all the way around to see JFK until very late, just before the final bullet.


 * Right. Just before z270 in fact.


 * And by that time, he's in the wrong position to be shot anywhere but the wrist. His shoulders are lined up with JFK by the time he can see JFK. But Connally never said he'd seen JFK, and anyway, Nellie is already reacting to JBC by this time, so SHE thinks he's hit, even if you're going to argue that he's just gawking at JFK and is fine. That's too problematic a story. It's much more easily explained by JBC's rapid head turn after z160. S B Harris
 * You have to be careful about using opinion to defeat real evidence. The evidence (particularly the shot pattern with the last two shots closer together) says there was a second shot at about z270. Greer turned around after the second shot. He completes that turn at z280. Powers said JBC disappeared immediately after the second shot. He falls back onto Nellie at z285. Nellie said she never looked back at JFK after the second shot. She is still looking at JFK at z255. Altgens said his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shot. Nellie said that she saw her husband move in response to being hit on the second shot and she reached over and pulled him down. She did not say she waited 3 seconds, looked at JFK and then pulled him down. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you expect the poor woman to say? That she wasn't looking at her husband when he was hit, and so didn't notice it? Which is what we see on the Z-film? What was happening to JFK was much more interesting. And Mrs. Connally was looking ahead when her husband jumps up, and brings arms up, after Z-224. She just missed that reaction (his biggest one), and that's all. S B Harris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By Nellies' evidence, JBC was not yet hit there. You believe that JBC beginning to turn at z230 or so is a reaction to being hit so you must conclude that Nellie is wrong. But if you don't assume anything and just follow her evidence, as well as the evidence of about 48 others who said the last two shots were closer together, there is no contradiction. Saskcitation (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * JBC doesn't "begin to turn" at 230, if by this you mean a normal turn that somebody would make to look behind them. It's distinctly unnatural. It begins with a jump and both arms flying up. Okay, you say, noise reaction. But then just watch. JBC not only turns, more importantly his right shoulder goes WAY down and he's protecting that right chest, which he essentially turns downward. Just as he would if wounded there. You want him to turn so the wounded area is DOWN (which he does), and yet still get a bullet there, LATER. HOW? Considering that it exits his right nipple area, going forward, where's it going to GO, if it hits JBC after the position you see him in, in Altgens/Z-255?? I don't think so. S  B Harris 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is certainly no problem with the bullet exiting the chest and striking the back of JBC's wrist after z250. The wounds are in contact with each other there. The better question may be to ask how the bullet exits JBC's chest at z224, strikes the distal side of the radius (the side facing to down and to the right at that point) and deflects LEFT to strike the left thigh. Bullets deflect away from, not toward, the point of contact. The wrist wound caused Dr. Shaw a lot of difficulty. The palm-side thin slit exit wound is quite consistent with having been made from a bone or bullet fragment. The entrance wound is consistent with a bullet being deflected away from the point of contact with the radius. With the wrist in the position it is in after z250, that means the bullet deflected up. Saskcitation (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also alot of consistent witness evidence that there was only one shot before JFK emerges from behind the sign (the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3). The Connallys were adamant that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot (corroborated by Gayle Newman, Dave Powers and others). The shot pattern evidence puts the second shot striking JBC after z255. Altgens also puts it after z255 (his z255 photo was taken, he said, after the first and before any other shot). So the evidence puts it after z255 - long enough after to create a widespread recollection that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If you add the other observations - particularly the evidence of SA Hickey and SA Kinney that JFK's hair flew up on the right side of his head at the moment of the second shot - you can pinpoint the time of the second shot. Just look at JFK's hair and see where it flies up.  Look for a change in the appearance of his wrist and a sudden uniform forward motion of JBC. Or see where Greer turns around, as he said he did immediately after the second shot. Or see where JBC disappears from view as seen from Dave Powers' position in the following car (he said JBC disappeared from view on the second shot). Or look for some change in the top of the windshield. All of this happens at once and can be seen in the zfilm. I'll let you figure out where.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I see no such place for two shots to hit poor JBC. If he's hit by two bullets, he reacts more to the sound made at the JFK hit at Z224 than he does to either of his later hits!
 * What is wrong with that? Do you think people generally go into acrobatics when they think they are fatally wounded?
 * No, but they react more strongly to being hit hard in the back by a fist (what JBC said felt like) than from a distant firecracker noise. S  B Harris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Altgens photo at Z-255 Connally's already rotated so badly as to be completely parallel to the door and the line of sight though JFK.
 * Well, JBC is not parallel to the door because the line of sight from Altgens still shows part of the front of his chest.Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As it would even if he was fully rotated. Rotate at 90 degrees to me and I can still see some of your chest, unless you have the world's largest arm. S  B Harris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like WAY post chest hit to me. There's no way to shoot the man in this position that is characteristic of any of his wounds (his chest wound goes through from armpit to nipple, not armpit to other armpit!).
 * Again, be careful about interjecting opinion to defeat real evidence. I don't know what a person looks like after being shot in the chest. The chest bullet did not penetrate the lung or the chest cavity. It went through the fifth rib from the outside in not the inside out. In other words, it went around the chest cavity, not through it. Nellie said JBC was hit when turned right - she told his doctors that. Dr. Shires said the wound to the wrist was consistent with the pronation of the wrist due to turning the torso. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, YOU be careful about interjection opinion. The Z film is primary evidence. It trumps anybody's ear-memory. Or anybody's memory of any kind. If memories conflict with the Z film, the memories are simply wrong. S  B Harris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, but only if the zfilm is unequivocal eg. the third shot. (Interestingly, not one witness had a recollection that was inconsistent with a third shot at z313). The zfilm is primary evidence, but it does not have a soundtrack and there is nothing in the images that provides unequivocal evidence of the shot timing other than the third shot. Witness evidence is also primary evidence. It is just that the recording mechanism is a little different. If two people witness an event and independently recall specific details they are very likely accurate. As the number and proportion of witnesses who independently recall the same detail increases, the likelihood that they were all independently wrong exactly the same way becomes effectively zero. Those who do not have accurate recall of that event will have recollections that are randomly distributed over all the other possibilities. Saskcitation (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if a separate bullet hit his wrist it could do so here, but there's no reason to posulate that, when his wrist has been in the proper down position, just 2 seconds before. And as for using Altgens as earwitness! Double standard! He's clear down the road, farther away from the shooter than ANY of the people who you said couldn't be trusted on their ear-witness evidence on account of distance! It's entirely possibile Altgens didn't hear shot #1, and thus thought that shot #2 was the first one. It's time you laid your theory out, without being coy about it. S B Harris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am NOT suggesting the wrist was hit by a separate bullet. The bullet through JFK's neck went to the left of the centre of the jump seat. JBC was wounded on his left side in one location. That location also fits the trajectory as seen in the KGB overhead photo.
 * No. JBC was hit twice in the right chest, through and though. Giving him pneumothorax. S  B Harris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as Altgens is concerned, he was clear that his photo was after the first shot and before any other. He did not miss hearing the first shot. No one could possibly not have heard that "horrible ear-shattering noise". He was not counting the shots. Still he was pretty sure there was more than one shot after the first and he was sure the head shot was the last. BTW, I never said that ear witnesses farther away could not be relied on. You have to reread what I said. I said they could not hear the supersonic crack - just the muzzle blast. That doesn't mean the could not hear the number of spacing of the shots. Any way, Altens was not very far from the car. He was much closer to the rifle than Tague who said he had no problem hearing the three shots. Saskcitation (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet JFK has already been hit by the time he emerges from behind the sign at 225. That's less than 4/10 of a sec between these. Even if you don't think Connally's hit to 240, that's still only 8/10 of a second after JFK-- still not enough time. Far easier to think that JBC is hit at 224 when his lapel moves and just before he gives the double arm jerk reaction. That also works for JFK. S B Harris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to follow the evidence. The evidence will tell you when he is hit and you can use the zfilm to corroborate it. If you assume that JBC is hit by z240 then you must find that all the witnesses who distinctly recalled the last two shots being closer together were wrong. That is virtually an impossibility since there are so many who recalled it, independently.. Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been over this before. It's called the twin tower effect. Hundreds of people remembered having seen footage of an airplane hitting the FIRST twin tower on Sept 11 (ie, they said they'd seen footage of BOTH impacts before the towers fell). But they were all wrong, as no footage of this first impact was ever broadcast on that day. It turned up later. So, can all those witnesses be wrong? You bet your life! Wrong and provably so. They conflated two memories into one. S  B Harris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By that standard all witnesses are always wrong. Witnesses can be influenced by improper questioning or false information to give a wrong answer. But if they are independent and agree on an event that has many possible alternative ways of occurring, they either have all made the same mistake for the same reason or they have observed correctly the same event. Saskcitation (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Witnesses are wrong when they disagree with video or film. Or DNA. End of this! S  B Harris 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even DNA needs witness evidence to provide it meaning. The case of Dr. Schneeberger shows that. Dr. S put someone else's blood in a tube and inserted it into his arm so the sample obtained from him had someone else's DNA. The victim was discredited, initially (for several years). She knew he had assaulted her and she was eventually proven to be right. The DNA evidence was wrong. Her drug impaired recollection was better than the "expert" evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a Cite for this tall tale? Nobody gets DNA from arm-blood. They take it from a cheek swab. There's no place in your arm to put a "tube of blood" to have somebody stick it, anyway. Geez! S  B Harris 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He was very clever. He said he had a condition that made it necessary to avoid taking blood from his fingers and he insisted on taking it himself. He did this three times. The victim persisted and hired a private investigator and got a surreptitious sample and had it tested. See the Wikipedia article on Schneeberger. There was a TV movie made about this case. Saskcitation (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, you should have a look a this link, which not only shows the film-blur in both cases JFK and JBC very clearly around z160, and ALSO has a very nice collection of quotes from witnesses who heard a first shot that missed (because they heard two more) and/or saw an impact in the street:.
 * I have not only looked at it, I critiqued this page by David Reitzes several years ago. You cannot have the first shot missing and striking the road but leaving no trace. This is why Posner (and lately Holland) suggest that it struck something above the road and missed everything. But not only is there no evidence that it struck anything outside the car, there is strong evidence that it struck JFK .Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, blurr analysis is an unproven science. No one has been able to demonstrate that it works. So it might be an interesting theory but whether it is an accurate and reliable way of determining when shots occurred is unknown. People have used blurr analysis to "prove" that there were seven shots. Second, the blurr analysis does not fit with the witness evidence that the last two shots were closer together or the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot.Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the blur if you don't like it. The point is that both JFK and JBC do a rapid head turn to the right after the z160 blur. That move is consistant with JBC saying he looked to the right at the first shot, but wasn't hit yet. And indeed the site shows that neither man is hit while they do this head turn. S B Harris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the people who heard three shots were far from the bullet path and could not have heard the shock wave crack let alone been confused by it. They reported three shots with the last two distinctly closer together. Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! You didn't look at the site given at by the cite, did you?


