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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

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

Now if the first shot that wounded President Kennedy did not go on to penetrate Governor Connally also, and if one accepts the Commission's conclusion that President Kennedy was not shot before frame 210 of the Zapruder film, and Governor Connally was not shot after frame 240, then two shots must have been fired in the time it took the Zapruder camera to run through the 30 frames from 210 to 240. That time, at 18.3 frames per second, is something over a second and a half. But tests prove that Oswald's rifle, having once been fired, cannot be fired again in less than 2.3 seconds—this being the minimum time needed merely to operate the rifle's bolt action, without aiming or otherwise hesitating or pausing. On the Commission's assumptions as to the timing of the shots, therefore, it was physically impossible for Oswald alone to inflict President Kennedy's first wound and also shoot Governor Connally, unless he did it with a single bullet. He could not possibly have done it by shooting twice. If there were two shots within this time-span, there were two assassins. Hence it was entirely “necessary” to the “essential findings of the Commission” to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally. . . . (Bickel, "The Failure of the Warren Report," Commentary, October 1966, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/alexander-bickel/the-failure-of-the-warren-report/)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Chapman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take it that you are not one of the conspiracy-monger crowd supporting an altered, contrived, faked or planted Zap film.

Feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I take it that you are not one of the conspiracy-monger crowd supporting an altered, contrived, faked or planted Zap film.

Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?

We have very strong evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. As many researchers have noted, the CIA technicians could only do so much editing with the technology and time they had available. The final product was still unacceptable, but it was not as damning and revealing as the original. That's why the film was suppressed for many years.

Feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.

Did you just awake from a coma that began in the 1970s?

FYI, in 1979, just before your coma began, the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, the HSCA, concluded that there was a conspiracy, that four shots were fired, that Ruby lied about how he entered the DPD basement, that someone in the DPD helped Ruby enter the basement and unlocked the door near the stairway he took, that the DPD pulled security away from the door and stairwell that Ruby used shortly before he entered the basement, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that there was evidence indicating that someone was impersonating Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination, that the WC conducted a flawed investigation and overlooked important evidence, etc., etc., etc.

Those are the findings of the last, most recent formal federal investigation into the JFK case.

The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.

Heard of names such as Eugene Brading, Jack Ruby, Sergio Archaca-Smith, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, David Sanchez Morales, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop), Richard Case Nagell?

FYI, we have hard scientific evidence that there were two gunmen. We have the HSCA acoustical evidence, i.e., the DPD dictabelt, which contains at least four gunshot impulses. We have autopsy photo F8 and the OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that part of the occipital bone was blown out. We have the high-quality prints of the Harper fragment, and the fragment has now been established as being occipital bone. We have hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered.

[Jerry Organ]

Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?

Says the Zapruder alterationist, and Mormon "Golden Plates" and "Lost Cause" apologist.

Did you just awake from a coma that began ies n the 1970s?

You seem to always be bringing forth decades-old claims, albeit without the updated analysis. Here's an example from you: "someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there."



Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved. The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.

The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.

You obviously threw out the window the ARRB's caution:

    "The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
     by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
     the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
     For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
     have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
     evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
     statements as "proof" for one theory or another."

[Michael T. Griffith]

Says the Zapruder alterationist, and Mormon "Golden Plates" and "Lost Cause" apologist.

Uh, did you still not get the news that we now know that the Zapruder film was altered, and that briefing boards were prepared on the two different versions of the film at NPIC? Plus, a number of physicists and photographic experts have identified clear evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered.

I get that you don't believe in God and so you mock an account of the supernatural discovery of an ancient religious record. I'll just note that atheists constitute a distinct minority of Earth's population.

And, no, I am not a "Lost Cause" apologist. Didn't I already correct you on this?

You seem to always bringing forth decades-old claims, albeit without the updated analysis.

LOL! Uh-huh. You are the one who continues to ignore dozens of important document disclosures, new witness accounts, and numerous new research developments over the last 10-20 years done by physicists, historians, medical doctors, ballistics experts, forensic pathologists, etc.

Here's an example from you: "someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there."

Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved.

And, pray tell, who were the photographic experts who produced your graphic? What are their names and qualifications? This might be a good time to read what the HSCA's photographic experts said about how they determined that the Dillard and Powell photos show boxes were being moved within 2 minutes after the assassination:

Examination of both the Dillard and Powell photographs of the sixth floor windows shows an open window with deep shadows in the region behind it. The deep shadows indicate the film was underexposed in these regions; that is, too little light reached the film or a clear recording of any details in the room behind the window.

A number of enhancement processes were applied to the photographs in order to bring out any details obscured within the underexposed regions. They were as follows:

(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical and photochemical techniques) of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT).
(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph at Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI).
(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Powell photograph at the University of Southern California and the Aerospace Corp.

In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned and digitized for possible computer enhancement. Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed because the Panel decided that the autoradiographic technique had more potential for success.

