Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Joe Elliott]

How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.

Because I'm not going to dive down every rabbit hole you present. If I took the time to look into five of your claims and refuted them, you would just come back with 15 false claims. What I will do is respond to points that I already know something about.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being jolted forward and his elbows and hands being flung upward and forward starting at Z226 is even more obvious than his reactions in Z188-207. To ascribe these movements as reactions to your posited Z222 shot requires us to believe that it took four frames for the bullet to start jolting JFK forward. How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?

Question: How am I supposed to tell if a bullet pushed JFK forward between z222 and z223, when JFK is still totally hidden by the sign at z223? But, I guess the "fact" that JFK did not move forward between z222 and z223 is just another of your "facts".

I do believe the effect of a bullet pushing JFK forward at z222 is a lot smaller than the push at z312. Why? Simple physics.

1. The head and torso together weigh about than ten times more as much as the head alone does.

2. Ballistic experts believe the head shot would push a lot harder than the back shot, because the bullet fragmented within the head. Bullet fragments transfer momentum a lot more quickly than intact bullets, still traveling point first. Larry Sturdivan published estimates of the speed of the bullets, based on real world ballistic tests, which showed, in his professional opinion. The bullet that struck the head lost about half of it's momentum within the head, while the bullet through JFK's neck transferred only about 10 % of it's momentum to JFK.

On point 2, if you can find a quote from a professional ballistic expert, who participates in real world experiments using rifle bullets hitting ballistic gel targets, by sure to provide it. But I don't want any quotes from you saying, well, that doesn't sound right to you, based on your intuition.

3. The camera is a good deal further away at z222 than z312, and at a big angle, making it harder to observe an forward motion of JFK's torso after z222. This is a relativity minor point compared to points 1 and 2.

So, with about 10 times more mass to move, and about one fifth of the momentum of the bullet transferred, makes sense that JFK's head should move a noticeable amount at z312, but his torso did not at z222.

So one would expect the movement of JFK's head and torso to be a lot less after z222 than after z312.

So, it did not take four frames for the shot at z222 to start pushing JFK forward. According to physics, that would happen immediately, just as the shot at z312. But the movement is too small to see. What could have caused the elbows move upwards about about 4 frames after z222? The nervous system of JFK starting to react. A reaction about 150 to 200 ms after a bullet strike is typical in people who have been shot. Although is certain special cases, like a rifle bullet (not a slower handgun bullet) going through the brain can cause a much faster reaction. This test for a 40-55 ms reaction is, of course, forbidden in humans, but has been demonstrated with goats and I'm certain it can be with other animals. Hence, the super quick reaction of JFK's had starting to move back after z313 starting about 55 ms after the head strike.

So, you see, I can respond to your points, on areas that I am already quite familiar with. Others can respond to your other points, on areas they are already familiar with.

The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a shot from Z188-207 is obvious to anyone who is not committed to the lone-gunman myth. People don't start clutching at their throat for no reason, nor do they freeze their waving motion and rapidly turn their head for no reason. The HSCA PEP deserves great credit for being willing to acknowledge these reaction movements, and Blakey deserves great credit for ensuring that the acknowledgement of these reaction movements was not suppressed. But you can't acknowledge these reaction movements because doing so would destroy your silly lone-gunman myth.

I'm not seeing things. You are seeing things you want to believe.

It's not just LNers. Most CTers won't bring up a shot at z188 as one of their top five reasons for believing in multiple shooters. Of course, CTers will support each other any most any pro CT argument. But this is not a common argument brought up by CTers. Which is strange, if the evidence is so clear as you maintain for a shot around z186. As this makes Oswald shooting at both z186 and z222, not totally impossible, but certainly a lot less likely, due the small amount of time to chamber and aim the second shot. A shot at z186 from Oswald is most unlikely for another reason. JFK is only visible for about a tenth of a second through the leaves. So, if there was a shot at z186, it almost certainly came from someone else.

And yet, most CTers do not make strong use of this "fact" of a shot at z186. Strange.

How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?