 * See above. My critique of Dave Reitzes page is here:Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The motorcycle officers Billy Joe (B. J.) Martin, James M. Chaney, Stavis (Steve) Ellis, and William G. (Bill) Lumpkin, were all among the closest eyewitnesses. All of them said the first shot missed, and several of them describe street bullet strikes (the street apparently never was systematically examined between the assissination and the time it was repaved, not long after).


 * But if you actually read all their evidence they only describe something hitting the curb or street. Even they do not say it was a bullet. Read my critique.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody EXPECTS them to have "seen" a bullet, even if it WAS a bullet! You can't see bullets in flight (unless you're directly behind them and the sun is just right-- and even then I've only seen it for pistol bullets). S  B Harris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, we have the secret service agent Glen Bennett, riding in the car immediately behind: At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked . . . towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. Is he close enough for you?


 * This is evidence that suggests that JFK was hit on the second shot, but it is the only evidence and it is uncorroborated. Moreover, in his original hand written notes made that afternoon he describes it differently - he describes hearing a "firecracker" noise and looking at JFK and at that exact time seeing "that a shot hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder". He described only two shots. In his later statement he describes three shots and it is somewhat different than his notes.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You say we're not running out of meat and bone if the first shot hit JFK, the second Connolly, and the third JFK. But indeed we are, because if the first shot hit JFK, that bullet disappeared without doing further damage. It went though his coat back, his shirt back, and his tie knot. It made a wound in his lower neck/upper back, and another in his throat (seen by the ER docs) before going through the tie and away. Then it disappeared entirely. What happened to it?


 * It didn't disappear. It is CE399. It ended up in or on JBC.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, you're talking about the single bullet theory, then, are you not? CE399 goes through JFK to hit JBC?
 * Well, it is likely that CE399 struck JBC because it doesn't appear to have struck the car and it was not stopped or deflected by JFK's neck. The question is WHERE did it hit JBC? The SBT says it caused all of JBC's wounds so it struck JBC in the back. That is the Single Bullet Theory. Saskcitation (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exiting his throat at 224, it should have had JBC's armpit in front of it. Did something stop it before it went on to hit the governor, in the jump seat 18 inches away or so?? Magic? S  B Harris 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why JBC' right armpit be in front of a bullet moving right to left through JFK's midline? Why would the bullet not go to the left of the middle of JBC? Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is that JBC is sitting inboard of JFK, far enough that a bullet doesn't hit him in back, but the side of the chest at the right armpit (he is indeed a bit rotated, but not much). However, it's still moving at a 24 degree angle inward vs. the long axis of the car, so when it exits JCB it exists the right front of his chest, in the right nipple area. I already pointed you to, which is worth a thousand words on this trajectory matter. Compared with your KBC job, which is about as good as the WC's wooden pointer (one straight object is as good as another) And by the way, of course this bullet penetrates JBC's chest cavity. It produced a sucking chest wound and pneumothorax. S  B Harris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The bullet did not pass through the chest cavity. JBC did have a pneumothorax but only because of the rib fragments being driven into the lower lobe of his right lung. See Dr. Shaw's medical report and testimony  .  The damage to the chest lining was on the anterior side due to those "secondary missiles" from the fifth rib. Saskcitation (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at the trajectory, it went to the left of the middle of JBC's jump seat. See the KGB Files reenactment using a laser and the real car. With JBC sitting as he was in z200, it is pretty easy to see where the bullet could have gone.Saskcitation (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The KGB??


 * Yes. It is from "The Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files" documentary.Saskcitation (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're really pulling my leg. Before that you said it wound up in Connally. Connally's proper rotation has been subjected to much more thorough review, and you can see some really good footage here:. It's very clear that everything JBC does after coming out from behind the sign is a slow reaction to the bullet strike on him-- he's clearly in pain and he opens his mouth twice.


 * But, according to the evidence, JBC felt no pain until he reached the hospital. None. He never noticed his thigh wound until told about it the next day. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if he's reacting to a hard fist punch with no pain (say what?) the analysis stands. S  B Harris 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But this follows the *only* rapid motion JBC is seen to make, which is a jump-up and double arm raise, starting after 224. That's what you'd expect to see of a man punched in the back, and that's what you DO see (but only when the Z film is played in motion, and stabilized). Which is just when JFK reacts. I urge you to view that loop of film after the sign over and over. Connally shows no signs of anything when he emerges, THEN he has the biggest reaction he shows on the whole film, followed immediately by facial movements and a slow roll and then back into his wife's lap. Yes, he does look as if he's looking toward JFK and even should be able to see him, during this roll. But he's in shock, too, and gawping. He never says he ever saw JFK, and he's probably right. The head move JBC describes to look backward, which he never completes, to look at JFK (in keeping with his memory of what happened *before* he was hit) occurs well before he is hidden behind the sign, after Z-160, and indeed, neither man shows any sign of being hit before they go behind the sign. S B Harris 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And all I am saying is that this is exactly what JBC said he did in reaction to the SOUND of the first shot, not to being hit in the chest by it. Saskcitation (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Use of Bullet Lead Analysis
Why is this section here? It has no connection stated to the JFK assassination. This section should be rewritten to connect it to the JFK assassination, perhaps by citing those conspiracists who claim this undermines this sort of analysis. Recall that Sturdivan's critique is based on what was available to assassins in 1963, this analysis studied current manufacturing methods and concluded that it is no longer valid. They did not conclude that analysis done in 1963 therefore was not valid, though some in the conspiracy world in fact make that claim.