The photographic and computer processes made visible details that had been obscured in the underexposed regions of the photographs. Both the photographic enhancement by RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement by SRI revealed a feature in the fifth floor window immediately beneath the sixth floor window. Figure IV-1 (JFK exhibit F-153) shows one of the. original Dillard photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic enhancement. The detail revealed by the processing appears to be a circular light fixture hanging from the ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in the center of the fixture.

In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details became visible on the boxes in the windows. (See figure IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in neither photograph did the processing operations reveal any sign of a human face or form in the open sixth floor or adjoining windows.

The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed in the fifth window served as a "benchmark" against which the sixth floor enhancement could be judged. . . .

Although human faces or forms were not visible in the enhanced photographs, inspection of figures IV-2 and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes visible through the sixth floor widow. in the Dillard photograph, only two boxes are immediately visible, one each to the left and right of the window frame. Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows several additional boxes. There are two possible explanations for this difference:

(1) The Powell photograph may reflect only an apparent change in the boxes; the different angle from which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a different set of boxes within the room to be framed within the window;
(2) The boxes were moved during the time that elapsed between the Dillard and Powell photographs.
Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were unknown, it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room that would have been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two to the left and right of the window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by the frame of the partially opened window. In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window frame.

A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the two boxes at the left and right lie approximately 6 inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A). If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie close to the plane of the window. For this reason, the panel concluded that the additional boxes visible in the Powell photograph were moved during the interval between the Dillard and Powell photographs. (6 HSCA 110-115)

By the way, are you aware that we know that the FBI buried evidence that a witness in a nearby building had seen "some boxes moving" in the sixth-floor window after the shots were fired (e.g., Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 367)? Just a coincidence, right?

The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.

Actually, that's not true. But, don't let facts get in your way. Who said anything about Groden anyway?

You obviously threw out the window the ARRB's caution:

    "The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
     by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
     the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
     For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
     have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
     evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
     statements as "proof" for one theory or another."

Once again you are quoting stuff that you have cherry-picked without knowing the whole story, without reading the entire document collection from which you are quoting. Anyone who has studied this case for more than a few months knows that in some instances a final report does not present or reflect all the evidence contained in the supporting volumes.

Yeah, the ARRB recognized that memories can sometimes be flawed; that's why they checked witness accounts against released documents when possible, and in several key cases they were able to confirm important witness accounts with released documents. That's why they hired three forensic experts to review the autopsy materials. Guess what they concluded?

* The AP skull x-ray shows substantial frontal bone missing. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)
* The amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* The single-bullet theory is "very dubious." (Dr. Kirschner)
* There is no fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-rays. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)
* The damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* The photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* Autopsy photo F8 shows fatty tissue in the upper-left corner. (Dr. Kirschner) (This is crucial because F8 could not show that fatty tissue unless it had been taken from the back of the head.)
* Some of the dark areas on the skull x-rays are unusually dark, much darker than the dark areas on normal x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)

* The Clark Panel/HSCA cowlick entry wound does not appear on the skull x-rays. There is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)

[Joe Elliott]

I get that you don't believe in God and so you mock an account of the supernatural discovery of an ancient religious record. I'll just note that atheists constitute a distinct minority of Earth's population.

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

And, no, I am not a "Lost Cause" apologist. Didn't I already correct you on this?

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

The Tariff and Secession: Statements on the Tariff as a Major Factor in Sectional Strife and Southern Secession

https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm


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

Only four states published an article on why they were seceding. South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia. I guess the other states were too ashamed to put down their reasons in an official document. These documents are known as the “Article of Secession” or the “Declaration of Causes”. In these declarations, these four states were emulating the original 1776 Declaration of Independence which listed the reasons why they were seceding from Great Britain.

One can read these Articles of Secession below:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/declarations-causes

In not one instance, does the word “Tariff” appear in any of the lengthy documents. There are quite a lot of complains about the North’s limitations on slavery, right from the beginning, starting in the 1780’s with the Northwest Ordinance. And these limitations have become more and more stringent over the years, making it clear that if they remained in the Union, slavery is doomed.

Also, they complained a lot about state laws which gave different rules, than Federal law, to be used to determine if a black person was an escape slave or not, if found within their state. This is strange, because one would think that a true advocate of state rights would hold that Vermont has every right to pass a state law that conflicts with Federal law, on how blacks should be judged within that state. And the states had good reason for doing so since Federal law, the Fugitive Slave act, effectively bribed the ‘judge’ in these cases to always rule that the person in question is an escaped slave and not a lawful freeman.

And of course, there were minimum reasons for seceding from the Union up through March 1861, because the Tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. By 1857 the South had gotten the low tariff it wanted, and this held until after 7 states and seceded from the Union. And the other 4 states that followed did not secede because of the new higher tariff passed in March 1861, but because of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for each state to provide troops and allow passage to the South to suppress the rebellion.

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


You, Michael T. Griffith are not really a “Lost Cause” apologist? If it floats like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

[John Iacoletti]

Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?

It doesn't.  Chapman's quips never do.

[John Iacoletti]

Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved. The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.

Are you saying that the HSCA photo panel didn't understand how perspective works?