Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutron Activation Analysis

NAA section added in conformity with NPOV --Saskcitation 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hand-throat movements

"From the Zapruder film one can see Kennedy already reaching up toward his throat in reaction to the bullet strike, as he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225."

There are two problems with this sentence, which is why I marked it as "opinion." First, the language "in reaction to the bullet strike" is conclusive. Second, Kennedy's right elbow was resting on the car's door frame during the motorcade, leaving his forearm already roughly at throat level. Twice in the Zapruder film before frame 225 he is seen raising his hand up from that position to wave at the crowds. Whether Kennedy was raising his right hand up a third time to wave at the crowds when he was struck by a bullet circa 223-224, or whether the movement of his right hand was only in reaction to being struck by a bullet, is a matter of opinion and conjecture. (Thus, when Kennedy's left hand moved up to his throat might be more informative.) The sentence should be modified. — Walloon 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that at z225 JFK is not reacting to having been hit in the neck with a bullet? Here is z225[1]. Here is z193[2] when JFK was waving and smiling (at Mary Woodward and her group. According to Mary Woodward they had just shouted to him, and he and Jackie turned, smiled and waved). The difference is quite obvious. It is not so much a matter of opinion at a matter of observation. JFK is reacting to something and he is in obvious difficulty.

What frame are you suggesting shows his hands in the same position as in z225?Saskcitation 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Are you seriously suggesting that at z225 JFK is not reacting to having been hit in the neck with a bullet?"

That's not what I am saying. Please re-read my message above. The position of Kennedy's right hand — that it was elevated at throat level — is not a reliable indicator of whether he was reacting to being shot. His right hand had already been at throat level because he was resting his right arm on the door frame. Kennedy's right hand actually moves downward from Z224 to Z225. See Was Kennedy Reaching For Throat? for more. There are other reasons to believe that Kennedy was shot at Z223, and was reacting by Z225, but the level of his right hand is not one of them. The level of his left hand could well be an indicator that he had been shot. — Walloon 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The best evidence that there's something seriously wrong with JFK at 225 is that he has his mouth open. And it's not a smile. And yes, both his hands are heading for the unnatural position which they will take in subsequent frames, so there's no reason to think this odd position of them in 225 isn't part of that same reaction. Watch the entire sequence as a motion film. JFK is CLEARLY in trouble from the moment he's visible after emerging from the sign. And as for Connally, again watch the ENTIRE Z film. Connally DOES make a rapid right head turn, but it's well before the car gets to the sign. That's the ONLY one he makes, and so the sound he describes himself looking for must have happened much earlier. And indeed is from bullet #1, not the one that hit either JFK or him. Connally never heard the bullet that hit either him or JFK. That's not surprising, inasmuch as people quite frequently don't hear the bullet that hits them from a rifle. The bullet arrives before the sound, and by the time the sound hits the ear, the nervous system is busy dealing with the shock of having just been blasted by a high powered rifle bullet wave. So when Connally swears that he wasn't hit by the same bullet that hit JFK, all he really means is he wasn't hit by the first shot he heard, and which he ASSUMED hit JFK. And he's right, he wasn't. But he has no way to know that bullet hit JFK--- because he never saw JFK while hit. So he doesn't KNOW of that which he speaks. He assumes. That's all. SBHarris 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

John Connally may not have seen JFK react to the first shot by moving left and bringing his hands to his neck, but 17 others did including his wife. Not one witness said that JFK continued to smile and wave after the first shot. The Governor had been able to see and converse with JFK by turning to his right (the recently discovered Jeffries film shows such a conversation) and on this occasion JFK was not where he had been, according to Connally. It is difficult to see why JBC could not have seen JFK if he had turned around to see him prior to z200. It is difficult to imagine that JBC is trying to see JFK prior to z200.

In any event, the issue here is whether JFK is reacting to being hit at z225 and whether his right hand is evidence of that reaction. The particular issue is whether his right hand appears unusual. It is in a different position than it was at z193 and the bent claw-like contortion hardly looks like he is getting ready to wave. When looking at the overall appearance of JFK in z225 in the context of all the evidence (17 witnesses by my count who said he did exactly that after the first shot), it is a reasonable inference that he is reacting to being shot.Saskcitation 12:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

John Connally, in his 1964 and his 1978 testimony, was agnostic about whether he and Kennedy were hit by the same bullet. (Mrs. Connally, on the other hand, believed that they were not.) What he was adamant about: "Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit by the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet…" — Walloon 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that: he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet, only if that bullet is the first one, since he clearly remembers hearing the first one and not being hit. His wife's observation is that JFK is hit by the first one, because she reports she hears it, looks at JFK, sees he's hit, and after THAT, John is hit. But the Z tape refutes her. She does indeed look back to see the president hit after the throat shot, and probably THINKS her husband wasn't hit then, so had to be hit later. But she actually never looks to see at the time. The Z film shows her look at JFK first, then forward at the Agents (the driver principally) to see if they notice that the president has been shot, and ONLY THEN, over at her husband, who by then is slumping, giving her notice that he's in trouble. She's not going to admit that her husband was hit when the president was, but she didn't notice because she was looking at the president and the agents. There wasn't much dramatic when the gov was hit, anyway, so you can hardly blame her. SBHarris 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis assumes that JBC has been hit by z230. So the zfilm refutes Nellie's recollection only if JBC was hit by z230 or so (where she thought afterwards that he was hit). Her evidence fits with the zfilm if JBC was not hit in the back at that point. It may be noted that Altgens said that his z255 photo was taken after the first shot but before any other.Saskcitation 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"You're right about that: he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet"

Did you even read what I wrote, and what I quoted? I'll repeat what John Connally said: "Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit by the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet…" — Walloon 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote; did you read what I wrote? I agree with your point: You didn't quote all of what I said: "he doesn't think he and JFK were hit with the same bullet, only if that bullet is the first one" As you point out, it's okay with Connally if they are hit by the same bullet, SO LONG AS it is NOT the first one (i.e., if it's the second one). It's Mrs. Connally who doesnt' like that scenario, because it requires her to be noticing that the presdent has been hit without noticing that her husband has. But as we see in the Z film, that could well have happened, because her husband makes no dramatic gesture while Mrs. Connally is looking at him, and she doesn't get around to looking at him until some time later, by which time his initial flinch reaction is long over.SBHarris 03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My interest here is in ensuring that the reader is presented with the evidence, not just opinion. There is a great deal of evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot and that the first shot occurred after Zframe 190. There is also a great deal of evidence that that last two shots were close together, closer than the first two. Each of these two bodies of evidence exclude the second shot SBT. So while the second shot SBT has some theoretical appeal, it does not fit with a lot of evidence. Now there may be a reason all those witnesses could be wrong, but the reader should be aware of that evidence if we are to comply with the Wiki NPOV requirement. Saskcitation 12:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the trivia section.

None of the items in the trivia list impact this subject. They are more appropriate for the originating article they refer to (i.e. the entry about The Onion parody belongs in the The Onion article, not here). In other words it's much more likely that people reading about Family Guy would want to know what they are parodying, rather than people reading about this subject wanting a list of parodies. I'd like to start pruning these down but I understand that some people can get quite attached to certain articles and this article is very controversial. What objections would I face trying to move these trivia items to more appropriate articles that then link here? Padillah (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

section on how Warren Commission came up with theory lacking

I find it odd that there is no discussion here as to why the Warren Commission came up with the single bullet theory in the first place. I think the page could use a description as to how the WC by April 1964 had more or less concluded that Oswald alone was responsible for the assassination, as all the evidence pointed in that direction. However, once they started to closely examine the Zapruder film, it seemed that there was a timing problem with the sequence of shots that didn't match the other evidence. This was resolved once the theory was proposed, and confirmed, to the satisfaction of most on the Commission (with the notable exception of Richard Russell) by the May reenactment.

Surely a few paragraphs on how the theory emerged is warranted here. Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Saskcitation (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC):

David Belin, in his book Final Disclosure, said that the theory emerged after he found an expert (presumably FBI's Robert Frazier) to say that Connally could not have been hit after frame 240 in order for the bullet to have made the exit where it did. This meant that if the first shot was at z210, which is where the WC thought it occurred, and 2.3 seconds or 42 frames were required between shots, if JBC was hit 30 frames or less after the first shot, JFK and JBC could not be hit by separate shots fired by Oswald. (According to Belin, this was an attempt on his part to prove a conspiracy.) However, he said, Arlen Specter then came up with the SBT.

Specter said in a Life Magazine interview in 1966 ("Rebuttal by the Protagonist of the One-bullet verdict", Life, November 25, 1966, p. 48B) that the most damaging argument to any alternative argument to the SBT was where did CE399 go?:

"Having virtually ruled out an early hit on President Kennedy, the Commission was forced next to consider what is potentially the most damaging single argument against Connally's account of the crime: what happened to the bullet that hit the President?

If the only wound that Connally sustained was in his back, this would be a good argument in favour of the SBT. But Connally was wounded in three places, one of which was on his left side (the thigh wound). The bullet through JFK was going right to left. Specter and the WC did not consider the possiblity that the shot went to JBC's left side and struck his thigh. They probably did not consider this because the car the FBI used for the re-enactment showed that no such path existed. But the car they used for the re-enactment was the Queen Mary, the 1956 Cadillac Secret Service car as the president's limo was being rebuilt at the time. The jump seat in the 56 Cadillac was a high bench seat. In the president's limo the jump seat was on the floor and the back was low - the same height as the seat length (the back folded forward over the seat). With JBC turned sharply right as he was at z180-207, it was quite possible that the left thigh was exposed to a bullet travelling from the 6th floor window through JFK's neck. This reenactment[3] using a mock-up jump seat shows that the path indeed existed.

The problem is that neither a first or second shot SBT fits the evidence. The WC thought that JBC was hit on the first shot and did not feel it. This was odd because JBC said he felt the shot impacting his back:

Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade. (Warren Commission, Vol4, p. 129 - 4 H 129)

Robert Frazier did not actually say that JBC could not have been hit after z240. What he said was the bullet could not have exited on the right side of the Governor's chest after z240 if it went through him undeflected:

Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position in frame 240?

Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot, assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case too far to the right. Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235 and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his left chest area rather than from his right chest area.

Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position at frame 249?

Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor and struck him in an undetected fashion and passed through his body undeflected. - 5 H 170

Frazier was not an expert on anatomy. He was a firearms expert. The sensation JBC described indicates that the bullet imparted some momentum to his body on impact. A bullet changes momentum either by slowing down or changing direction. It can do this only if it strikes something solid, like bone. If it struck while JBC was turned sharply to the right (which is exactly what Nellie described to Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires on Nov. 22/63) the path of the bullet through JBC must have changed direction in JBC's chest.

The second shot SBT does not work either. For the second shot SBT to work, the first shot had to have occurred around z160. The problem is that many witnesses said the first shot was well after this and JFK was hit by it (at least 16 witnesses said he reacted immediately moving left and bringing his hands to his neck). No one said JFK and Jackie turned, smiled and waved to the crowd AFTER the first shot. Several said they did this just before the first shot (Mary Woodward in a news story written hours after the assassination described in meticulous detail the last smile and wave of JFK and Jackie as they passed her group and that this was just before the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" - this is seen from frames 160-200). Also, an overwhelming number of witnesses had a clear recollection that the last two shots were bunched - closer together than the first two. A second shot at or before z224 cannot possibly fit such a shot pattern.

And then there is the need (with the SBT) for a missed shot. There is a absence of any clear physical or witness evidence that a shot missed the limo entirely.

The three shot-three hit scenario that Connally described will work if JBC was hit after z240 and if the first shot through JFK went on to strike JBC's left thigh only. A shot much after z271 would mean that the second shot was too close to the third to have been fired by Oswald. So the question is: is there evidence in the zfilm of such a shot between z240 and about z271? Saskcitation (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Quote:

• The second shot SBT does not work either. For the second shot SBT to work, the first shot had to have occurred around z160. The problem is that many witnesses said the first shot was well after this and JFK was hit by it (at least 16 witnesses said he reacted immediately moving left and bringing his hands to his neck). No one said JFK and Jackie turned, smiled and waved to the crowd AFTER the first shot. Several said they did this just before the first shot (Mary Woodward in a news story written hours after the assassination described in meticulous detail the last smile and wave of JFK and Jackie as they passed her group and that this was just before the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" - this is seen from frames 160-200). Also, an overwhelming number of witnesses had a clear recollection that the last two shots were bunched - closer together than the first two. A second shot at or before z224 cannot possibly fit such a shot pattern.

ANSWER It may well be that witnesses who thought JFK reacted to the first shot are simply wrong. As always, the Z film is the best source.

The witnesses heard the shots. The sounds are not evident from the film. Only the timing of the third shot is evident from the film alone. So it is a serious error to to say that the film is better evidence of the timing of the sounds of the shots.

The problem with assuming that the witnesses are all wrong is that you cannot explain why they are so consistent. The consistency of these witnesses is not a random or meaningless fact. Besides, it is not just the "first shot hit" witnesses. It is the first shot location witnesses as well. For example, Mary Woodward said the first shot occurred just AFTER the Kennedys turned and waved to her on the as they shouted at them from the north side of Elm. She said JFK turned forward after waving at them and then she heard the "horrible ear-shattering noise". Others, such as the Chisms and Gloria Calvery said much the same thing. If that turn, smile and wave occurred before the first shot, the JFK must have been hit by it. It is not possible for Oswald to have fired two shots from z200 -z224 and, in any event, the shot pattern with the last two shots closer together precludes two shots before z224. About 22 other witnesses put the first after z186.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

JFK is hit while behind the sign, and you can see him jump straight up from the shock just after he emerges.

You cannot say he is hit behind the sign. You can say that he appears to be reacting behind the sign because he is already reacting when he emerges. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is the difference? He's waving just before his face is hidden by the sign (doubt if he's shot at that point), and I (and you) can see the brown top of his head, which doesn't move in its arc next to the pink arc of Jackie's cap, until about Z-220. He's clearly hit when he emerges at Z-225. That's not a big window.SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is about 20 frames or about one second. The HSCA photographic panel, on a vote of 12:5, found that JFK was reacting to a severe external stimulus by frame 207[4]Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which means about Z-224, when JBC is also hit, as you see from he lapel and his shock-blur. Very much better evidence that this isn't the first shot from the TSBD is Altgens#1, which is at Z-255 only 1.7 sec or so after JFK emerges from the sign with hands and throat, clearly hit for some time. In that photo, both secret service men on the right runing board of LBJ's limo, and also the secret service man sitting next to LBJ, are (by now) looking back at the TSBD. As are several people in the crowd in front of the TSBD (the white facade). Now, 1.7 seconds is not enough time to crane your neck entirely around in response to a FIRST firecracker-like noise behind you, epecially when the president of the US in front of you. You have to be primed for it, by a previous noise (and several secret service men said they didn't look back until the second shot, also). So the behind-sign shot at 224 (which I assume is the magic bullet shot) is NOT the first shot. As for JKF's "clawlike hand," behind the sign, I think it's just a tip of the fingers to smooth his hair in the wind, done automaticaly between each hand-wave to the crowd. You can see him do the same hair-smooth, just BEFORE the completely natural wave he makes before going behind the sign. What's he's doing behind the sign, I think, can be perfectly well explained as the beginning of another hair-stroke (not a wave)-- and then he's hit. It's very stereotyped, but if you watch his wave->stroke as he comes around the corner long before the sign, you see the same thing-- the same sequence of one then the other. And that hair-stroke is NOT a reaction to anything bad THERE, because it's followed by a natural handwave just before JFK goes behind the sign (though you can still see his hand beginning to touch his hair).

There is a lot of subjective interpretation involved in your analysis. Better to stick to evidence. .Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you mean the subjective interpretation of OTHER people? SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

• And then there is the need (with the SBT) for a missed shot. There is a absence of any clear physical or witness evidence that a shot missed the limo entirely.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER To which I can only add the obvious comment that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is if the entire Plaza was scoured by the FBI looking for bullet impacts - which is what the FBI testified they did. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they went up the elm, because at the time, nobody had any idea Oswald might have fired his first shot while the limo was partly obscured by it. Bullets do strange things when passing through wood.

If a shot missed the limo entirely, you wouldn't expect much evidence of it.

I would. It is pretty hard to hide a mark from a 10 gram jacketed bullet going 2000 feet/second.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. How many high powered rifles have you fired at acute angles at asphalt? I've done it more than once, and not much of a mark is made. Seems counterintuitive, but that's too bad. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence. The point is to have a bullet that fragments and loses its copper jacket and slows down enough to rise and fall to the curb near Tague. That requires losing most of its energy to whatever it hits first. How does it do that without leaving a trace?Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there was a mark on the street and a couple of people hit by fragments on the underpass. Those are good candidates for a missed shot bullet, since any bullet fired into the car would have been pretty well contained by it, with no routes for exit without creating holes (which there weren't, to speak of).

There was only one person hit by a bullet fragment, and that was James Tague. He was hit by a fragment that had ricocheted off the curb near where he was standing about 300 feet from the limo on the south side of Main St. near the base of the overpass. The mark on the curb was analysed by the FBI and contained lead with traces of antimony. No copper trace was found so the copper jacket did not strike the curb.Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're saying. No copper means it was a lead core frag. Expected for a ricochet. But no bullet entering the limo had any way of getting to where Tague was hit. Windows and sides obstructed, and the windows had no holes through them.SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say: "did not strike the curb" (corrected now).Saskcitation (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A bullet entering the limo fragmented and struck the windshield. One fragment cracked the glass and one hit on the very top of the metal frame. It is not hard to imagine another fragment going about a quarter of an inch higher and going over the windshield. That fragment could easily explain the curb strike and ricochet to Tague. Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And in evidence of that, there were found the remains of two bullets to have hit the limo interior: one the magic bullet which fell out of JBC's stretcher much later, and the other found in two main fragments (nose and tail) inside the limo front, plus a lot of other small metal from the center section in JFK's head. Obviously, that one, the bullet from the 313 final hit. And ending up in fragments, just where it should have. SBHarris 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether the fragments in the car and in JBC were from one one or two bullets is not certain. It is quite possible the fragments were from two bullets. See NAA section. Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fragments were definitely from two bullets. While analysis concluded they were from two bullets, recent questions about the techniques involved on reaching that conclusion open the possibility, however remote, that an extra bullet was involved which had, by a remarkable coincidence, similar quantities of the alloys found in the fragmented bullet. Or, of even more remote possibility, the identical metallic characteristics of the "magic" bullet and the fragments removed from Connally. Canada Jack (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say fragments from one or two bullets in addition to CE399 (the whole bullet). It is not a remote possibility that three bullets struck the occupants of the car. According to Randich and Grant, the metallurgical analysis is consistent with 2, 3, 4 or 5 bullets. Of course 4 and 5 are eliminated by other evidence. But 2 and 3 bullets are consistent and one is not more probable than the other based only on the fragment analysis, according to the authors.

The problems with fragment analysis of such small samples is explained by Randich and Grant in their paper and follow-up letters. The metals are too grainy at the scale of these samples and you cannot say that all samples from the same bullet will all be similar. Here is their abstract from the paper cited in the NAA section:

ABSTRACT: The bullet evidence in the JFK assassination investigation was reexamined from metallurgical and statistical standpoints. The questioned specimens are comprised of soft lead, possibly from full-metal-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano (MC), 6.5-mm ammunition. During lead refining, contaminant elements are removed to specified levels for a desired alloy or composition. Microsegregation of trace and minor elements during lead casting and processing can account for the experimental variabilities measured in various evidentiary and comparison samples by laboratory analysts. Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. Alternate statistical calculations, based on the historic analytical data, incorporating weighted averaging and propagation of experimental uncertainties also considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory. In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.