If the section cannot be connected to the assassination, it should be deleted. Canada Jack (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It relates to the JFK assassination because it shows that the principle of using bullet lead analysis to determine the source of a bullet is fundamentally flawed. Grant and Randich refer to this paper in their 2006 paper. Guinn was only using Sb concentrations to determine `uniqueness`. In their 2002 paper the authors show that the technique has no scientific validity even if you were to match 6 elements. They conclude:

"Our results show that the forensic examiner using a method of bullet lead alloy elemental analysis, which quantifies up to six elements is restricted to concluding only that indistinguishable bullets might have come from the same “source,” not that they did come from the same “source”. In addition, it is quite possible that multiple bullets with similar but distinguishable compositions could have come from the same “source”. The authors therefore feel that there is no scientific validity to any conclusions more positive than attributing the possible association as to molten source among bullets from different samples. An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria."


 * The reader should be informed that the analysis which Guinn used to support his conclusion is no longer accepted by the FBI, National Academy of Sciences or the courts as evidence. Now there is a significant difference between the kind of analysis that Guinn did and which the FBI was doing. Guinn was trying to match bullet lead to a particular bullet in a box of bullets. The FBI tries to match bullet lead to a box of bullets. Randich and Tobin say in their 2002 paper you cannot do what the FBI was trying to do.


 * Your remarks about conspiricists are not pertinent. This is not about conspiracy vs. lone nut. This is about science and the validity of conclusions from bullet lead analysis. The authors are not taking any position on what happened in the JFK assassination. They are just saying that you have to look at other evidence because the bullet lead analysis is flawed. Saskcitation (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: With all due respect, you are missing some important points here on how we present evidence and include material on wikipedia. I am simply pointing out that the section, as it stands, has to go. Why? Because you have not connected it to the JFK assassination. I previously linked to this page, but it seems you have not yet gone there to see why you must follow the guidelines. 

It relates to the JFK assassination because it shows that the principle of using bullet lead analysis to determine the source of a bullet is fundamentally flawed.

Where, prey tell, does it say that? What you have presented there says nothing about the JFK assassination and everything about a 2002 paper which describes lead from a smelter used for tests from 1998 to 2000. Then it says this prompted the FBI to stop using this form of analysis.


 * It isn't that complicated. Guinn used compositional bullet lead analysis (CBLA) to identify the source of bullet fragments in the JFK assassination using a one element match (Sb). The FBI has been using CBLA to identify the source of bullet fragments using 6 elements. The National Academy of Sciences and the FBI now say that that technique is flawed. Tobin and Randich say it is flawed. Courts say it is flawed. Tobin and Grant in their 2006 paper say it is even more flawed when it is done with respect to only one element.Saskcitation (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ???? Yes, Sask, it isn't that complicated at all: Either connect the section to the JFK discussion, or it will be deleted. Please read, carefully, what I am saying here. When I say "connect" I mean supply within the text the assertion from whomever you please that the analysis in question directly relates to the JFK analysis. I am not doing this to trip you up, as I know these connections exist. But since you added it, you should do the work here, not me. The fact that I have not deleted this article should indicate to you that I am acting in good faith. Canada Jack (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, with respect, I don't think you understand my concern here. It is not in determining whether this applies to the case, it is the fact that you have simply plonked this down without connecting it to the JFK case. You have to describe this in terms of how this analysis led some to conclude that the JFK analysis was itself flawed. Why? Because what you have put on the page says nothing about how this affects the JFK analysis. And that is important because there is an argument whether this analysis is even relevant to that JFK analysis. IOW, it is not self-evident from what you have posted how this is relevant. Clearly, someone thinks it is relevant, so you must make that link, you must present it in that fashion. Instead of deleting this, as we normally should, I suggest we leave this and you represent this to make it connect to the issue at hand.Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, I know that the FBI decision to cease using this analysis has a bearing on the issue. I am not pretending it doesn't. But by simply inserting this text, because there is nothing within it about how it relates to the JFK assassination (the study concerned itself with samples produced decades after 1963, not with the samples studied in terms of the assassination), and it because it seems to be there just to bring some "context" to the analysis, it is "original research" as an inference is supplied without connection to someone who made the inference. The connection to JFK has to be explicit - either within the report, or someone saying as much. If the FBI had said "the study invalidates the conclusions made about the JFK assassination," then that would be a different story. But because it doesn't, we need to frame the reference in terms along the lines of Grant and Randich (or whomever) say that the report and/or the FBI decision underlines their contention that the analysis is flawed and can't be used as a basis to determine only two bullets were involved. It can't be stressed too much - you can't make that inference. It might suffice to simply introduce that section in a similar manner. Please note that I do believe the insertion is relevant, but only once it is connected in a manner as I suggest. Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the suggested changes, Sask, and it looks good. I think this should stand as is. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus verification problem
I may point out, before you get too much into this, that the problem of "consensus" infinite regress is an old one on Wikipedia, and has never been dealt with satifactorily. If there's a consensus among scientists on the correctness of an idea (the Earth is more than 3 billion years old, say) then you need somebody to say there is a consensus, so you can quote them and have it a verifiable fact that there's a consensus. But now wait-- that's just one guy saying there's a consensus-- how do we know it's not just his personal opinion? Is there a concensus that there's a consensus? Why says so? Does he say so in print, so it can be cited? But he's just one guy with a printed opinion? Who agrees with him? Is there a consensus that there's a consensus that there's a consensus? Who says so? Where's your cite? Are you getting tired, yet? If you don't want to fight this kind of thing out, it always better to simply avoid th questions, point out the people who've done the major published studies, and summarize their conclusions. In the case here, there aren't that many major studies to summarize. Of course, people who've actually done the studies should be given priority over later (outside) interpreters, especially non-experts in the field. So who has the major published studies, and what were their conclusions? Kibitzers who know no statistics get lower billing-- maybe just a mention. S B Harris 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. For the purposes of the particular section, I don't feel we need any comment on "consensus." This is not a case of omitting a comment favourable to one side or the other (even if cited), it's a case of why include a nearly meaningless assertion. The issue is not whether there is a consensus or not, but whether there is a debate. Canada Jack (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think it looks pretty neat already (though, since it's taking over, we may need a subarticle on NAA analysis in the JFK assassination, with a summary of that in THIS article!). I'm especially interested to see the fragment stuff fall into two clear patterns-- one from JBC's wrist that matches CE399, and all the rest, which match the fragments from JFK's brain. And neither of these match the remaining round in Oswald's rifle. That's fairly clear: three bullets, one unfired. And perhaps a forth which missed the limo, since it is (after all) a four round clip and three expended brass were found (little factoids that nobody really wants to talk about when they're pushing conspiracy and multiple gunmen). If only JBC hadn't been buried with even more fragments which could have been matched to one set or the other. Oh, well. Give it a century and all these guys will get exhumed for a really good set of forensics like President William Henry Harrison and King Tut were, and a lot of previous bad theories will go down. No, Harrison wasn't poisoned with arsenic. No, Tut wasn't bludgeoned (instead had a bad leg fracture, probably from a chariot fall). One CT of JFK's head would answer a slew of questions, and no doubt allow collection of yet more fragments from the last shot.  S  B Harris 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on stating matter-of-factly that CE399 and the wrist fragment are a match? The point that Randich and Grant make, which appears to be overlooked in your responses, is that Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan are wrong in concluding that CE399 and the wrist fragment "match". They are saying that Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan do not have enough sample data and the sample sizes are too small. They are saying that at this sample size, there is no uniformity within any bullet lead. It is important that the reader get this understanding from reviewing the article. If you insist on saying that it is a matter of fact that the CE399 and the wrist fragment "matched" - and that such a match from two different bullets is highly improbable, as  a matter of fact - then the reader is not getting an objective, neutral information. This is the essence of the controversy between Randich/Grant and Rahn/Sturdivan.They disagree strongly on this point. I just want to ensure that this disagreement is clear to the reader, that's all. Saskcitation (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point, Saskcitation. (hey, my step-dad grew up in Kamsack!) The initial part describes the match, as that was how the evidence was presented. Then we have the more recent controversy which suggests there may not be a "match." I added the rebuttal from Sturdivan as the issue is important and the rebuttal relevant. But to then say "in conclusion there is no consensus..." that may in fact be the case but it's the sort of statement that can't really be supported, as it should be, by a reliable source. I mean, even if you can find a source for that, it's a simple matter to find someone else who says "there is a consensus." So, it's a can of worms to say that, in other words. That in no way denies the lack of consensus, it is just a form of editorializing that we should avoid, and, in this case, needless and gratuitous in my view. It should be clear to anyone reading the article that there is some strong and reliably sourced objections to the NSA analysis. There is, in my opinion, no need to include the statement, so omitting it is the easiest solution. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving this page.
This talk page is getting rather long but as someone not very intimate with the conversation here I don't feel comfortable archiving anything (for fear of deleting a current conversation). Would someone that is familliar with this page either archive it yourself or help me archive it (I can walk you through it pretty easy). It would save a lot of scrolling and make for a cleaner, less befuddling talk page. Padillah (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above paragraph and would also like to say that the referencing on this page is terrible, with mostly in-text links. Can these be converted to the standardised format please? I'd do it myself but this isn't one of my habitually watched pages. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A site just about anybody interested in this should look at
Here: only has the best frame by frame analysis I've seen of the Z film, but gets the anatomical details right also. You can see Connally's right hand move down with great speed, entirely disappearing between Z-222 and Z-223. Too fast to be anything but a downward motion due to a bullet strike. .
 * Lets work it out. Between z222 and z223 is one frame or 55 ms. In z222 you can see about half possibly three quarters of his wrist. In z223 you can't see any of it. So his hand has moved at least half to three quarters of a wrist width or about 2-3 inches. So that is a speed of 2-3/.055 = 36-54 inches per second or about 3-4.5 feet per second or about a slow to moderate walking speed (2-3 mph). It is not possible to move one's hand at a speed of 2 - 3 miles per hour??? It stays down through z224 but reappears "suddenly" at z225 so it moves back up at the same speed as it went down. There is nothing about that motion that is out of the ordinary range of normal voluntary motion. Saskcitation (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't move your hand that fast starting from zero within 3 inches, unless you're doing something athletic. Flies would fear you! You did the problem wrong: let's see what acceleration it takes to move 10 cm (2.5 inches) = 0.1 m, from a standing start, in 0.055 sec. A = 2D/t^2 = 2*0.1/(0.055)^2 = 66 m/sec^2 = 6.75 g's. Pretty good for a hand. Suppose the hand and forearm weigh 1 kg (this is light, as my own hand is 700 g by volume). Force is mass* acceleration = 66 N = 15 lbs. Try hefting a 15 lb barbell. I doubt you pull back a hand with 15 lbs of force doing any normal social activity. And this is a lower limit, meaning we used all the time between frames, and a very light hand and forearm. It could well have been 30 lbs. The momentum for a 700 g hand moving at v = at = 66*0.055 = 3.6 m/sec is the same as for a 10.3 g bullet moving at 244 m/sec = 800 ft/sec. Well, golly, that's about right. S  B Harris 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are assuming it is not moving in z222. But we don't know that and we cannot assume it. We cannot see his wrist in z221. The natural assumption would be that what is happening between z222 and 223 is a continuation of what is happening in z221-222. So it may not be accelerating at all. In any event, how does the hand manage to reappear in z225 after being below the line of sight in z224? What is the force that is causing that? Saskcitation (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A very powerful muscular reaction that hits the man in the back. Both arms come flying up in the most violent reaction he makes the whole time. Watch it in motion.
 * Also, it is not clear that the "white spot" seen in z222 is actually JBC's right wrist (cuff). It may be the brim of his hat. I can't see his hand in z222 and if that is his cuff you should be able to see somthing that looks like a hand at the end of it (as in z230). The hand isn't there. Saskcitation (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where it should be is front window frame of the car, so we can't tell. In any case, the color of the blotch is wrong to be skin, which is gold-tan for his hand and face. It's possibly a peice of white hat, but the argument is the same. It goes down fast. Yes, it could have been on the way before JBC appears, that I admit. But now for another thing you didn't mention: what causes the tremendous blur of JBC and everything else, in Z-224? And if nothing special, then why does JBC manage to move forward relative to Mrs. Kennedy just behind him, between those frames? Again, it looks like something hit him powerfully in the back. Take a look at the z223-224 comparison with Mrs. K's position held constant. She doesn't move at all relative to the rest of the car between those frames. But JBC, in front of her, is having his right shoulder rammed forward and his body pushed forard between these frames, in 1/18th of a second (you can see more of Jackie's suit), and something nasty, airblast wise, has hit this whole 224 scene which isn't there in 223.  S  B Harris 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: film blur. What causes the blur in about 80 percent of the frames? This is a hand-held 8 mm movie camera with a zoom lens. The shutter speed is 1/30th of a second. The subject is moving (both down and across the field of view). The film then moves in 1/50th of a second, stops and another frame is exposed. Try taking a picture of a stationary subject with a still camera at a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second and see if the results are any better than Zapruder's. Then do it with a zoom lens! Modern digital cameras recognize that some blur almost always occurs and digitally correct for it.


