A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Richard Smith]

The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.
Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Amos Euins said (statement to Sheriff, 22Nov63, CE 2003, 24 H 2017):

"I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stopped back behind some boxes.  I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting.  I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing.  This was  a white man, he did not have on a hat.  I just saw this man for a few seconds.

(FBI statement 29Nov63, Commission Document 205 at p. 10):

"He stated since he could no longer see the Preddent's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding froa the window near the top of the Texas School Book Depodtory Building. He stated he saw a man's band on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was rifle becauae he heard the shots fired.  He stated he could not tell anything about the aan and that he never anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock."

(FBI report 14Dec63, Commission Document 205 at p. 12):

"..he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what apeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spoint on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him.  He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.  Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds. All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

You are arguing with someone who suggests that just because witnesses confirmed a rifle was pointing in the direction of JFK's motorcade an instant after the shots were fired that doesn't mean they saw him shot by that rifle.  LOL.  Not to mention that there were the fired bullet casings found by that window.  Forget logical inferences.  By John's pedantic standard, for example, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.  They just heard a bang and looked in that direction to see Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Perhaps someone else in Ford's Theatre actually fired the shot.  Maybe it was suicide and Booth had the misfortune of picking up the pistol off the ground.  He panicked and fled!  It's possible - right?  That's the best he can manage.  And I will bet if you look at the historical record, you can find some witness who got a minor detail wrong about Booth's appearance, clothes or height etc.  And maybe no one can confirm with certainty where he bought his ammo.  Why would a famous person like Booth throw away his good fortune by committing murder where he was sure to recognized?  Surely he wouldn't have done it.  Thus we can disregard the mountain of evidence that links Booth to that crime.  Mission accomplished for the lazy contrarian.

[John Iacoletti]

The best "Richard Smith" can manage is a false equivalence to Lincoln, when nobody can place Oswald anywhere near that window at that time with that rifle.

He talks about mountains of evidence, but never seems to get around to enumerating what that mountain of evidence consists of.  I wonder why that is?  Could it be because all he has is his empty rhetoric?

[Richard Smith]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.

[Royell Storing]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.

         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.

[John Iacoletti]

I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.

That's not my idiotic standard, that your idiotic false equivalence.  Nobody heard a shot and saw Oswald with a gun pointing at JFK's head.

[Richard Smith]

         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.

History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.  That doesn't rule out possibilities like Lincoln committing suicide and Booth picking up the gun or a shot being fired elsewhere in Ford's Theatre (or whatever else can be dreamed up with a contrarians license to imply baseless ad hoc explanations to counter the obvious conclusion).  John takes issue with the logical inference that this factual scenario can be characterized as someone witnessing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Just as he takes issue with characterizing witnesses as having seen Oswald shoot Tippit when they see Oswald holding a gun an instant after the shots were fired.  He also takes issue with characterizing anyone as having witnessed shots being fired with the rifle in the 6th floor window even though witnesses saw a rifle pointed at the JFK motorcade just an instant after hearing the shots (i.e. because they were not looking at the rifle at the exact moment it was fired).  I believe that scenario is sufficient to accurately characterize that situation as witnessing a shooting.  John does not although he apparently has a dimwitted recognition of the absurdity of his "logic" as applied to other contexts since he dances away from it like a circus monkey when it doesn't fit his desired conclusion.

[John Iacoletti]

History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.

So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.

[Andrew Mason]

So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.

So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.  Unless you have multiple surviving eyewitnesses to a murder or a video of the murder, no one can ever determine who the murderer was.  That is not something reasonable people would ever agree on.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence) the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.