Just so. NAA evidence is consistent with two bullets hitting the limo, as well as three. So we get to choose from other evidence which it is. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So we are left with the evidence of the Connallys, Greer, Powers, Hickey, Gayle Newman etc. that no shot missed the limo (the Connallys were adamant until they died that three shots hit) and equivocal bullet fragment evidence that says 2 or 3 hit. That isn't much to support the SBT. But there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald fired all three shots. The solution is to solve the problem based on the evidence - it does have a solution - not to concoct a theory (SBT) that has no evidentiary support.Saskcitation (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mention a lot of people, and you're wrong about most of them. J. Connally never said three shots stuck the limo. He heard the first, but had no way of knowing if it was a hit, and never saw anything to suggest it, because he couldn't see the president after shot #1. The #2 shot hit him, and he never heard that one. He only assumed he was hit THEN by a different bullet from JFK BECAUSE he assumed the first one he heard HAD hit JFK. But he could have been wrong, and I think was. All he said later is that he was sure that the first shot he HEARD was not the shot that hit HIM. Which I think is correct. Shot #3 hit JFK, and of course Connally heard, and was aware of that as yet another shot. As for Ms. Connally, she also assumed the first shot hit the president, I think because when she saw the president hit, she thought her husband had not been. But she also was wrong. The problem with HER story, is that she had no way of knowing if her husband had been hit at shot #2, because she never looked at him. She was looking at JFK clutch his throat, then at the driver. By the time she looked OVER at her husband (who'd been hit on the side away from her), it was well after he's clearly hit on film (which is 224 when his lapel flips, he flinches, spasmodically raises both arms, then begins to roll.) So Mrs. C is mistaken about when her husband was hit, and the film contradicts her (since it shows him hit long before she notices it. Too bad for her, but I go with the film. SBHarris 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Connally said that JFK was not where he had been because when he turned around he could not see him. Nellie said JFK visibly reacted to the first shot, as did at least 15 others. About 22 witnesses put the first shot some time after z186, which means JFK must have been hit by it. Saskcitation (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Larry Sturdivan's assessment of the above, per Bugliosi? Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read Rahn/Sturdivan as well as Randich/Grant's. I have also read Dr. Art Snyder's analysis. I understand Randich/Grant and Snyder. They are adamant that Rahn/Sturdivan are making elementary errors in their premises, analysis and conclusions. If CBLA can be used to distinguish between bullets, perhaps you can explain how the Walker bullet and one of the floor fragments "match" but are obviously different bullets. Saskcitation (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The metals are too grainy at the scale of these samples and you cannot say that all samples from the same bullet will all be similar. Here is their abstract from the paper cited in the NAA section (etc)

Here is Larry Sturdivan's assessment of the Randich and Grant paper. Sturdivan was a Warren Commission and HSCA ballistic expert. The following is from from Vincent Bugliosi's book, pages 437-8 in the endnotes. Sturdivan was asked by Bugliosi to respond to the Randich-Grant piece, and Sturdivan's response is dated 14 August 2006.

If one looks at the NAA data obtained by Vincent Guinn for the HSCA, it falls into two groups which are immediately obvious. The lead core of the stretcher bullet, CE 399, and the lead fragments from Governor Connally's wrist have an antimony content near 800 parts per million (ppm). The core of the bullet fragment from the president's limousine, CE 567, the lead fragments recovered from the president's head, and the small lead fragments from the carpet in the backseat have antimony content that ranges from about 600 ppm to a bit less than 650 ppm. Randich and Grant, in this JFS article of July 2006, set out to show that this obvious grouping is illusory (all recovered bullet evidence is indistinguishable from each other) and that this means that the wrist injury and/or the fatal head wound could have been caused by other (unrecovered) bullets.

This is similar to watching a videotape of a bank robber and discovering that the two bank robbers were identical twins. Randich and Grant would solemnly declare that since you could not tell the bank robbers apart, it could have been any two people that robbed the bank. Obviously, it isn't how close the two groups of recovered bullet evidence are to each other that matters, it's the chance that the lead from a third source could match as well as the other members of the group do. For this comparison, one must characterize the range of antimony content in the population of bullets available to a potential shooter in the early 1960s, a point that Randich and Grant choose to ignore.

Most high-power rifle bullets available to potential assassins in 1963 contained hardened lead cores in which the antimony content was orders of magnitude larger than that in the recovered bullet evidence. On the other hand, the antimony levels in the recovered evidence was far outside the level found in natural lead ores, indicating that the "soft" lead cores inserted into those bullets contained a small quantity of leftover hardened lead. Any bullets containing lead from natural ores would have had a much smaller quantities of antimony. Fragments deposited by either of these types of bullets could not have been mistaken for lead from the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company for use in the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (WCC/MC). Obtaining exact concentration of trace metals in soft lead cores was beyond the abilities of even the FBI in 1963, so the best a conspirator could do to match CE 399 or CE 567 was to use another bullet from the same lot. Vincent Guinn measured the antimony content in that lot of WCC/MC bullets and found that it ranged from near zero to a few thousand ppm. This prompted him to state that the recovered samples were all in the high range of antimony concentration, not only from that lot, but for any of the four lots of these bullets.

Ken Rahn and I properly characterized the distribution of antimony in that lot and found that it did not differ significantly from the other three lots, and used that distribution to show that a randomly selected WCC/MC bullet would have only a low probability of matching either group so closely as other members of that group did. This is true even if that hypothetical "other gunman" selected other bullets from the same box from which CE 399 and CE 567 were drawn.

Furthermore, using measurement errors not artificially inflated by the irrelevant factors used by Randich and Grant shows that the obvious grouping is (not surprisingly) the correct one. Earlier NAA tests conducted by the FBI, though not disclosed to the Warren Commission, showed results virtually identical to Guinn's. These tests were run with different samples cut from CE 399 and CE 567, independently verifying that the two groups could be distinguished from each other. Note that this result is not necessary for calculation of the probability that a random bullet would match the antimony content of the fragments recovered from either of the two men as well as the recovered bullet or major bullet fragment (within the same group) does.

So let's ponder the premise that the recovered fragments were in fact from more than one bullet in either (or both) of the groupings. That would require the other assassin(s) not only to use a bullet from the same manufacturer as only these bullets at the time had the levels of antimony found here, but it would also require the other assassin(s) to choose, at random, a bullet which happened to matched the antimony levels of the Oswald bullets! (Recall that CE 399 was proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.) To say that, therefore, the two groups could represent multiple bullets, is akin to saying, as he notes, that having twins rob a bank means that anyone else could have been robbing a bank. It's not merely unlikely, it's absurdly unlikely, especially given the fact that these sort of tests did not exist at the time and therefore a conspiracy would mean some incredible blind luck would have to be at play! So, before we even examine any other evidence as to whether other gunmen were present, or whether the wounds are consistent with more than two bullets, or anything else, we see that those who propose a second gunman, or even an unlikely third bullet from Oswald himself somehow striking Connally and/or Kennedy, they have to suggest this extremely improbable set of events. Canada Jack (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that if three bullets hit there must be more than one shooter. How does that follow from the bullet fragments? There is abundant evidence that Oswald fired three shots. The evidence that three shots struck does not mean there were two shooters if there was sufficient time between the shots.Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I said. So, before we even examine any other evidence as to whether other gunmen were present... I pointed out that given the NAA evidence and what Sturdivan says, we have the extremely unlikely possibilities that either a second gunman through an incredible coincidence fired a bullet with a near-matching antimony level OR Oswald himself fired an additional bullet which matched (which would be more likely that someone else, but still improbable). You are either being disingenuous or not following the argument here - all evidence suggests that Oswald fired three bullets. The issue here is whether a third bullet HE fired is among the fragments analyzed. Of course when one looks at other evidence, that possibility is ruled out. Which means, in the end, with a very high degree of probability, that the fragments are consistent with two, and only two, bullets. Canada Jack (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are siding with Rahn/Sturdivan and rejecting Randich/Grant. Randich/Grant reject Sturdivan's characterisation of NAA data. Furthermore, you cannot equate the three bullet hit with the existence of multiple shooters, which is what your quote from Sturdivan does. Saskcitation (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the section on the page on this, and I see not only is Sturdivan's response to Randich and Grant lacking, but a rather POV statement ends the statement: In conclusion, there appears to be no scientific consensus that the NAA data, and comparative bullet lead analysis in general, can be used to prove that the SBT probably occurred or to exclude a "three bullet hit" scenario. Says who? There is no citation for the statement.

The sources to the papers are provided. There are two groups (Rahn/Sturdivan on the one hand and Randich/Grant Snyder on the other) who take diametrically opposing views. That means there is no consensus. That is an NPOV statement. Where do you see a POV in that?Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me we should omit the POV line or at least provide a reliable-source citation, and include some part of Sturdivan's 2006 response. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But you have to include Sturdivan's objective conclusions, not his editorializing. The first paragraph is very POV. I still maintain that it is not a POV line to say that there is no consensus. A consensus means that there is agreement in the scientific community and as a matter of objective fact, there is not. But we can leave it out.Saskcitation (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure you are applying "POV" in the way it is intended here at wikipedia. Sturdivan is one of the key players in this particular debate, he is taking a particular stance that is by definition POV. It is entirely appropriate to include his views if germane and relevant to the discussion. The basis of his critique is his opinion that the others are not taking into account the available stock of bullets in 1963 from which to draw from and it his opinion that therefore the analysis is flawed. If we were to say "Sturdivan's response destroys the argument" or "Randich/Grant's devastating critique", well that would be editorializing, and POV. Sturdivan makes an analogy which is his opinion (the bank robbers) and the only assertion which he does not support is that the others did not take into account was the availability of the bullets with requisite antimony. Canada Jack (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His view is provided, as well as those of Randich/Grant and Snyder. How does Sturdivan's view represent a consensus? All you are saying is that there are views that disagree with Randich/Grant. That is all the article says: there is no scientific consensus.Saskcitation (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am not suggesting that with Sturdivan's response, there would be consensus, I am saying with or without the Sturdivan critique, the statement is clearly POV. And, it is original research, as you are providing an opinion which seems to be your own as to the issue of whether a consensus exists. [5] I am therefore omitting the statement unless you can provide a reliable source (not one of the parties) who state that there is no consensus on the issue. Canada Jack (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. Either there is a consensus or there isn't. It is a matter of fact. It doesn't need an opinion from someone as an authority - it needs to have evidence of a scientific controversy. This is not a subject on which there is widespread scientific interest. So far, there is only Rahn/Sturdivant/Guinn and Randick/Grant/Tobin/Snyder. If you know of someone other than these who have written a paper on the subject that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, you should post it. If not, then the best that can be said is that there is no consensus in the scientific community. Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: Name me any scientific realm where there is consensus!

Sure: Newton`s laws of motion. Einstein`s special theory of relativity. Quarks. Maxwell`s equations of electro-magnetism. The laws of thermodynamics. Kepler`s laws. Celestial mechanics. DNA matching. These are all accepted areas of science. They are proven science. Bullet lead analysis is not such an area.

Not sure where you are coming from, Sask, but Newton's laws of motion have been shown to be wrong, due to Einstein. The laws work under most conditions, but are not universal.

Newton's laws are universal. It is just that they have limits. They require modification to account for effects that become significant at speeds close to the speed of light. There is nothing wrong with F=ma in the real world. NASA uses it to launch rockets and land spaceships. Every physicist uses and accepts Newtons laws. There is no controversy.