 * Re: forward motion of JBC. JBC is about to turn right around to see JFK. In order to do that he has to lean forward to allow his right shoulder to move left.


 * Here is a better question. Look at JBC's forward motion from z271 to z280 or so. What is causing that uniform sailing forward just before Nellie reaches over to pull him down? Also what causes the appearance of his wrist to suddenly change between z271 and z272? What causes JFK's hair to fly up on the right side of his head at z272-275 (just as SA Hickey and SA Kinney observed at the time of the second shot)? What causes the left sun visor to move forward from z271-272? What causes Greer to turn around at z280 (which he said he did immediately after the second shot)? What causes JBC to fall back at that point (which Dave Powers said he did immediately after the second shot)? Why did 48 witnesses swear that the last two shots were closer together than the first two?
 * Here are some more questions: Why did at least 16 witnesses say that JFK reacted to the first shot and none said he continued to smile and wave? Why did Mary Woodward say that the first shot was just as JFK turned forward after he and Jackie turned, smiled and waved at them? Why did Betzner say that the first shot was just after his z186 photo? Why did Croft say that the first shot occurred after he took his z162 photo of the President and was running down Elm St. to take another? Why did all the occupants of the VP follow-up car say that the first shot occurred when they had just turned the corner (and their car is still pointing toward the TSBD at frame z191)?
 * These are all very important questions that need answers. Witnesses can be wrong. But when they say the same thing, how is it that can all be wrong the same way on so many different issues? Saskcitation (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