Because it didn't take 14 frames, about 600 ms, for the bullet to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward. One should not expect to see Connally's massive torso being pushed by a bullet, like one can see with JFK's head between z312 and z313. This is likely a result of Connally feeling pretty intense pain, from his lung starting to collapse. Which does not start until he starts his next inhalation. Which could start about six tens of a second after the bullet passed through.

To you every movement seems to be caused by a bullet pushed. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that some of this motion of JFK and Connally might be caused by their own muscles.

Is it really reasonable to assume that neither JFK or Connally would react to being struck by a bullet? That no muscle movement took place because if this? That all body movement was caused by momentum being transferred from the bullet to a body part?

How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.

I have not looked too much into CE 543. But can you quote a real world ballistic expert, a professional, who claims CE 543 could not have been made by one of Oswald's three shots?

You know. Works with real world tests with rifles and ballistic gel. Gives testimony in criminal court cases.

Do I consider Chad Zimmerman to be a ballistic expert? Go fish.

[Joe Elliott]

Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones. More important, as you pointed out these are subjective interpretations of the Zapruder film, a film, by the way, that he thinks is inauthentic/faked. If it's faked then how can you say it's a reliable piece of evidence? Conspiracy game: if it shows a conspiracy it's real; if it contradicts a conspiracy it's faked. The same evidence mind you.

He's said that he believes that Jim Garrison showed that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspired to shoot JFK. Then went to the CIA with their plan. Garrison also said (Shaw trial) that Oswald brought the rifle that was used to kill JFK, i.e., it was his rifle that was used. But he also said he believes John Newman's conclusion that it was the Pentagon not the CIA that killed JFK. He also believe Veciana's claims that Oswald was handled by Phillips. So was it the Pentagon or the CIA? Was Oswald framed or a willing participant?

You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported. This is their problem: it's been nearly 60 years and each one of these conspiracy hobbyists has his or her own theory as to what happened. The CIA, the Pentagon, the Birchers, rich Texas oilmen, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans. It's like a conspiracy cafeteria where each person picks what he desires and ignores everything else. Sometimes they want the meatloaf, the next day they want the soup, another day it's spaghetti.

Michael. Before you answer any of my questions, I would like you to respond to Steve's post.

Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw came up with the initial plan to kill JFK and presented it to the CIA?

Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald was instead working with the FBI to assassinate JFK?

Did you hold one opinion from 2010 through 2015 and a different after 2015? If so, no problem.

Or have you frequently alternated between the two theories? Have you sometimes argued for a different group of conspirators?

If so, this sounds like the product of a disorganized mind, at least when it comes to the JFK assassination. Not a type of mental illness. Just not being able to keep you thoughts well organized and consistent.

[Walt Cakebread]

Michael. Before you answer any of my questions, I would like you to respond to Steve's post.

Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw came up with the initial plan to kill JFK and presented it to the CIA?

Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald was instead working with the FBI to assassinate JFK?

Did you hold one opinion from 2010 through 2015 and a different after 2015? If so, no problem.

Or have you frequently alternated between the two theories? Have you sometimes argued for a different group of conspirators?

If so, this sounds like the product of a disorganized mind, at least when it comes to the JFK assassination. Not a type of mental illness. Just not being able to keep you thoughts well organized and consistent.

Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald was instead working with the FBI to assassinate JFK?

Lee THOUGHT that Bannister and Warren De Brueys were FBI agents and he trusted them....Little did he know that they were two of Hoover's "Extra special" agents and they were plotting to assassinate JFK.

[Joe Elliott]

You seem to be referring to Z188, a frame with horizontal panning blur where everybody's cheeks "puff".

That always perplexed me about the Zapruder film. Why does everyone's cheeks periodically puff out at the same time? Were they all practicing for the U. S. Synchronized Cheek Puffing Olympic team?

[Walt Cakebread]

That always perplexed me about the Zapruder film. Why does everyone's cheeks periodically puff out at the same time? Were they all practicing for the U. S. Synchronized Cheek Puffing Olympic team?