The point here is that even when it comes to science, understanding is always provisional, and science says as much. In this case, our knowledge is also provisional, and based on what evidence we have and how we can analyze it. To suggest "consensus," is, therefore, meaningless. Canada Jack (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think there is a scientific consensus about Newton's Laws you will never think there is a consensus on anything. You are saying that consensus is a meaningless word. You are entitled to your point of view.

Try going to the Evolution page. If there is any more contentious scientific endeavour, I'd like to hear about it. Yet is this lack of consensus noted on the page? No! And in large measure that is because it is almost a meaningless thing to say. That is the point. As noted in the section below, if the controversy is mentioned, that should suffice. To characterize "consensus" is nearly an impossibility.

There is certainly a scientific consensus that evolution is real. The details are not known for certain but the principle is not in dispute by scientists.Saskcitation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just proved my point. Who says there is consensus? Biologists do. But other scientists (who are not biologists) claim there is no "consensus." And many of these in fact deny the very existence of evolution itself, let alone the standard "new synthesis" of Darwinian natural selection and molecular biology. So who do we go to to claim "consensus"? Do we only include those who say as much? Or do we also acknowledge the controversy? No, we simply state what scientific principles are out there and, when there is a dispute, we describe the dispute, we don't characterize the dispute. I think this is the salient point you are not getting. Canada Jack (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms the bullet analysis, we have no consensus, for example, on whether the recent FBI decision to not introduce this method into court is even relevant. Some argue that for what was being done in 1963, it is a valid science. The FBI actions don't seem to address that, just how it applies in current cases. Or is it? In that section you added, on the FBI ceasing to use this, I could quite easily, and by your logic, rightly, note that there is no scientific consensus that this applies in any way to the JFK case. But would to so note that be relevant? I don't think so. And, more to the point, you can probably see that by simply making that note, I am editorializing. Which is why the best thing is to simply avoid the silliness and not lead readers of wikipedia into some favoured conclusion - on what science "thinks" about the issue. To note "consensus," in other words, is a form of editorializing. Canada Jack (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to reiterate here, the issue is not whether there are conflicting views on the fragment analysis, the issue is whether we can say In conclusion there appears to be no consensus... For example, if 100 scientists say x and 1 says y, does that mean there is no consensus? Maybe, maybe not. Are the critiques of the NAA conclusions coming from a great many scientists or few? If we are to assess "consensus," we must do so via a reliable source. I submit that that would be rather difficult to do, as any such comment would be POV - dependent on the pro- or con views on the issue. IMHO, to omit the remark solves the problem as one need not note that there is a dispute on the issue as the section describes the dispute. It is not our place to supply a conclusion, as that is both POV and original research. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has published experimental results to demonstrate the validity of the "theory" that CBLA can match fragments to bullets. If there had been, they would have been referred to in these papers. There are no such references. Until someone does, it will remain an area of unproven science. I am not sure why you think it is POV to say there is no consensus in the scientific community. If there was, courts, the FBI and the National Academy of Sciences would not have rejected it. But for Rahn/Sturdivan there would be a scientific consensus that it is not valid science.

Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saskcitation re-instated the statement. Since at least one person (see below) agrees that the issue of "concensus" is, in any practical sense, meaningless, it should be omitted. Of course, the initial point about it being unsourced and therefore original research (as a conclusion is supplied), it has to go. As for the ommission of the paragraph from Sturdivan, that should stay as it is highly relevant to specifically addressing the claim of Randich and Grant. Indeed the entire basis of the Sturdivan analysis rests on whether, given what was available to potential assassins in 1963, it was likely a second assassin would have had a matching bullet. That essential point is lost when the paragraph is excised.

That is your view. Randich and Grant are saying that it was not a matching bullet. They are saying that bullet lead is not uniform at the level of sampling done by Guinn. Randich and Grant are Lawrence Livermore scientists who are experts in metallurgy. Rahn is an oceanographer and Sturdivan is a ballistics expert. FWIW.Saskcitation (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My only opinion is that Sturdivan's argument is somewhat lost by omitting that statement. Whether I agree with one side or the other on the bullet analysis is not the issue here, nor should it be. The issue is whether the Sturdivan part is relevant - I think it is, and it seems you acknowledge as much since we already mention him previously (he was not just any ballistics expert - he worked with the Warren Commission and the HSCA). The goal here should be to bring the pertinent debate to the table, and the NSA debate is an important one. If they are wrong, and there are fragments from three bullets, then a conspiracy most probably at play. Clearly a germane and important issue to the case. I felt it entirely relevant to include Sturdivan on this crucial issue. Canada Jack (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How far does it go? The Rahn/Sturdivan paper is mentioned and their view stated. The Randich/Grant paper is mentioned and their conclusion stated. You say that Sturdivan's rebuttal to Randich/Grant should be mentioned. I could say that Pat Grant's rebuttal should also be mentioned [6]. Does that mean that Sturdivan's surrebuttal must be mentioned? Grant's surrebuttal? ..... Really, all you need is a statement of the two positions to give the reader an accurate picture.Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant's article does not address the points made by Sturdivan. He simply reiterates his position, so I am not sure why you feel there is a danger of rererebuttals etc. Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Canada Jack (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant's rebuttal is to Ken Rahn's response to Randich/Grant's published paper.

Neither Ken Rahn nor Larry Sturdivan has been able to publish their critique of Randich/Grant in a peer reviewed journal. Since there is no peer review for web publications, let alone letters to authors, the reader has no way to assess the merit of such comments. To get something published in a peer reviewed journal signifies that it has scientific merit. Randich and Grant provided a metallurgical critique of the Guinn data that was published in Forensic Science International. Rahn and Sturdivan have not been able to persuade a peer reviewed journal to publish their critque of Randich/Grant. No one has provided a peer reviewed critique of Randich and Grant. There may not be one published. So if it is ok to publish Sturdivan's comments, why not Pat Grant's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskcitation (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sask: With all due respect, the goal here should not be to present someone's favoured scenario in the best possible light, it is to fairly and accurately portray the debate. It seems to me that for several decades, the NAA analysis stood.

Not so. It has been the subject of controversy since 1978.

However, recent events have cast some doubt on the accuracy of the method, which is the result in part of Randich and Grant. Indeed, this has been brought in for further relief by the decision of the FBI not to submit these sorts of analysis as evidence for trials. However, while Randich and Grant may have a point, it is the opinion of Sturdivan that while their analysis may applicable today, it's not applicable for the realistic conditions which existed in 1963 in terms of bullet availability.

No. Sturdivan is using a semantic argument against what he thinks is the alternative to the fragments coming from only two bullets: that another person used another bullet that had a similar antimony content. (He seems to be forgetting that there were fragments of at least two bullets of the original 5 that we know Oswald had that had indistinguishable Sb concentrations). But that is not the only possiblility. The other possibility is that Oswald fired three bullets and three bullets struck, which is what David Powers, Nellie Connally, William Greer and others said.Saskcitation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it a "semantic" argument?

He uses an argument based on language rather than science to support his conclusion. When he says that Randich/Grant's argument is like the example of two twins robbing a bank, he is using a semantic argument.

Based on what was available to assassins in 1963, going by the antimony levels, another assassin almost had to use a bullet from the same stock. As I said, it means that rather unlikely occurence or the somewhat more likely occurence (but still unlikely) that Oswald himself fired the third bullet.

Well, this is the issue. Is it unlikely at all? If you are only measuring one element (Sb) how many distinguishable Sb readings can you have in that range 1-1200 ppm? If you say that a match occurs if the samples are within +- 40 ppm, there are only 15 different Sb readings. That means that on average, the chance of having a match in 7 random bullets is greater than 50%.

But even Randich/Grant concede this the reality of what we are dealing with here, ie., the rest of the evidence precludes that when they say the "stand-alone primary evidence" could render their conclusion of more than two bullets wrong. Like, for example, the lack of a clear third bullet.

But here there is evidence of a third shot. We know that three shots were fired. We have pretty conclusive evidence that they were fired by Oswald. The issue is whether two or three struck the car. Nellie, JBC, and Greer gave evidence that is consistent only with three shots having struck. No one said only two struck. No one.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the bullet that exited JFK? Why do the recovered bullet fragments not add up to more than two bullets?

If you knew you had all the fragments, you could answer that. We don't have that evidence. So there is nothing significant about the fact that we don't have fragments adding up to more than two bullets.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How could Oswald have gotten off two shots which hit Connally given the time constraints of the Zapruder film?

The time constraints of the Zfilm? I can only see one definite shot - at frame 313. We know that JFK was hit by z224. Those are the only two objective time constraints of the zfilm. Anything else is interpretation.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The SBT requires the first two shots to be closer together. However, at least 48 of the witnesses said the last two shots were closer together. 6 said they thought the first two were closer together and 9 said they were about equal. There are also many witnesses who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave. The SBT requires him to have no reaction to the first shot. This is evidence that the timing for the SBT is inconsistent with the evidence.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And why are there clear signs of people reacting around frame 160, and what about the witnesses who claim a shot was fired that early?

I don't think there are any clear signs. What are you referring to? There are many witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (eg. Betzner, Willis, Woodward, etc.). About 22 of them by my count. No one put it earlier than z186. No one.Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, several witnesses said they saw a bullet strike the pavement shortly after the turn. This is the problem when you focus too closely on one part of the evidence.

No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever. In this section, we are focussing only on the NAA in this section. That is all that we should be concerned about here. There is serious doubt in the scientific community that the NAA data mean anything, let alone prove the SBT occurred. Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even Sturdivan says it is possible, though not probable, that part of a third bullet is there. However, when we go to other evidence, that possibility is eliminated for all practicle purposes. Of course, being an evidentary endeavour, we will never, we can never, definitely conclude Oswald acted alone, but the evidence points to the general conclusion that he did and that only two bullets struck.

That is your POV. You are ignoring witness evidence. If you accept the shot pattern with the last two closer together, you cannot have the SBT. Period. If you accept all the witnesses who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot, you cannot have the first shot SBT. Period. If you accept the evidence of witnesses who put the first shot after z186 you cannot have the SBT. Period.