His lapel flips up in the next frame, and his right shoulder is driven foward relative to the rest of his body. Also, this page notices something which I've never seen anywhere else, which is the obvious (when you look at it) fact that although Connally keeps hold of his hat through the whole episode, after his arm jerk at about Z-230, his wrist drops unnaturally and is completely limp. It's obviously broken. S B Harris 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing obvious about his wrist being broken at z230. It is quite possible to hold the hat with his wrist into his chest as he turns around to see JFK from z235-270. Saskcitation (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no real Western man with a Stetson ever holds the cowboy hat in a completely, totally limp-wristed way like that, unless wounded. It's gay as a bunch of posies. There's something badly wrong with Connally. And YOU are the one who says he's NOT wounded. Feh. S  B Harris 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold a stetson in your right hand and turn around to look behind you. It feels to me like quite a natural position to bring the hand up to the chest like that. If the hand has a stetson in it, I don't know how else you could hold it with the hand in that position. Saskcitation (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about these images, for those reading along: . There's no reason at all for Connally to hold the hat against his chest in Z-262. He could have continued to hold it in the position of Z-230 while he turned. Now remember Occam's razor, here. You have no argument that a bullet didn't come along and break this same wrist, about (what?) half a second later than you see it in Z-262? You agree on THAT. Which break, would do the same thing to it, that we see half a second earlier? And you're REALLY going to argue in that circumstance for the coincidence of all coincidences, that what we see in Z-262 just happens to be a natural motion which looks for all the world like a broken floppy wrist, since the same wrist is intact right there (says you) but due to be broken (says you) a fraction of a second LATER??! Please. In what frame are you arguing that JBC's wrist finally IS broken by the bullet? S  B Harris 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the injury to the wrist was a comminuted fracture of the radius 5 cm above the wrist joint. The bullet made a hole in his french cuff about 2 cm above the end of the cuff. The radius did not break into two parts leaving it to flop around at the point of the bullet wound. The bullet blasted fragments of bone off the radius. What you see from z247-281 is a bend at the normal wrist joint. So your argument that he is holding his hand that way because his wrist is broken doesn't really hold, as far as I can see.
 * The radius IS broken completely in half, with the two halves non-connected. "Comminuted" means fragmented, but this is also displaced a bit, and there is a mild bend at the site. The radius is the main bone which holds the hand, so the wrist would be unstable. Of course that doesn't mean he can't hold something as light as a hat. Nothing much heavier.   S  B Harris 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Although others say "wrist" and you correctly point out that that is not accurate, the question has to be asked: Why if Connally wasn't shot through that part of his body is his hand in a strangely limp position at the frames in question. If one looks at the link in question, one sees Connally holding the hat in what we could term a "natural" position, but by 260, this same hand is in a very odd and awkward limp position. Given the sort of wound he received, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that he lost control of his hand, which would account for the awkward hand position. Canada Jack (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One could ask the question another way: how does a bullet exiting JBC's chest on a right to left trajectory strike the back of JBC's wrist rather than the medial side of the wrist? If you bring your wrist up off your lap so it can be struck by a bullet through the chest, the side of the wrist, not the back faces the chest. The answer may be that given by Dr. Shires, which was that JBC was hit while turned right (as Nellie told the Dr.) and as you turn your torso with your arm in front, the wrist naturally pronates so that the back of the wrist turns toward the chest. This is simply a physical effect cause by the bone structure of the arm. If you turn right by twisting around like that, the wrist naturally turns. It may look unnatural. Besides, there is really no evidence that this wound caused him to lose control of his hand like that. The flexor tendons in the wrist and the median nerve were undamaged. He held onto his hat all the way to Parkland. Saskcitation (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is somewhat simpler. JBC raises the hat in an extremely fast reflexive jerk and turns it "over" through 90 degrees in about one frame between z229 and z230. If you want to see the graphic, see: . What I infer happens is this: Connally before the strike is riding with his right forearm held in the most natural relaxed position, thumb toward body, volar (palm) side of the hand down. That's how you sit if totally relaxed. Loosely gripped in the hand is his hat, which is sitting hole-side up (sitting on its crown) in his lap, while the forarm is on his thigh. The bullet comes through his chest, traveling down, and hits him in the thumb-side of the back of the forearm, exiting forward toward the hand, breaking the radius completely, and finally exiting the wrist at the crease between palm and forarm, passing from there directly into the thigh. The arm jerk does something remarkable: the hand comes up off the lap in a flex, and as it comes up, the forarm is rotated to be thumb forward, palm up (as you would raise an arm so your thumbs are outward and palms up), so as the hat clears the door, you see the dome of it first, because it's turned partly. In about one frame, JBC turns his wrist over again, just as the hat hits the top of its arm arc, and now the wrist rotates so that the hat flips so it is hole-forward for the first time. That's how it remains, in the same grip, througout what follows. Except the hand slowly flops forward with the wrist slowly coming up toward the head, the the hat staying hole-forward next to the chest. It stays there as JBC rotates and falls back. The whole thing looks like swatting at a fly. S  B Harris 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as when I think JBC's wrist is broken: it is broken when it was struck by the second bullet. By all the evidence, that occurred closer to shot 3 than shot 1. There is an abrupt change in the appearance of his wrist and hat between z271 and z272 that fits with a shot at that point. At that point JFK's hair flies up on the right side of his head (no one else's hair moves at all). At that point JBC starts sailing forward relative to the car and everyone else in it. etc. etc. (see above). Unfortunately his wrist is out of view after that point. Saskcitation (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a very big problem here, Sask. If, as you seem to suggest, JFK's hair moves at this point owing to a presumed bullet grazing him, then striking Connally in the wrist, the rather large problem presents itself as to the angle this shot would have had to have to do this. It is not so apparent in the Zapruder film, but in the Nix film and others, JFK was in the process of leaning far to his left meaning that any shot which grazed JFK's head at that point would likely have continued on to hit Nellie Connally or her seat. Further, we are presumed to believe that shot one and shot three were both near- or direct hits as the line-of-sight from Oswald's perch was relatively stable, but shot 2 not only missed, it missed by a huge portion. While possible, it doesn't sound that plausible. And still further, it seems somewhat odd that a bullet that presumably struck Connally at 270 or so would be slowed sufficiently to not penetrate his thigh. Indeed, it's hard to see how, in the position he is sitting in, that this bullet would have deflected to his thigh. Perhaps you have a scenario as to what bullets did what damage and that question is answered? Canada Jack (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem at all. A shot at z270 from the SN is almost directly to the rear because the car turns left as it is going down Elm (the street curves left). So a shot missing JFK's head by less than 12 inches goes right into JBC's right armpit. Hickey particularly noticed the hair fly up at the time of the second shot and interpreted what he saw as the shot just missing JFK. Saskcitation (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to find the FBI recreation of this, at the time you suggest, but I couldn't. However, JFK is leaning left at something like a 45 degree angle at frame 270, as is confirmed by other films showing the fatal shot. If you look closely at the Zapruder film, you can see this is so as where he earlier had been resting his right arm on the side of car, his right arm by 270 is flexed to the right of his body, but within the car. Hence, a shot missing JFK's head by even a foot would, if anything, hit Connally's left side. For a shot to do what you suggest, the shot would have had to have originated from someplace down Houston Street. As for your contention that the car is turning left, it would seem you are not correct here. See this diagram showing the position of the limo at 313. Even there, the limo has barely entered into a gentle left-hand turn, it would not have started this turn at 270. In other words, what you suggest - a bullet brushing JFK's head and continuing on to hit the governor - simply doesn't work if the bullet was fired from the TSB. Perhaps I will contact Dale Myers to nail down the precise positioning of the limo occupants at this point to see if the trajectories work for the wound you suggest. I think that in general you have the approach to evidence backwards. We have to take the physical evidence and work backwards and see what works with the witness evidence, rather than take the witness evidence, which is often vague or contradictory, and see what seems to fit. If the trajectories don't work, in other words, it really doesn't matter what some witnesses said. Because the physical evidence refutes conclusions you are making in regards to it. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this overhead trajectory diagram:. JFK is definitely leaning to the left but his hips have not shifted left. Jackie has moved to her right and is holding JFK's left forearm. JFK is leaning forward so his shoulders are lower than before. At the same time, JBC has turned around and his right shoulder is over the back of the jump seat exposing his right armpit to a shot from the rear.  The bullet drops about 4 inches between JFK and JBC (24 inches separation and 10 degree vertical descent). Since JFK's hair flies up, the bullet likely passed at a lower level probably just over JFK's right shoulder. Something causes JFK's hair to fly up there and Hickey and Kinney said it happened on the second shot. His hair does not move from z224-240. Saskcitation (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The diagram does not show the correct positioning of JFK. He is in the midst of toppling into Jackie at this point, and his head is almost in contact with her. Yet the diagram shows him sitting erect. How do we know he was toppling to his left? I mentioned other films which much more clearly show this, but if we want to stick to Zapruder, take a look at Z270. While it is not immediately obvious what position JFK is in as we are looking downward and straight to his side and therefore JFK's lean away from us is not readily apparent, take a look at where his extended elbow is. His right arm is extended horizontally, yet it is  clearly inside the limo where a few seconds earlier his arm was resting on the side of the car and his body was flush to the car. The only way for his arm to be extended in that position while remaining in the car is if he is toppling leftward towards Jackie, with his torso at something approaching 45 degrees to the left from the normal sitting position. There is no indication that he had shifted his butt to the left, just his torso seems to be moving. As I said before, this is readily apparent in the Nix film, and Zapruder himself described the president as toppling to his left before the fatal head wound. JFK's head would likely be close to the midline of the car in the diagram you link to, not dead centre within the right side of the car as you portray it. Therefore, the diagram is misleading as JFK's head would be even further into the car and therefore a bullet grazing his hair, or even missing by a few inches would continue on and completely miss Connally in the position he was in at that point. Canada Jack (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * JFK does not move very much left between z224 and z251. His elbow appears to be over or very close to the edge of the car at z251. He shifts over to the left from z251-z271, which is one second. The question is how far does his head move to the left. I have him so that the centre of his head is over the centre of his seat. The seat width is 60 inches. I don't see how his head could be 30 inches inside the car. If he leaned that far you would see his head drop significantly. I don't see it drop much relative to Jackie or the car. You also have to take into account the change in angle to Zapruder as the car is moving across Zapruder's field of view. But all of this really doesn't matter. We don't know how close the bullet came to JFK's hair in order to make it move. What matters is that JBC's right armpit is in clear view for a shot from the SN. Saskcitation (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a discussion with Dale Myers on this and he said that when viewed stereoscopically, it is very apparent that JFK is leaning significantly to his left. Not sure what you mean about seeing his head drop - His head is in fact quite a bit lower than Jackie's in 270, significantly below the presumed "proper" level if we draw a parallel line along the back of the seats. Further, we can see a lot of the seat behind JFK, both behind him as he is leaning forward a bit, and to his right. And, this has to be underlined, JFK's extended elbow is partially obscured by the side of the car, which a few seconds earlier it was resting upon. As for the point that we don't know how close the presumed bullet was to JFK's head to cause his hair to move, well I don't think more than a few inches is what would work here. I'd say you are straining the lengths of credulity to suggest a bullet passing a foot or more from his head would cause his hair to jump up. In short, the position you have JFK is at odds with the evidence presented at the moment in question. Therefore there is fault with your premise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a premise. It is a conclusion. All you need to determine that a shot occurred around z270 is the shot pattern evidence OR the evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot OR that the first shot occurred after z186 AND that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot. The thing to note, however, is that it fits with all of those other details (JFK's hair flies up at z272-275 - whether a bullet or a gust of wind caused it, the hair was seen to fly up at the moment of the second shot -; Greer turning z276-280; Nellie looking at JBC at 272 and pulling him down immediately after; JBC moving forwar from z272-278; appearance of wrist changing 271-272) AND it fits with the last two shots being fired by Oswald (time between z271 and z313 = 2.3 seconds). My only point is that the SBT does not fit a lot of evidence and it really isn't needed for Oswald to have fired all the shots. Saskcitation (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a premise. It is a conclusion. Your premise is that the hair moving is consistent with a bullet passing by JFK's head. Your conclusion is that this is evidence for Connally being struck by a bullet around this time. Unfortunately for your premise, JFK's torso is too far to the left to allow the trajectory you suggest, and taking one look at the diagram you link to shows that JFK's position needs to be more to the right for your conclusion to have any validity. Since Connally couldn't have been hit by any bullet fired by Oswald which also caused JFK's hair to move, you have a problem. Your only have some witness testimony to suggest that Connally was hit by a bullet at this point, but no evidence otherwise to point to this. I suggest you try to calibrate the position JFK was in at the appropriate Nix frames to see what, exactly, JFK was positioned at, because the diagram you have is not only wrong, it is demonstrably wrong as JFK's extended arm is partially obscured by the edge of the limo, meaning he is either a) shifted in his seat to the left, or b) leaning over. Canada Jack (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The premise is that the witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together were correct AND that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. This leads to the conclusion that JBC was not hit until much later than z224. OR the premise could be that the witnesses who said that the first shot struck JFK were right. If JBC was hit on the second shot, he must have been hit after JFK begins reacting. OR the premise could be that the witnesses who heard the first shot after z186 were right. Same conclusion. I am merely pointing out that a shot at z265-275, which is the time frame that it must occur IF ANY of these bodies of witness evidence is correct, is consistent with what Hickey said he observed. He said that JFK's hair flew up on the right side at the moment of the second shot. I don't agree with you that JFK was too far left, but even if you are right it doesn't make all that evidenc disappear. Hickey did not say the bullet caused his hair to fly up. He just said his hair flew up on the second shot. Maybe it was the wind. It is just that the evidence of Hickey and corroborated by Kinney is that the sound of the shot and that hair flying up occurred at the same time.
 * Your argument seems to be that if the bullet didn't cause it then Hickey did not see what he said he saw and the zfilm showing it is somehow wrong. Hickey could not have seen it fly up earlier, BTW, because as seen in the Altgens z255 photo he is facing backward (his head is just over the driver's sunvisor). He said he turned around to the front, looked at JFK then heard the second shot and watched his hair fly up.