Why do you say "everybody's" cheeks puff out at the same time at some point in the Z film??..... 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:

[SNIP]

Some additional obvious facts that refute the lone-gunman theory:

-- The knot of JFK's tie has no hole through it and no nick on either of its edges, which proves that no bullet exited JFK's throat. Any bullet exiting the throat through the front shirt slits could not have missed the tie knot and would have either made a hole through the knot or would have at least nicked one of the knot's edges, and no photo or footage shows JFK's tie knot even remotely so far off-center that a bullet could have missed it.

The WC claimed that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) nicked the left side of the knot, but the two photos of the tie knot plainly and clearly refute this claim.

There is a small nick on the tie knot, but it is very shallow, and it is clearly not on the left edge of the knot (see CE 395). This nick was made by
a Parkland Hospital nurse as she hurriedly cut JFK's tie to remove his shirt. The fact that the nick is not on either edge of the knot refutes the suggestion that a bullet nicked the knot after supposedly exiting the throat.

The FBI produced a misleading photo of the front of the tie knot. The photo includes a caption that reads "nick exposed white lining of tie." In this photo, which contradicts CE 395, the knot is contorted so that the nick is almost squarely in the middle of the knot. This was done to give the misleading impression that there was a hole through the knot, but years later it was revealed that the knot has no hole through it.

Importantly, although the FBI found metallic traces on the rear holes in JFK's shirt and coat, it found no metallic traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. When bullets enter and exit clothing, they leave metallic traces. Yet, the FBI found no such traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. Not surprisingly, the WC said nothing about this crucial fact in its comments about the tie knot and the shirt slits (WCR, pp. 91-92).

-- The slits in the front of JFK's shirt could not have made by an exiting bullet. The slits do not correspond to each other. They are not the same shape or thickness or length, and are not level with each other. The slit under the button is half vertical and half diagonal, and does not extend into the neckband. In contrast, the slit under the button hole is narrower and much straighter than the other slit, and about 1/5 of it extends into the neckband.

Anyone can look at the FBI photo of the slits and see these facts for themselves (FBI Exhibit 60). This is undoubtedly why the WC did not publish this photo.

Interestingly, we now know that the FBI lab report on the shirt slits did not claim they were made by a bullet; rather, it said they had the "characteristics of an exit for for a bullet fragment." Yet, when FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testified before the WC, he said nothing about this vital finding. An irregular-shaped fragment could, in theory, have made the slits. This is at least plausible. However, the SBT requires that a non-yawing, virtually pristine bullet made the slits.

In addition, there is no fabric missing from the shirt slits, which is additional proof they were not made by an exiting bullet. It is a revealing fact that neither the FBI lab nor Robert Frazier claimed that any fabric was missing from the shirt slits. Frazier surely knew that this fact alone almost certainly proved the slits were not made by a bullet. Dr. David Mantik confirmed that no fabric is missing from the slits when he examined JFK's shirt at the National Archives.

Another key fact about the shirt slits, contrary to another lone-gunman myth, is that the fibers of the slits were not bent outward. The myth that the shirt-slit fibers were bent outward, suggesting a back-to-front path for the object that made them, was first peddled by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. To its great credit, the HSCA debunked this myth. The HSCA noted that the FBI lab report on the slits said nothing about the fibers being bent in any direction.

So what caused the shirt slits? Obviously, just as Dr. Charles Carrico indicated years ago, the slits, like the nick in the tie knot, were made by a Parkland nurse as she hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing to remove it. When Dr. Mantik examined the slits at the National Archives, he found that they looked like "a scalpel incision." This, needless to say, explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular, and why no fabric is missing from the slits.

This also explains why there is no hole in the tie knot and no nick on either edge of the knot; why the throat wound was small, neat, and punched-in; why three Parkland doctors independently confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; and why in the Zapruder film JFK starts clutching at his throat before he disappears behind the freeway sign in Z207 and is still clutching at his throat when he is visibly and strongly knocked forward starting in Z226. The Z186 shot hit him in the throat, and the Z224 shot hit him in the back.