I am rather astounded that you seriously seem to want to pursue this third Oswald bullet. One question I gotta ask: Where does this go? What's the point? Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if the NAA conclusions are wrong, it does not mean there were two shooters. It means that Connally and JFK were hit by separate bullets. That is all. If the shot pattern is correct, the second shot occurred after the midpoint, or after z255. Which is exactly what Altgens said (he said his z255 photo was taken after the first but before any other shot).Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In his opinion, the Grant/Randich analysis is flawed as the realistic probability of a second assassin, by chance, picking a bullet with similar characteristics is close to zero. Is he correct? I don't know. But our question here is if it is relevant. You seem to take issue with allowing a rebuttal on this as we don't have a second rebuttal. But all we should be doing here is characterizing the debate, not getting the last word in. And this NAA debate is new, at least these questions, so when one of the chief defenders of the status quo has some serious qualms about it, it merits inclusion. All we should be doing here is ensuring that both sides of the debate are present. One suggests you can't trust the accuracy of the sampling to determine if there are fragments from only two bullets. The other says that a major factor should be that, in 1963, it would have been highly unlikely for a second assassin to randomly choose a bullet from a lot Oswald chose from and have a near match, and that most other bullets manufactured then would have been easily distinguishable from Oswald's bullets. It may not be the final word on the subject, but it is the response from one of the major players. Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your statement:

The goal here should be to bring the pertinent debate to the table, and the NSA debate is an important one. If they are wrong, and there are fragments from three bullets, then a conspiracy most probably at play. Clearly a germane and important issue to the case.

is not really correct (I assume you mean NAA debate). Why do you say a conspiracy is "most probably" the conclusion? If there are fragments from three bullets then a very possible conclusion, if not the only conclusion from the evidence, is that all of Oswald's three shots struck the occupants of the President's limousine. You would need evidence either of more than three shots having been fired or you would need evidence that Oswald fired fewer than three shots. There is no such evidence of either. On the other hand, there is evidence that three bullets struck. Saskcitation (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if all we had as evidence was the analysis, the most likely possibility, if we are to suggest there were three bullets, was that it was from another Oswald bullet. The problem is there is no other evidence that I am aware of, nor do I hear any serious claim, that Oswald's three bullets all found their mark, or even just hit the limousine. Indeed, from Bugliosi to the Warren Commission to numerous conspiracy theorists, we hear the assertion that if the SBT is wrong, then there was a conspiracy. That's because almost no one takes seriously the possibilty that three Oswald bullets hit their mark - so any putative third/fourth bullet hitting its mark would come from a separate assassin.

Further, other than a few witnesses who claimed as much there is no evidence that more than three shots were fired, no shells or other bullets were recovered, no one saw a second assassin firing shots and the wounds received were consistent with two bullets striking JFK, and one striking Connally. I have not seen a serious argument made that Connally was hit by two bullets, not one that could easily be demolished, that is, based on other evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And since the section is a direct quote, there is no POV. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

Three bullets fired by Oswald finding their mark

Sask brings up an interesting possibility about the possibility that the NAA results could mean that a third bullet did not come from a second assassin, but from Oswald himself. He bases this in part on witness accounts which, in his view, overwhelmingly state the initial shot was the one we see Kennedy reacting to.

But Sask seems to be ignoring a lot of evidence, or is perhaps unaware of the evidence, which suggest a shot indeed was fired around frame 160 and that shot missed the limousine.

There are many witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (eg. Betzner, Willis, Woodward, etc.). About 22 of them by my count. No one put it earlier than z186. No one.

In fact, many witnesses did state that the first shot was fired around Z160, which is shortly after the president's limousine made the turn. Connally himself said "We had just made the turn... when I heard [a rifle shot]. I instinctively turned to my right."

First of all, you should start with Connally's complete statement:

Governor CONNALLY. We had-we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don’t recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway. to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could-I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.4 H 132

So he is saying that the car had gone down Elm some distance. The difference between z160 and z200 is only 2 seconds. You cannot tell from a statement like that whether he is referring to an event 8 seconds or 10 seconds after the turn.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Bird Johnson said "we were rounding a curve... and suddenly there was a shot..." [She was two cars behind and the car she was in can be seen rounding the curve at Z160.]

Again, to be accurate you have to use her entire statement:

we were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report-a shot.5 H 565

Now look at the VP car at frame z160. It is still in the turn. Not exactly going down hill yet. Still, it is inconclusive. It is not possible to say from that statement precisely where she is saying the car was.

But if you look at Ralph Yarborough's statement (sitting beside Lady Bird) he too refers to the car going down the slope of Elm Street:

"as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by." 7 H 440

Then you look at the statement of Hurchel Jacks, driver the the VP car:

"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn . I was looking directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car". CE 1024, 18 H 801

Now this is a clearer statement of where the car was. It is quite consistent with Yarborough and Lady Bird, but it is more specific. Frame z160 shows the VP car still in the middle of its turn, not straightening out after completing the turn. So we see that Jacks' observation was inconsistent with a shot being at z160.

Then we look at the statement of S.A. Rufus Youngblood, who was in the VP car front seat:

"Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please. Will you describe just what occurred as the motorcade proceeded past the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets?

Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. Well, the crowd had begun to diminish, looking ahead and to the right the crowd became spotty. I mean it wasn’t continuous at all, like it had been. As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise." 2 H 148-9

Again, Youngblood's is a statement that is consistent with the others, but specific about it being past the intersection going down an incline and not consistent with the car still turning the corner.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Secret service agent Paul E. Landis, who was standing on the right running board of the car behind the president's said "The president's car and the follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out.

Again, let's look at the statements of those in the VP and VP followup car. We have seen how the VP car witnesses described their car as having completed the turn and going down an incline. The VP followup car witnesses describe the car as just completing its turn onto Elm, being alongside the TSBD, just as Landis describes. And if you look at z191 the VP followup car is still turning and pointing somewhat toward the TSBD. You can see that Landis and the occupants of the VP and VP followup cars cannot be describing a shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At this moment I heard what sounded like a report from a high-powered rifle..." Barbara Rowland, standing on the west side of Houston, midway between Elm and Main said "as they turned the corner we heard a shot."

Again, use the whole statement. She says:

"They were facing mainly toward the other side of the street and waving, and as they turned the corner we heard a shot, and I didn’t recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker. And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second. and that is all." 6 H 184

Rowland is stating some specific details. She says "They were facing mainly toward the other side of the street and waving".Where do you see that occuring on Elm Street before z170? Mary Woodward said she and her friends shouted to them and waved and JFK and Jackie turned toward them, smiled and waved to them BEFORE the first shot. Also, Barbara Rowland said that there was a longer space between the first and second shots. If that was the case and the second shot came as late as z224, that means the first shot would have to have occurred before the limo turned the corner - ie before Zapruder's filming of the motorcade began. So, in actual fact, Barbara Rowland's evidence is entirely inconsistent with a first shot at or around z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to Barbara Rowland, you really have to look at her November 23/63 statement to the FBI which is found at 26 H 168:

"She said they did not say anything more about this and in about 15 minutes the President's Motorcade passed by and headed left on to Elm Street and started down toward the underpass, when they heard the three shots, spaced several seconds between each shot. She advised after hearing the shots, they started running."

Now she is clearly saying that the car had turned onto Elm St. and was going down toward the overpass. I don't know how you can say from her evidence that she was referring to a first shot at z160 and not two seconds later at z200 (two car lengths further west). If you continue to insist that I am wrong and that she is definitely pointing to a shot earlier than z186 I think you have to explain why you reach that conclusion. Saskcitation (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell, in the car behind the limousine, said the president's car "was just [about] through turning [and had started] to step up the speed a little bit" when he heard the first shot. Geneva Hine, watching from the second floor of the TSB, said the limousine had just "turned the corner" when she heard the shot. And the list goes on. So, if your premise that witness testimony points to the first shot being fired towards the neighbourhood of frame 200 or so, that premise is clearly faulty.

It is not a premise. It is an observation. The list of 22 witnesses who bracket the first shot after z186 are:

Hugh Betzner (photo at z186 before the first shot)

Phil Willis (photo at z202 at time of the first shot)

Mary Woodward (smiling and waving of JFK and Jackie was before the first shot)

Witnesses standing opposite the President's car at or after z186 and saying that the car had just passed them when the first shot was heard:

Jean Newman 19 H 489

Billie Clay 22 H 641

Victoria Adams (looking out the second west-most window of the TSBD)22 H 632

Georgia Hendrix 22 H 649

Sue Dickerson 22 H 644

Peggy Hawkins CD897

Dorothy Garner 22 H 648

Karan Hicks 22 H 650

Carol Reed 22 H 668

Gloria Calvary 22 H 638

Karen Westbrook 22 H 679

Jane Berry HSCA Reference Collection CD5

Delores Kounas 22 H 659

Danny Garcia Arce: 22 H 634

Occupants of the VP follow up car who said their car had turned onto Elm (it is still in its turn pointing to the TSBD at z191:

Joe Rich. (driver), WC 18 H 800:

Clifton Carter, WC 7 H 474

SA Kivett, WC 8 H 778: "The motorcade was heading slightly downhill toward an underpass. As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 of the way to the underpass.."

SA Johns, WC 18 H 764

SA Taylor, (18 H 782): "our automobile had just turned a corner"

That is 22 witnesses. All independent recollections. All having different observations that all point to the first shot after z186 and converge on a first shot around z200, exactly where Willis pinpointed it. Are you saying they all conspired to falsify evidence? Because that is the only reasonable explanation if they were all wrong in the same way.

Your quote from O'Donnell is not accurate, by the way. He said the follow up car had completed the turn and had straightened up. The full quote of the part you gave is:

"So he was at a normal-I would presume they were just about turning to step up the speed a little bit, because there would be no crowds from there." 7 H 448 Saskcitation (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, these are imprecise statements and cannot be used to distinguish between a ahot at z160 and one at z200. At z160 and z200 the limo had turned "just turned the corner". There is only a 2 second difference. The more specific evidence is inconsistent with a first shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Warren Commission did not spend too much time on this issue of the first shot, and did not even have the stills of the Zapruder film from the early part to examine the issue more closely. The HSCA did examine this issue, however. And it concluded that Connally can be seen reacting to hearing the first shot (as he described in his own testimony) from 162-7 and therefore the first shot was fired around Z160. Indeed, a close look at frames Z157-160 reveal that Kennedy himself turns sharply to the left, perhaps also reacting to the sound of the first shot.

Well, if you follow the evidence, everyone said that JFK and Jackie turned to the right, waved and smiled BEFORE the first shot. That smile and wave was described as a response to the shouts and cheers of Mary Woodward's group.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonnie Ray Williams, who was on the 5th floor of the TSB, was very specific about the timing of the first shot. "After the president's car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do... was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot." In the Zapruder film, we can see Kennedy doing exactly as William describes between Z133 and Z143. Combining Williams' testimony with Connally's and looking at the film, it would seem that the first shot was fired between Z143 and Z160.