 * The FBI re-enactment of the positions at z255 is here . On what basis do you say that his head is a further 15 inches left one second later? I don't see such a sudden movement. Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If he leans 45 degrees to the left, his head will move right .707 x his height above the seat and his head will drop (1-.707) x that height. If his torso is 40 inches high, his head has to drop about 12 inches and his head will move left 28 inches. His head does not drop 12 inches.


 * Again, you fail to grasp the point. The diagram you link to only works if JFK is seating perfectly erect. He clearly was not.
 * If he was perfectly erect, his head about 8 inches from the right side of the car. I put his head in the middle - about 15 inches from the left side. Saskcitation (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't know where you get your numbers. I am over six feet tall. If I leaned over 45 degrees, my head lowers only several inches.
 * ???Are you saying that your head does not obey the laws of geometry? A 45 degree lean of a 40 inche torso MEANS his head is 28 inches from the right side and it is 28 inches ABOVE his seat. Saskcitation (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems you base your numbers on the assumption that a person is a one-inch-wide stick. Besides, the issue here is the placement of his head in terms of left-to-right in relation to the centre line of the car. Your trajectory can only work if the head is more or less directly above JFK's seat. Again, have you calibrated these assumptions on JFK's position with frames from the Nix film? Because the problem is, just about any lean will render your argument unworkable. Canada Jack (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is try it yourself. Put a person in the seat and get them to lean over as you see JFK and see where his head is. He is not leaning over 45 degrees. I think you will find that a 45 degree lean will cause a person to topple over.


 * While the precise angle of the lean may be a matter for debate, the point is he was leaning. And, indeed he was toppling into Jackie. So, I ask you again, since if he was leaning significantly to his left this might affect your assumptions about a shot at 270, have you calibrated his position with, say, the Nix film?


 * Maybe not, if you're wearing a back-brace. If you look at the Moorman polaroid photo, taken about 3 frames after the fatal heat shot (before his body has time to move), he's leaning a LONG way over. Looks like it could well be 45 degrees. S  B Harris 01:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW Dale Myers has a lot invested in the SBT being correct. Furthermore he refuses to reveal the data on which he bases the trajectory and seating positions etc. Ask him to program JFK leaning to the left to a 45 degree angle and show us what it looks like.Saskcitation (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment, Sask. If you knew Mr Myers, you would know that he was convinced of a conspiracy. But the difference between his assumptions and his approach to investigating all this is that he didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence in front of him, unlike many in this field. And when he did his recreation of the assassination, he was forced to admit that any conspiracy based on the bullets that struck the occupants of the car was, quite simply, wrong. So he embraced the SBT. But he does not call it the Single Bullet Theory, he calls it the Single Bullet Fact.


 * I know. Do you think he is going to change his mind? He ignores the witness evidence. He even admits he does. He can't explain why it is so consistent. He just says it is wrong. I don't ignore it. I don't know if you have ever done a complex trial, but I have done many and I can tell you that that kind of evidence would be extremely significant to any trier of fact.


 * He "ignores" witness testimony when it contradicts the physical evidence. If witness x says he was looking at JFK when he was shot in the head, but the Zapruder film shows witness x looking elsewhere, then it is reasonable to conclude witness x is wrong.
 * Of course. But no one said they were looking at JFK when he was shot in the head but is seen in the zfilm to be looking elsewhere. The other shots that are not unequivocally captured at a certain frame of the zfilm. So when a witness says they were looking at JFK when the second shot occurred and they are not looking at him when you think the second shot occurred, and when dozens of other witnesses say the same thing, you can't just reject his evidence. Rather you should rethink your opinion as to when the second shot occurred. That is all I am saying. Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your approach seems to be "witnesses are infallible," ignore the physical evidence, then come up with some convoluted scenario to make the testimony fit. So, in this case, conclude that another bullet must have struck JFK in the head. Not sure what kind of success you would have in a trial if you declared as you have here there is "no" evidence for a bullet at 160 or a bullet striking the pavement then and that "no one" "ever" claimed as much, then be presented with what I and Harris have presented which show that many in fact did claim as much. I'd say your credibility at a trial would start to plummet rather quickly.


 * Not at all. Witnesses are fallible. You seem to think that means they are always worthless. Well, they aren't. And the courts don't think so either. The key is to determine when they are reliable. I am saying that they are reliable when you have several independent witnesses independently reporting the same observation. And when that fits with the rest of the evidence, it is reliable. That is what we have here.Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't say that witnesses are worthless. Indeed, the entire premise that there were three and only three shots chiefly rests on the fact the overwhelming majority of witnesses say there were three (or fewer) shots. The problem with what you term "reliable" is that you seem to have no further basis for establishing that other than others saying essentially the same thing.