[Jack Nessan]

Some additional obvious facts that refute the lone-gunman theory:

-- The knot of JFK's tie has no hole through it and no nick on either of its edges, which proves that no bullet exited JFK's throat. Any bullet exiting the throat through the front shirt slits could not have missed the tie knot and would have either made a hole through the knot or would have at least nicked one of the knot's edges, and no photo or footage shows JFK's tie knot even remotely so far off-center that a bullet could have missed it.

The WC claimed that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) nicked the left side of the knot, but the two photos of the tie knot plainly and clearly refute this claim.

There is a small nick on the tie knot, but it is very shallow, and it is clearly not on the left edge of the knot (see CE 395). This nick was made by
a Parkland Hospital nurse as she hurriedly cut JFK's tie to remove his shirt. The fact that the nick is not on either edge of the knot refutes the suggestion that a bullet nicked the knot after supposedly exiting the throat.

The FBI produced a misleading photo of the front of the tie knot. The photo includes a caption that reads "nick exposed white lining of tie." In this photo, which contradicts CE 395, the knot is contorted so that the nick is almost squarely in the middle of the knot. This was done to give the misleading impression that there was a hole through the knot, but years later it was revealed that the knot has no hole through it.

Importantly, although the FBI found metallic traces on the rear holes in JFK's shirt and coat, it found no metallic traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. When bullets enter and exit clothing, they leave metallic traces. Yet, the FBI found no such traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. Not surprisingly, the WC said nothing about this crucial fact in its comments about the tie knot and the shirt slits (WCR, pp. 91-92).

-- The slits in the front of JFK's shirt could not have made by an exiting bullet. The slits do not correspond to each other. They are not the same shape or thickness or length, and are not level with each other. The slit under the button is half vertical and half diagonal, and does not extend into the neckband. In contrast, the slit under the button hole is narrower and much straighter than the other slit, and about 1/5 of it extends into the neckband.

Anyone can look at the FBI photo of the slits and see these facts for themselves (FBI Exhibit 60). This is undoubtedly why the WC did not publish this photo.

Interestingly, we now know that the FBI lab report on the shirt slits did not claim they were made by a bullet; rather, it said they had the "characteristics of an exit for for a bullet fragment." Yet, when FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testified before the WC, he said nothing about this vital finding. An irregular-shaped fragment could, in theory, have made the slits. This is at least plausible. However, the SBT requires that a non-yawing, virtually pristine bullet made the slits.

In addition, there is no fabric missing from the shirt slits, which is additional proof they were not made by an exiting bullet. It is a revealing fact that neither the FBI lab nor Robert Frazier claimed that any fabric was missing from the shirt slits. Frazier surely knew that this fact alone almost certainly proved the slits were not made by a bullet. Dr. David Mantik confirmed that no fabric is missing from the slits when he examined JFK's shirt at the National Archives.

Another key fact about the shirt slits, contrary to another lone-gunman myth, is that the fibers of the slits were not bent outward. The myth that the shirt-slit fibers were bent outward, suggesting a back-to-front path for the object that made them, was first peddled by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. To its great credit, the HSCA debunked this myth. The HSCA noted that the FBI lab report on the slits said nothing about the fibers being bent in any direction.

So what caused the shirt slits? Obviously, just as Dr. Charles Carrico indicated years ago, the slits, like the nick in the tie knot, were made by a Parkland nurse as she hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing to remove it. When Dr. Mantik examined the slits at the National Archives, he found that they looked like "a scalpel incision." This, needless to say, explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular, and why no fabric is missing from the slits.

This also explains why there is no hole in the tie knot and no nick on either edge of the knot; why the throat wound was small, neat, and punched-in; why three Parkland doctors independently confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; and why in the Zapruder film JFK starts clutching at his throat before he disappears behind the freeway sign in Z207 and is still clutching at his throat when he is visibly and strongly knocked forward starting in Z226. The Z186 shot hit him in the throat, and the Z224 shot hit him in the back.

You seem to grasp the concept there was only two shots. How do you now explain the wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You seem to grasp the concept there was only two shots. How do you now explain the wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?

JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).

Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.