• [ LOL! I just have to interject again here my comment from a section above: As for JKF's "clawlike hand," behind the sign, I think it's just a tip of the fingers to smooth his hair in the wind, done automaticaly between each hand-wave to the crowd. You can see him do the same hair-smooth, just BEFORE the completely natural wave he makes before going behind the sign. What's he's doing behind the sign, I think, can be perfectly well explained as the beginning of another hair-stroke (not a wave)-- and then he's hit. It's very stereotyped, but if you watch his wave->stroke as he comes around the corner long before the sign, you see the same thing-- the same sequence of one then the other. And that hair-stroke is NOT a reaction to anything bad THERE, because it's followed by a natural handwave just before JFK goes behind the sign (though you can still see his hand beginning to touch his hair). To which the Saskcitation answer was: There is a lot of subjective interpretation involved in your analysis. Better to stick to evidence.--Saskcitation (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Well, It seems I'm not the only person to see it in retrospect on fresh exam of the film. An eyewitness at Dealey Plaza saw it also and interpreted it much the same way, without benefit of examining the film. Strange! ]SBHarris 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten-year-old Rosemary Willis can be seen running and stopping and turning sharply to her right, an action that commences around frame Z164.

She is still moving forward until z199.I don't see how you can say she turns to her right before z203. At z203-204 she turns her head sharply toward the TSBD.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By Z204, she is looking towards the TSB. She would later say that she stopped running when she heard the first shot, but since she had earlier also said that she saw the president shot in the back even though the film shows her looking at the TSB at that time, her recollections may not be accurate. Critics say she was reacting to her father who had yelled at her and her sister. But he, Phillip Willis, was in the process of taking a photograph determined to be around Z202. Interestingly, Willis claimed that the first shot was simultaneous with this photo he was taking, but he later admitted that he couldn't be sure if the president was hit with the first shot, opening the possibility that he conflated his recollection with the photo he took corresponding to about Z140.

This is simply idle speculation. He was clear that he was referring to his z202 photo. Furthermore, Betzner was also absolutely clear that he took his z186 photo before the first shot - as he was winding his camera to take another. And Altgens was very clear that his z255 photo was taken after the first and before any other shots. Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many have wondered how Oswald could have missed the president, indeed the entire limousine, from such close range. This ignores several factors which made this the most difficult shot he would have fired. For one, he would have been rushed to get the shot off as the limousine was soon to be obscured by the tree. For another, he was likely running with adrenaline as he actually fired a shot at the president of the United States. Further, unlike with the 2nd and 3rd shot where the president was, essentially, a stationary target (in a slow-moving car, with little sight adjustment needed between shots), Kennedy was a moving target, going sharply to Oswald's right as he turned the corner. Still further, given the arrangement of boxes in the window, Oswald would have had no barrel support for the steep-angled shot he was attempting. That angle would have been 40 degrees, compared with the 17/15 degree angles for shots 2 and 3.

No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever.

Again, Sask is wrong on this issue, though in fairness he may not be aware of the witnesses who in fact did describe this. Mrs. Donald Baker was standing in front of the TSB and said that "immediately" after the limousine passed her and neared "the first sign" [the Thornton Freeway sign, not the Stemmons sign visible in the Zapruder film] she "heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement... It looked just like you could see sparks from it." She was asked where the thing hit the street. "I thought it was, well, behind [the limousine]."

You have to look carefully at her evidence. She said the president's car had gone past her and was well down Elm St. when she heard the first noise. She was standing on the north side of Elm in front of the TSBD. In her deposition to the WC, she said (7 H 510) that she saw "something" hit the pavement at about the Thornton freeway sign. This means that the limo was past the Thornton freeway sign (She marks the position at point "2" on exhibit CE354). That would put the location of the car at least at frame 250. It is hard to find from her evidence that this was a shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And Royce Skelton, standing on the overpass over Elm Street, said he saw one of the two shots he heard "hit in the left front of the president's car on the cement," and "I could see smoke coming off the cement." Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He said he saw this after the second shot. Hardly a first shot miss.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One more point on the absence of a third bullet. I earlier asked if three (or more) bullets struck the limousine, where is this third bullet? Sask's response is to pretend this is not an issue. But when we discuss the first bullet the one I say was fired about Z160, suddenly the lack of this bullet is an issue.

The point is rather simple. If you have physical evidence that a bullet struck someone or something, you don't need to find the bullet. You can infer its existence because it hit something. If you have neither evidence of what it struck nor the bullet, you have a problem. Those who maintain that a third bullet missed the limo entirely have an evidentiary problem. No bullet. No damage outside the limo as coming from a bullet making a first strike on something outside the limo. Saskcitation (talk)

(SBHarris)"To which I can only add the obvious comment that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence." Sask: "It is if the entire Plaza was scoured by the FBI looking for bullet impacts - which is what the FBI testified they did."

So we are to embrace the ruthless efficiency of the FBI scouring every inch of Dealy Plaza and coming up with no third bullet, yet this same FBI who could not find a trace of any third bullet within the confines of a space of, say, ten cubic meters, including a complete lack of any impact associated with a bullet that would have hit something besides Connally and Kennedy is greeted with a silent shrug. Why, pray tell is this not a better example of when absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a bullet at full speed striking something and leaving no trace, and a bullet striking JBC and the fragments leaving the car and not being recovered. Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I'm supposed to believe that a third bullet hit the inside of the limo, and we can't find it because it ricocheted off something and most of it went over the top of the windshield. Oh, well then: what did it ricochet FROM in there, without leaving the kind of horrible and difficult-to-repair gouge which we were supposed to find in the street, but significantly didn't? No answer. As you say, it doesn't bother Sask a bit when HIS theory happens to be missing the same kind of gouge-mark from a primary hit on hard surface, that he demands in OURS. Except that his missing gouge, narrowly circumscribed in space, is a much tougher one to hide! WHERE IS IT??

??The gouge mark from the primary hit is found in JBC's chest. If the fragments exiting from JBC's wrist from the second shot struck the windshield (as Greer suggests when he described hearing a concussive sound from the second shot) and one went over the windshield to strike Tague (which he said hit him on the second shot) then we have evidence that such fragments existed without having to recover them.

We're supposed to believe the interior of the limo was completely refurbished, but before it was, they found all those tiny bits of bullet #3 (or what I assume is it), and the tiny scratches on chrome and window. So indeed, the lack of anything else screams pretty loudly in its silence. It looks like every bullet that went into the limo hit meat or bone, on first contact. And for three bullets, if we must have three, we're running out of candidate meat and bone. This is why conspiracy people are so involved with ice bullets, explosive bullets, or bullets removed surgically on Airforce One (while Jackie is sitting next to the coffin) or while the JFK Ambulance was joyriding around Bethesda with the coffin in back, and the first lady and the secret service in the front. Whee. SBHarris 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Connallys' evidence, (corroborrated by Greer, David Powers and Gayle Newman) the first bullet struck JFK in the neck, the second struck JBC in the back and the third struck JFK in the head. I don't see why you say we are running out of meat and bone.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it seems Sask wants to make the contention that Oswald was the source of any bullets in the car but he is nearly alone in suggesting three bullets from Oswald's rifle found their mark. Though I suppose we can't exclude the possibility he is in fact a conspiracy theorist trying to find cracks in the evidence that don't necessarily suggest "conspiracy," somewhat like the Intelligent Design advocates who aren't explicitly saying that the "intelligence" they refer to is in fact God, his approach is not consistent and he seems to be ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary. If one accepts the premise that the NAA could narrow the bullet fragments down to at least the ones associated with the bullets Oswald was firing (as most bullets manufactured in 1963 would have been easily distinguishable from Oswald's bullets), then it follows that, given Sask's contention about the uncertainty with how many bullets we are talking about that a third bullet may indeed have been found within the car - but from Oswald's gun. It would seem, however, that the researchers he quotes don't actually claim that - that it is possible that Oswald had three bullets there, not two - just that three or more bullets are possible.

I can assure you that I am not a conspiracy theorist. There was only one shooter and it was Oswald. It is the SBT that gives strength to the CTs. I am just trying to show that the evidence, particularly the shot pattern evidence, the first shot hitJFK evidence, and the first shot location evidence, is all very consistent and wholly inconsistent with the SBT.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But this to me seems to be far less likely than he supposes as so much of the other evidence excludes this from reasonable possibility.

And I think I have shown that none of the other evidence excludes this as a reasonable possibility. Moreover, the other evidence actually excludes a shot before than z186.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While the NAA analysis and its critiques suggest the possibility that a third bullet was in the car, with Oswald being the source a far likelier (though unlikely) than another assassin, this possibility is reasonably excluded by a ton of other evidence. It is interesting that he talks science at one point, but bases most of his three-bullet argument on witness statements, which is often unreliable and contradictory. Not saying that my witness testimony is somehow superior, but he can't pretend, as he does, that few or no others suggest a bullet being fired around Z160 when in fact many do. And at least some of this witness testimony seems to be corroborated by what we see in the Zapruder film. Canada Jack (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the end, one wonders what the point is to this insistence that Oswald found his mark three times. Because, in the end, it doesn't change any of the important conclusions about the assassination. It doesn't contradict the argument that Oswald acted alone, and it doesn't, on its own, eliminate the possibility of conspiracy. It doesn't, as Vincent Bugliosi would put it, go anywhere. Maybe Sask hates Arlen Specter and wants to discredit the man who generally is seen as the author of the SBT...