 * No. I say that if the overwhelming majority of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY recalled seeing the same thing then they are reliable. Independence is the key. You must conclude that they accurately observed the same event if there is nothing that could have made them all make the same mistake for the same reason. You will never get this kind of convergence of INDEPENDENT witness evidence that will conflict with unequivocal physical evidence. It doesn't happen in real life and it did not happen anywhere in the JFK assassination. If this kind of evidence conflicts with an "Expert" interpretation of physical evidence, you should question the accuracy of that opinion. That is what I am saying here. The "expert" interpretations of the zfilm as to the time of the second shot conflict with large bodies of independent witness observations - ie not the physical evidence itself but someone's theory about it. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And that once you have that, then you construct elaborate scenarios to trump the physical evidence which suggests otherwise. While it is true that if 20 people said "a" happened and only one or two said "b" and we'd likely go with what the majority of people said, if we are presented with physical evidence that in fact points to "b," that isn't negated simply because the witnesses said otherwise. Your problem is that your scenario does not fit in with the physical evidence, and some things we would expect - like the presence of a third bullet, entrance wounds for Connally which are not indicative of a tumbling bullet, etc., are not there. And you have yet to convincingly suggest why this is so. We have. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The physical evidence you point to is equivocal. If you have 20 witnesses who independently recalled "a" and your interpretation of the physical evidence says "b" your interpretation has to be questioned. 20 out of 22 witnesses do not, in real life, independently recall observing something and get it wrong the same way unless there is a common reason (such as the lighting changing the observed colour of something). Saskcitation (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But in terms of what Myers did, my point is that he didn't let his preconceptions rule his interpretation, and he did what it seems you are not willing to do - gather all the physical evidence together to try to reconstruct what happened. For example, is the premise that JFK and Connally were struck by the same bullet falsifiable? Sure, if you could establish that they were in the wrong position at the presumed bullet impact. Alas, he discovered that not only were they in the right position when JFK is first seen to react, any bullet exiting JFK had to hit Connally. What I am asking, given Myers approach, is whether you did a similar analysis to determine JFK's exact position at the time in question. This is an issue of being able to falsify a premise. If your premise can't be tested by the evidence, it remains mostly conjecture.


 * What is the conjecture in suggesting that the 48 witnesses who said the the last two shots were distinctly closer together were right? On what conceivable basis can that evidence be rejected? Myers ignores it. So, Myers may have a neat theory but it doesn't fit the evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 48 witnesses saying two bullets closer together does not negate evidence that shows Kennedy to be in the wrong position at the time in question. That is what you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
 * No. I am saying that 48 witnesses do not negate the correct physical evidence. It only conflicts with what you think is evidence showing JFK to be in the wrong position. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Myers and others have looked at the physical evidence and concluded it closely matches what many witnesses in fact said. Other witnesses had different interpretations, but those interpretations are by nature subjective and can't negate other physical evidence. So far, we do have witnesses suggesting a shot at around Z160, and other evidence which seems to corroborate that - in terms of the reactions of the occupants in the car, etc. What is clear is that, so far, you've presented much less physical evidence for your contention that there was a bullet which struck between c.z224 and z313. Indeed, it exists almost completely on witness evidence you are interpreting to make your scenario. But, as I have shown, we are seeing things in terms of the physical evidence that does not match what we'd expect if your scenario was correct. That would mean either some witnesses were simply wrong, or you are interpreting what they said wrongly. Or a combination of the two. Geez, even two of the closest witnesses to the assassination disagreed when they testified, and they were sitting next to each other, the Connallys!