Canada Jack (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of trying to discredit anyone. The WC and the WC staff, including Arlen Specter, did an excellent job and got the right conclusion. They did a much better job than the HSCA, after all. It is a matter of getting the evidence right. The evidence does not support the SBT. The Connallys' swore it did not happen. They were right. That is all I am saying.Saskcitation (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a great illustration of the the point that you can draw any number of curves though a given number of known points, if you're bloody-minded and tricky about it, not caring about jiggles and complications. We haven't ruled out two shooters at Oswald's location, both firing at the limo from behind and above, but now allowed to fire nearly together, so that JFK and JBC can be hit by different shots close together, but now 3 total bullets. It's going to take good timing to pull this off, folks! Because as JBC emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, he jumps straight up, both his arms jerk up like on marionette strings, and he rolls pretty quickly to the right with right arm down protecting his right side. It's not too many hundred milliseconds after we first see JFK clutching his throat, that JBC is rotated so far to the right that his right side is completely inaccessable to anybody in Oswald's position, unless they want to shoot though JBC's seatback. And god knows how they're going to hit his wrist and leg at the same time, since his wrist, after the upward jerk, remains high, still clutching the hat (he keeps that hat through JFK's final coup de grace, which means after he's shot through the wrist by anybody's estimation, and his wife said he held it until they took it away from him at the hospital). So this is going to have to be one tricky line through these points. Instead of just a few mistaken ear-witnesses (but not all them) we are now asked to have to have two shooters high and behind the limo, one to hit JFK twice, and the other to get JBC once (and it has to zigzag upward to get the governor's wrist, unless the JKF neck bullet hits JBC's wrist, but another bullet gets JBC in the chest and thigh). AND the bullet that goes through JFK's neck has to disappear completely soon after doing so, because if 3 bullets hit the inside of the limo from above and behind, they're trapped in it. We have one on the stretcher with JBC, and one that hits JFK's head, surely a different one, and that leaves yet a third one for JFK's neck which must eventually evaporate. So an extra shooter to get off this oddly-timed shot, has to fire an effective but disappearing bullet. Boy, now THAT's magic. SBHarris 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sask's response says it all. After saying stuff like No one put it earlier than z186. No one and being shown that in fact numerous witnesses did say that, what does he do? Why he does what he accuses SBHarris of doing - he subjectively dismisses those statements by implausibly suggesting they weren't in fact saying what they quite clearly were saying - even Connally - that the first shot was fired shortly after the turn! Sure, Connally describes going down the street, but he also said that the first shot happened when we had just made the turn. While we might debate what exactly he meant here, it is clear that when Sask says "no one" said as much, he is referring to his own interpretation of what the witnesses actually said. Seems when Sask makes a definitive statement, we have to accept that that he is applying his own, personal, subjective analysis, an analysis I should point out, which ignores the testimony that nobodies like the HSCA used to determine when a first shot was fired. So, when he suggests we must fall back on science to understand what happened here, he nevertheless embraces highly subjective interpretations to come to a single conclusion - no one says a shot was fired before Z186. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

I said no one put the first shot earlier than z186. To disprove that statement you have to find someone who said that the first shot occurred at a time earlier than z186. Finding someone who said that the car had just turned the corner doesn't do it. "Just after" could mean a couple of seconds to 10-15 seconds. Who knows? z160 was 8 seconds after the limo turned the corner. Connally said "just after" and he made it clear that he meant 150-200 feet after the corner which is about 8-10 seconds. You have to find specific evidence that it was before z186 because there is specific evidence from many witnesses that put it AFTER z186. You are providing witnesses who said things that may be consistent with a shot before z186 but they are also consistent with a first shot after z186. Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another howler, given his flat statement that "no one" put it before Z186. If that was the case and the second shot came as late as z224, that means the first shot would have to have occurred before the limo turned the corner - ie before Zapruder's filming of the motorcade began. So, in actual fact, Barbara Rowland's evidence is entirely inconsistent with a first shot at or around z160.

So, Sask now concedes that "some one" indeed claimed a first shot before 186! So much for "no one." Maybe the witness got remarried and has a surname "No One?" The point is that you claimed "no one" said anything about a shot before Z186. You have been proven utterly wrong, and you would be best advised to stop pretending otherwise.

You have to read what I wrote. I said her evidence regarding the shot pattern is in itself INconsistent with a first shot at z160.Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And here's another howler to dismiss what some might reasonably say suggest a strike circa Z160: Again, these are imprecise statements and cannot be used to distinguish between a ahot at z160 and one at z200. At z160 and z200 the limo had turned "just turned the corner". Again "no one" means Sask, in his subjective determination, has eliminated those who he decides do not past muster.

And perhaps the most specific description there - by Bonnie Ray Williams - which suggest a shot at about Z150 or so by the closest witness to Oswald's perch is not even addressed by Sask. The point here is you may quibble with interpretations on various witnesses. Fair enough. But you cannot pretend that your subjective opinion rises to the level of being able to confidently declare "no one" suggested a pre-Z186 shot.

If you can explain how Williams put the first shot at z150 and definitely not as late as z186 then please do.Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

She is still moving forward until z199.I don't see how you can say she turns to her right before z203. At z203-204 she turns her head sharply toward the TSBD What the sentence says is she started to slow down at the time in question and turn her head by 204.

This is simply idle speculation. He was clear that he was referring to his z202 photo. Well, coming from the king of "idle speculation," that is rich. But what you have failed to realize is that Willis seemed utterly confused over whether the first shot hit the president. Here is what Willis in fact said "When the first shot was fired, [Mrs. Kennedy's] head seemed to snap [toward the president]." Looking at the Zapruder film, we see her turning at Z195, mere frames before Willis took his photograph, slide 5, and many have cited that as proof that the photo he took then was when the first bullet struck. But a closer look reveals she sharply turned her head at Z167, well before anyone here claims he was hit. So he was asked: "Did you think the president was hit by the first shot?" His response: "I didn't really know, sir." Seems clear to everyone that he was hit close to the time of his slide 5, so it would seem that he might not be clear as to which photo he took when the first shot was fired.

But you are suggesting that Willis was referring to her turn at z167 taken 35 frames before he said the first shot occurred. You cannot speculate that Jackie's turn at z167 was the turn he saw. First of all, she is smiling at the crowd, not looking at JFK. Second, what about Mary Woodward's evidence that this was a turn in response to their shouting and that was before the first shot. It is clear from her evidence and her Nov 23/63 story in the Dallas Morning News, (as well as several others on Elm) that she was referring to the turn, wave and smiles from z165-200. Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the other howler: No one said they saw a bullet strike the pavement, ever. And what is Sask's response to my furnishing of quotes from two witnesses who in fact said they saw bullets striking the pavement? You have to look carefully at her evidence. Well, you may dispute where she places the bullet strike, but what you can't dispute as to whether she made the claim!

He said he saw this after the second shot. Hardly a first shot miss. #1, I didn't say it was the first bullet. #2, as far as I can tell, he wasn't specific about which bullet struck pavement. The point here, which I am not surprised you are avoiding, is that you claimed there were never any claims of a bullet strike on the pavement. Ever. You have shown to be utterly wrong again, and no amount of subjective parsing here will get you out of that one, Sask.

No one says that they saw a bullet. They saw "something". "Something" did strike the pavement: pieces of JFK's skull, blood and flesh.Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a bullet at full speed striking something and leaving no trace, and a bullet striking JBC and the fragments leaving the car and not being recovered. There sure is, Sask. One missing bullet was fired which was never found in an area the size of several acres, which was not particularly germane to the investigation as it struck no one and which was not the subject of intense interest. Indeed, the WC didn't even bother to try to determine where the bullet might have struck the pavement. The other "third" bullet, however, would have had to have left some sort of clue as to its existence other than the ambiguous NAA determination, especially since it was widely assumed initially that all three bullets struck as three shots were heard by most. Yet there was utterly no sign of this third bullet in the confined space of the limo despite a very intensive investigation. Again, one has to ask: Why does "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" not apply in the former but not in the latter?

You are assuming the NAA theory of Guinn is correct. According to Randich/Grant/Snyder the fragments could be from three bullets. If they are, then you have physical evidence that three bullets struck, in addition to the witness evidence. Saskcitation (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to show that the evidence, particularly the shot pattern evidence, the first shot hitJFK evidence, and the first shot location evidence, is all very consistent and wholly inconsistent with the SBT. But what we are seeing here is that in so doing you are subjectively dismissing much evidence that says otherwise, unless it happens to support your case, in which case you readily embrace it. This ain't science, Sask. It's subjective appraisal by you and its time to stop pretending otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about the shot pattern evidence (last two closer together), the "first shot hit" evidence or the first shot after z186 evidence. Any one of those three bodies of evidence is enough to refute the second shot SBT. You should try to deal with it rather than employ ad hominem arguments against those who point it out. Saskcitation (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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: [7].

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)

Read this carefully, especially the end of it. Lastly, please read Clint Hill's testimony at the WC carefully, as he notes something which other people also did, which is that the head shot came with a distinct double sound, much like an echo. Unlike the case with the throat shot, people in the limo heard both the supersonic crack of the bullet AND the impact sound of the head-shot, very close together. But Hill identifies them as being from the same bullet and says they sound very much like what you hear when you fire a weapon and hear the impact at nearly the same time. He's talking about the third bullet (or if you like, the last bullet), as it's the one that hits just as he's climbing onto the car, well after the throat shot. That double sound may well have confused other people hearing it. SBHarris 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Hill recalled only two shots. He did not hear three time-separated noises. 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. [8]Saskcitation (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I said no one put the first shot earlier than z186. To disprove that statement you have to find someone who said that the first shot occurred at a time earlier than z186. Finding someone who said that the car had just turned the corner doesn't do it. "Just after" could mean a couple of seconds to 10-15 seconds. Who knows? z160 was 8 seconds after the limo turned the corner. Connally said "just after" and he made it clear that he meant 150-200 feet after the corner which is about 8-10 seconds.

What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all of the above is merely your subjective opinion on what the witnesses were in fact claiming. When you say "who knows?" that is a sign that you should not pretend, as you do, that "no one" claims a bullet to have been fired around Z160. Period. If you were truly looking at this from a cool, rational viewpoint, you would have to acknowledge that while it seems some witnesses place the first shot when we see JFK react, others seem to place it a fair bit earlier.

You are providing witnesses who said things that may be consistent with a shot before z186 but they are also consistent with a first shot after z186. Some, but not all. So stop pretending "no one" said as much, as that is merely your subjective opinion.

You have to read what I wrote. I said her evidence regarding the shot pattern is in itself INconsistent with a first shot at z160. The statement was inserted as an example of a pre-Z186 witness statement, not as evidence for a shot at or about z160. Again, you avoid addressing the issue. You pretend there were "no" statements pre-186. Yet how can you pretend this isn't suggesting a pre-186 shot? By changing the subject. Here's a suggestion. The next time you want to cite witness evidence to suggest that the first shot was the one that hit Kennedy, then say that there is evidence to suggest that, but don't suggest there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, because that would be a factual inexactitude.