 * Why do you say the Connallys disagreed? If the second shot was at z272, they agree quite well. It is only if you insist the second shot was at z224 do you get a problem.Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who seems to spend a lot of time in court, I'd say you'd know better than most that there are often irreconcilable points of views from different witnesses on the same events. But I would also add that you haven't likely been involved in a case where you have such a wealth of physical evidence to test many of these witness statements. Canada Jack (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Witnesses disagree on occasion and when they do you have to determine who saw what, their motives to lie, their ability to observe, collusion between witnesses, suggestions made by investigators etc.: ie. the things that make their observations not independent. In this case, there are too many witnesses who all observed the same thing INDEPENDENTLY  ie. there is nothing to suggest that there was collusion, suggestions by investigators etc. Nor were they all independently lying. If they were independently lying their lies would be all over the place. Saskcitation (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But in this case, there were other images from the same point of time, or very near the same point of time to test your premise. And if JFK was as far to the left as it seems he was in the Muchmore image, the Nix film, then your premise that his hair moves, indicating a bullet narrowly missing, then striking Connally in the manner you suggest will not work. Now, if you were at trial, the opposing lawyer could make the rather pointed remark, if you fall back on what the various witnesses said, and that remark would be "why ignore the physical evidence?" If you determine JFK's precise position more accurately, this would either corroborate your theory or negate it. But why ignore it? And if I was that lawyer, I'd go one better and produce that other image or images, which show JFK almost collapsing into Jackie's arms and say the overhead diagram is wrong and therefore this particular scenario is wrong. Here are the positions at the head strike, frame 313 As one can quite clearly see in the reenactment frame, the agent playing JFK is leaning over to his left at something like a 45 degree angle. Of course, this is some 43 frames after the point in question. The frame number for the Muchmore image at this point is 42. Frame 19 is here, which would (assuming the frame counts were similar) correspond with z290. As one can quite clearly see, JFK is in the same position as he is in later, leaning over at something like a 45 degree angle. Are therer earlier Muchmore frames to examine? Here is a copy of Muchmore with the frame counts, and though it is hard to see here, it does seem that JFK is indeed leaning into Jackie at the same position (and therefore at something approaching 45 degrees) around Z270, again assuming constant frame counts (frame 1 Muchmore would correspond to z271). Then, take a look at where JFK's head is in the reenactment image and tell me that a shot fired and just missing, even by a foot, would strike Connally in the manner you suggest. That bullet would sail into the midline of the car, and Connally's wife would have been more likely the one getting hit. And you believe a judge and jury would ignore this evidence and instead embrace witnesses who say otherwise? I don't see how you could win this particular point, Sask. Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The FBI re-enactment done for the Warren Commission in 1964 is wrong, and is one of prime SOURCES of all the hell about the trajectory of the Magic Bullet, ala Stone, ever since! If you look at the car used, it's basically the same model as the trailing VP car (Johnson's Queen Mary, which was a 1955 Cadillac convertable). See the car *behind* JFK's 1961 Lincoln in the Algens photo- a near match (for all I know, they used this very car for the reenactment). If you look at the Cady, it has no jump seats, just a divider and 4 (more or less equal) passenger seats, behind the driver seats. You can see the solid divider between the two passenger seats in the Caddy in the "reenactment" telescopic sight views. All this allows the FBI to get Connally's position in the Lincoln wrong (as you see through the sight), which puts everything else wrong. So forget it. The KGB at least used the right car! And so, later, did Myers. So see Myers. S  B Harris 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are arguing that JFK's head was over the middle of the car at z271, suggesting this is seen in the Muchmore film. If he was that far left, his head and Jackie's heads would be practically touching. But the Muchmore film does not show that. It shows a significant separation between JFK and Jackie at that point. The separation does change significantly by z313 (which fits the zfilm showing JFK and Jackie getting closer together up to z313. At z271 JFK appears to me to be about as far left as the FBI showed him to be in their reconstruction at z255. Of course, the FBI used the wrong car (they used the Queen Mary because the Presidential Lincoln was being re-worked). That created some serious misrepresentations of the relative positions of JBC and JFK at z207 which prevented the WC from seeing alternative paths for the neck bullet. But the car has little to do with their recreation of the amount of lean of JFK.
 * It looks to me like we will just have to join issue here and say that we just disagree on how far JFK is leaning left at z271. Saskcitation (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point seems to be that JFK is leaning far over to the left at z313. I agree. At 319 he is practically prostrate. What does this have to do with his position at z271, 2.3 seconds earlier? At z271 he is sitting up and is in virtually the same position that he was at z255 about a second earlier and, as shown in the FBI reconstruction, his head is just to the left of a bullet from the SN going into JBC's right armpit. Where is the sideways motion evident in frames z255-271? From about z280 to z313 the car is sideways to Zapruder so it is harder to see JFK leaning left because it is directly away from the camera. Saskcitation (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point seems to be that JFK is leaning far over to the left at z313. I agree. At 319 he is practically prostrate. What does this have to do with his position at z271, 2.3 seconds earlier? Do you some sort of blind spot which prevents you from reading evidence that might counter your arguments? I suggested a calibration with the Muchmore film, and suggest that that film, in its early frames (which correspond to about z271) show Kennedy in the exact position I have suggested. Again, why are you ignoring physical evidence here which might further clarify the issue? BTW, there is a way to see how far JFK is leaning in the Zapruder film, and that is by looking at the sequence in question stereoscopically. Canada Jack (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All you see in the Muchmore film is a view from the side opposite Zapruder. There is a significant separation between JFK's head and Jackie's. He appears to be leaning mostly forward. You get a much better view in the zfilm. Again, I am not ignoring the physical evidence, if you mean the photographic evidence. I am simply saying that correct interpretation of ambiguous photographic evidence requires examining the rest of the evidence. I am simply saying that it is much more likely to be correct if it fits the evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * JFK and Connally not only probably were hit by the same bullet around Z224, they had to have been hit by the same bullet. And this was based on the trajectories which dictated not only where bullets striking flesh had to go but where they had to come from. It would seem that your approach is to find witnesses which seem to suggest the bullet sequence you assume, then ignore or pretend evidence to the contrary does not exist, or used extremely strained logic to dismiss what seems readily apparent - that Connally is reacting to a bullet strike at 230 - while suggesting "evidence" that only you seem to see significant - that rustled hair indicates another bullet at 270, etc.
 * Your point would be persuasive if it was not possible for the left thigh to have been hit directly.Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, in the interest of accuracy, I ask you again, since you seem to be pretending that any lean by JFK at 270 or so was not significant, have you in fact ensured the accuracy of this assumption by calibrating JFK's position from one of the several films made on the opposite side of Elm from Zapruder? Or will you not bother in case the other films suggest you are wrong on this and therefore the trajectories will not work? Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, again, the lean is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his hair flies up at that point. The reason is irrelevant. What is important is that two witnesses oberved it at the same time as the second shot. Saskcitation (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sask: Just to clarify, what is the sequence you are suggesting here and the damage done by the specific bullets? Is JFK hit in the back by a bullet which also passed through Connally circa Z220? And then a second bullet which stuck only Connally in the wrist and thigh circa z271? Then the fatal head shot? Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sequence that fits the evidence is the sequence described by Nellie and John Connally: First shot through JFK's neck. Second shot strikes JBC in the back. Third shot hits JFK in the head. Those are the primary striking targets. This is the sequence that is also supported by the other witnesses. According to the witnesses, the first shot was after z186 (22 witnesses) and struck JFK (16 witnesses). So there could only be one shot from Oswald's rifle by the time JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign showing clear signs of his neck wound. This is also the necessary conclusion from the evidence of Altgens, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and about 48 witnesses who said that the space between second and third shots was noticeably shorter than the space between the first and second (meaning there was only one shot before the midpoint between shots 1 and 3).Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, as far as what the bullets struck in addition to those primary targets, is a little more difficult to determine since we do not have direct evidence (no one said what the bullet through JFK's neck struck, or how JBC's wrist and thigh were hit or how the damage to the windshield and frame or the curb near Tague were caused). It is pretty clear that the first shot through JFK did not stop in JFK. It made a hole in his shirt and nicked his tie. It struck no solid bone in JFK. It likely continued in a straight line - downward at 18 degrees and right to left at about 12 degrees. That means it must have crossed the plane of JBC's jump seat to the left of centre. The first bullet did not strike JBC in the back, according to all the witnesses. It did not strike the car (it would have left a mark of some kind and there was none). It did not strike JBC's right wrist (the position is not right). That leaves only one other thing that was struck: the thigh. This possibility was never investigated because the FBI reenactment using the wrong car showed no such path from JFK's neck to JBC's thigh. The first shot is after z162 (Croft) after z186 (Betzner) after z191 (VP followup car witnesses) after z197 (Mary Woodward)and before z202 (Philip Willis) and before z204 (Rosemary Willis turns suddenly). That makes it pretty narrow - z197-202.  Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The second shot was after the midpoint between the first and third shots, so it was after z258 (half way between z197 and 313). This fits with Altgen's recollection that his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shot. It was enough after z258 so as to be perceptibly closer to z313 than to z197. SA Hickey and SA Kinney noticed JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head at the moment of the second shot.  Greer noticed a concussion from the second shot and he immediately turned around. Tague said he thought he was hit on the second shot (he wasn't entirely sure but that was his view because he was pretty sure it was not the first and he heard a shot after he was hit). Nellie said that JBC was visibly moved by the second shot and she did not look back to the back seat after the second shot . Examining the zfilm, we see JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head from z272 to z275. We see a change in appearance of JBC's right wrist from z271-272. His wrist is in a position where the chest exit and wrist entry wounds are together with the back of his wrist against the front of his chest. We see Greer looking forward are z270 but is turned around at z280. We see the top of the left sunvisor move at z271-72. And we see JBC start sailing forward uniformly between z272-280 as he is then pulled down by Nellie. We see Nellie looking back at JFK at z255 but not looking back after z270. All of this fits a second shot between z270 and z272 narrowly missing JFK's head, striking JBC in the right armpit (which is fully exposed over the back of the jump seat and facing the sniper's nest), striking the right wrist and fragments deflecting up off the radius (one small fragment continuing through the wrist or perhaps a bone fragment) striking the windshied, frame and going on to strike Tague. Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The third shot obviously struck JFK in the head at z312-313. Possibly a fragment struck the windshield or frame. Saskcitation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Several real problems with this. One is the bullet should not have slowed down enough, after passage through JFK's neck, to only make a superficial thigh wound. A reenactment with two ballistic-gell, hide and bone bodies, has the bullet go through JFK, keyhole through JFB's chest, go on through the wrist (the correct side also), and then BOUNCE off the thigh. It hit two ribs rather than one, so the slightly less penetration is explained. Remove the whole chest and wrist and you have a bullet which should have penetrated thigh deeply, not gone in an inch or so and fallen out spontaneously on a stretcher. Second, you have the same problem if you want a primary bullet to hit Connally freshly in the armpit without hitting anything first. THAT bullet should be traveling nose-on, and exit nose on, as the JFK neck shot clearly was. It wasn't-- it was traveling side-on and clearly tumbling. This very stable 160 gr 6.5 mm bullet is not tumbled easily-- it's a tremendously long, thin, and gyrostable bullet. When it hit Connally, as we see by his keyhole coat and wounds, it had ALREADY hit something substantial. Reenactments show it doing exactly that if it passes though a JFK mockup without hitting sig bone. It has room to tumble between the two men and hit side on. But not unless. So that's two major problems in your scenario. Nevermind that it requires the 2nd shot going through Connally to then basically jump out of the car and never be seen again, when the angle is wrong for that also. So, problem #3 S  B Harris 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * REPLY by Saskcitation (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)  You make some fair points. But the real problem is separating plausible opinion from scientific fact. You cannot state with certainty that a bullet through JFK's neck would not have caused JBC's thigh wound. There is at least one way that this could happen, and it is exactly what Dr. Shires offered in his testimony to both the WC and the HSCA: the bullet struck the thigh at an oblique angle.


 * First, we don't really know how fast the bullet would have been moving after passing through JFK's neck because no one has actually duplicated the shot with ballistic gel and human skin. Living skin has the stopping power of 6 inches of ballistic gel and this extra stopping power has been omitted from all the re-enactments that have been done to date.


 * Second, If it was tumbling (as would be the case after passing through JFK and losing its rotation and stability) and struck butt-first in the thigh (as Dr. Gregory said it appeared to be the mark of an intact bullet striking butt first) at an oblique angle (as Dr. Shires observed), the bullet could easily have caused that wound in the thigh and exited either later or at that time (perhaps bouncing off something in front and landing in JBC's clothing).


 * The problem with any other explanation is that the facts simply do not fit. Either you have to believe that JBC and Nellie were hallucinating as were about 43 observers who heard a long pause after the first shot and two quick last shots (that pattern makes it impossible to have more than one shot before JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign), or you must conclude that the shots were just as all the witnesses described. If the latter, the first shot must have struck JBC in the thigh after passing through JFK's neck. Oddly enough, the trajectory is also perfect.
 * Saskcitation (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

>> MAGIC BULLET THEORY is a mass media theory and has no relation to this article! Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.148.225.5 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)