If you can explain how Williams put the first shot at z150 and definitely not as late as z186 then please do. The action he describes JFK doing are consistent with what we see JFK doing from Z133 to Z143. Since JFK, following that action, turns to his left, then he starts to wave, he is engaging in following actions. Williams suggests that the first shot immediately follows the stated actions as it was "the last thing I remember seeing him do." The point here is that we do have witness statements which make a plausible case for a shot circa Z160. I can appreciate that you disagree with that interpretation, but you seem to be more than willing to allow your subjective view of the subject to eliminate other reasonable interpretations. I'd hardly say it is going out on a limb to suggest that some of the above-mentioned witness statements are consistent with a strike around z160, and seem to be consistent with some of the evidence on the Zapruder film. Sure, some other evidence suggests a later first shot, but you cannot pretend this evidence does not exist.

Saying that Williams evidence is "consistent" with a first shot at z150 doesn't do it. There is more than one place where JFK has his hand near his head. He has his hand near his head at z200-207 as he takes it from a waving position to something different (this movement prompted the majority of the HSCA photographic panel to conclude that JFK is reacting to a severe external stimulus by z207). Unless it is consistent ONLY with a shot at before z186 (and therefore inconsistent with a shot at after z186) can you say that it is evidence of a shot before z186. The evidence of all the 22 witnesses I have listed is INCONSISTENT with a shot before z186. Saskcitation (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are suggesting that Willis was referring to her turn at z167 taken 35 frames before he said the first shot occurred. You cannot speculate that Jackie's turn at z167 was the turn he saw.

Willis himself said that he could not be sure that the first shot he heard found its mark. Does anyone doubt that the shot fired circa Z200 found its mark? I'd say no, clearly you say no. Anyone seeing JFK's reaction would say no. Yet Willis can't be sure? The point here is that if Willis can't be sure about that basic fact, his "certainty" about slide 5 being the photo taken at the time of the first shot is called into doubt. Since he also took a photo around where it is thought a first shot took place, we can't be certain about this issue. For someone who focusses on the mere possibility that the bullet fragments might represent more than two bullets, it is quite interesting that you can't acknowledge that, given Willis's clear confusion on the matter, there is a possibilty that he was also confused at to which photo was taken. Except you go far further than I do. I don't suggest that therefore it is probable that Willis in fact confused slide 4 with slide 5, just that is possible and we can't be sure given his confusion, but you suggest the uncertainty over whether bullet fragments can be so closely calibrated means the door is flung wide open to not only tossing out the SBT, but suggesting the implausible notion that three Oswald bullets found their mark. Right.

No one says that they saw a bullet. They saw "something". "Something" did strike the pavement: pieces of JFK's skull, blood and flesh. One witness described seeing sparks, which is not likely to be caused by skull fragments. But let's take your increasingly desparate line of reasoning further. Did anyone actually see any bullet zooming through the air and striking JFK/Connally? What? No one? How can we be sure that they indeed were struck by bullets? Maybe some conspiring elements stuck some plastic explosive on JFK's head to make his head explode, and some similiar nefarious thing happened with Connally, aided by some quick actions at Parkland to make "bullet" wounds, along with a lot of planted evidence. Migod, Sask, you are getting sillier by the minute. It is one thing to embrace evidence that supports a particular theory while downplaying other evidence which suggests alternate possibilities. It is quite another to start to demand, from this other evidence, to prove a negative at each and every turn. All we are saying here is there is evidence to suggest other scenarios and like it or not you can't pretend otherwise. You have every right to question that evidence, but to pretend it isn't there is not acceptable, it is intellectually dishonest.

Again, imputations of bad faith are not only bad form, they are contrary to the Wiki rules. I am not pretending any the evidence you cite does not exist. I am simply saying that it is not evidence on which one could conclude that the first shot did not happen after z186. That is to say, none of this evidence points to a first shot before z186 or a first shot miss. If it is consistent with a first shot after z186 it cannot, be any standard of reason, be evidence of a shot before z186. A shot "just after the car turned the corner" is not evidence that is inconsistent with a shot after z186. z186 is 9 seconds after the car began the turn. z160 is 8 seconds after the car began the turn. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding how you can use that kind of evidence to say that it occurred at z160 and not at z186. You have yet to explain that. Saskcitation (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming the NAA theory of Guinn is correct. According to Randich/Grant/Snyder the fragments could be from three bullets. If they are, then you have physical evidence that three bullets struck, in addition to the witness evidence.

The theory may in fact be flawed, but if there were in fact only two bullets, what we are seeing is consistent with that. The later analysis suggests that that earlier analysis is nowhere near as definitive as first assumed, and opens the possibility that a third bullet was represented by the fragments. But, as even they say, and which you seem not to appreciate, the new analysis is consistent with two bullets as well. They don't say that three bullets are in fact represented, just that it can't be ruled out definitively. An entirely different thing. So, this "physical evidence" you speak of is actually highly open to dispute. But the important note is that, even given that, the analysis is still consistent with what we'd expect from an analysis of the fragments from two bullets. If that was the only evidence available, than we'd have more of an issue. But we do have other evidence which suggests very strongly the sequence of events as argued here. A first bullet which missed. A second bullet which hit JFK and Connally. And a third shot which fatally wounded Kennedy. It would seem to me that your approach is: expand that crack in the door which allows for the possibilty of a third bullet. Embrace witness testimony which tends to corroborate an initial bullet circa Z200. Pretend any other evidence suggesting otherwise doesn't exist. Accuse those who say otherwise of being "subjective" when it comes to addressing witness testimony, yet subjectively dismiss all evidence which may not fit. Indeed, ignore the improbables which occur once we start the clock at Z186. Ignore what we would expect from separate bullets striking Connally. Ignore the fact there is no physical evidence, besides the remote chance the NAA is showing three bullets, of the existence more than two bullets within the limousine. Pretend that it is a far bigger mystery where the Z160 bullet went than where the third limousine bullet went. Etc.

There is nothing subjective about the shot pattern evidence (last two closer together), the "first shot hit" evidence or the first shot after z186 evidence. All I have to say to that is: Do you know what the definition of "subjective" is? Because, unless you have an audio tape somewhere or some other form of clear, physical evidence, all we have is a pile of witness statements on the timing of the shots which is, by definition, subjective.

Any one of those three bodies of evidence is enough to refute the second shot SBT. You should try to deal with it rather than employ ad hominem arguments against those who point it out. Perhaps you should look up "ad hominen" as well. You are making statements regarding evidence which are unsupported, and in some cases, simply false. I am suggesting that while you are certainly free to dispute evidence and put forth alternate interpretations, you are not in a position to characterize your subjective interpretations as any way being definitive. Which you do by declaring there is "no" evidence regarding certain issues. If that is an "ad hominem" attack, I'd suggest you are holding your pet theories a little too close to your chest and taking this too personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All the comments I have made pertaining to the evidence are based on the evidence. When you have identified evidence that you say points to a shot before z186 you refer to statements about the shot being heard "just after the car turned the corner". You say that this refers to a first shot at about z160. I question how you can say that such a statement refers to a shot earlier than z186. Z186 is about 9 seconds after the car began to turn the corner. z160 is about 8 seconds after the car began to turn the corner. I am saying that you cannot distinguish between z160 and z186 on the basis of that kind of statement. That is not subjective. That is factual analysis. If you disagree then perhaps you can tell us why it means z160 and not z186.

Rather than deal with my points, you make perjorative comments about me "pretending" about the evidence. Questioning the bona fides of the proponent of an argument is a form of ad hominem argument and it is usually used when all the good arguments are gone. Rather than question my bona fides, you should deal with the evidence. I say there is no evidence pointing to a first shot before z186 and there is no evidence that JFK and Jackie continued to smile and wave after the first shot. If you don't like that statement, provide us with some evidence that pinpoints a first shot earlier than z186. If you can find any such evidence, I will withdraw my statement. Saskcitation (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sask, you seem utterly incapable of seeing, let alone addressing, a point. You have a view that the first shot was fired at z186 or after. You, not me, not SBHarris, made bald statements such as there is "no" evidence suggesting a shot beforehand. But it turns out that the basis of this "no" evidence claim is not something that the WC said or found, or the HSCA said and found, or any number of other sources, but it comes from your subjective analysis of the evidence. I mean, I reject your NAA argument, but I don't pretend there is no argument! I agree there is an alternative scenario, I never characterisize is being in the region of "no" evidence for such a conclusion, etc. I term it improbable, etc. If you cannot see the distinction here, and how intellectually dishonest it is, I don't know what else to say.

Rather than deal with my points, you make perjorative comments about me "pretending" about the evidence. Questoning the bona fides of the proponent of an argument is a form of ad hominem argument and it is usually used when all the good arguments are gone.

??? Sask, have read a single thing I have posted? We are talking about your characterization of evidence, not the evidence itself! I know you can interpret some of this evidence is many ways. That is not the point. The point is that you pretend there is no other interpretation but your own, and you do so be flatly declaring there is "no" evidence to suggest a) a shot circa 160 or before or b) a bullet strike on the pavement.

I am not interpreting the evidence. I am just pointing out that it is not specific and therefore not inconsistent at all with a first shot after z186. It is quite capable of a range of meanings and is, therefore, not evidence of a shot before z186. The evidence of Betzner, Phil Willis, Mary Woodward, Hurchel Jacks, the occupants of the VP followup car, the 48 witnesses who recalled the last two shots together, the 16 or so witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left and moving his hands toward his throat, is entirely inconsistent with a missed first shot or a first shot prior to z186. The evidence you offer is not inconsistent with this evidence. That is all I am saying. The evidence has to be more than capable of being construed as being consistent with a first shot earlier than z186. It has to be inconsistent with a first shot after z186.Saskcitation (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone here is not respecting another here it is you in refusing to address the issues here, instead insisting on debating the evidence as you see it. It tells me that you are either not reading closely what is being said here, or simply ignoring the concerns.

Again, you avoid dealing with my points. I appear to be the only person taking a serious, independent and critical view of the evidence. That is how evidence has to be treated.

Indeed, what is your next remark?

I say there is no evidence pointing to a first shot before z186 and there is no evidence that JFK and Jackie continued to smile and wave after the first shot. If you don't like that statement, provide us with some evidence that pinpoints a first shot earlier than z186.

Evidence was supplied, and you rejected it. Fine. That's your interpretation, and you may be wrong, but you can't pretend you can't be wrong. That's all I am saying. What do you not understand here? Canada Jack (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not reject your evidence. It is fine evidence. I accept it. I am just saying that it does not establish a first shot before z186. That is just a statement of fact. You may counter that by showing how indeed it does establish a first shot not later than z186. You seem to be unwilling to do that.Saskcitation (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)