RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Michael Capasse]

You really should try reading something other than the ridiculous  that the CT book authors want you to believe. You haven’t made any sense with this post. What point are you trying to make?

What book? - All are from the official documents
I count on you to post "opinions" from books 

[Jon Banks]

too funny 

April 27, 1964:
"Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building."

Seems pretty clear that they were trying to bury Kennedy's throat wound and Tague's wound at least initially.

[Charles Collins]

What book? - All are from the official documents
I count on you to post "opinions" from books 

I ask again. What’s the point of that post? Is there one?

[Charles Collins]

Seems pretty clear that they were trying to bury Kennedy's throat wound and Tague's wound at least initially.

Good grief, you are jumping to those silly conclusions based on what?

[Michael Capasse]

I ask again. What’s the point of that post? Is there one?

So called Independent Experts were called in to confirm one gunman: Oswald
The Executive Session is the Commission's realization - it is not an investigation; but an FBI confirmation.
Norm Redlich  - who you waived off as just one guy questioning what the report would say - as late as April - was the one leading the meetings
(that is from your posting from a book ) at the end of January  -  3 shot - 3 hits.

SBT was a result of a missed shot having gone public.
What don't you understand?

[Royell Storing]

It was like the gunfight at OK Corral!  I'm surprised any lived to tell the tale.  LOL.  Wasn't there an analysis of the witness testimony confirming that over 90% of witnesses indicated that they heard two or three shots?  Almost no one suggested more than three shots.  Even Landis was adamant that he heard three shots.  And although there was disagreeing on the location of the shots based upon the sound distortions in an open area, almost no one suggested that they heard shots from two different locations.  One shooter firing no more than three shots is the overwhelming take away from those present.

      The SBT aside, there's no getting around the "time spacing" between the 3 shots. The quickness cited by ear witnesses between the 2nd and 3rd shots rules out the bolt action Carcano being responsible for both of those shots. 

[Charles Collins]

So called Independent Experts were called in to confirm one gunman: Oswald
The Executive Session is the Commission's realization - it is not an investigation; but an FBI confirmation.
Norm Redlich  - who you waived off as just one guy questioning what the report would say - as late as April - was the one leading the meetings
(that is from your posting from a book ) at the end of January  -  3 shot - 3 hits.

SBT was a result of a missed shot having gone public.
What don't you understand?

Your “conclusions” are not supported by anything at all. Regardless of what was opined in an executive session of the commission, here are some facts:


“History Will Prove Us Right, by Howard Willens, pp.79-80:

Redlich and I shared the view that our reliance on an FBI we didn’t fully trust meant we would have to work harder and longer to be sure we checked out every fact. We felt the weight of the staff lawyers’ distrust of the FBI as they accelerated the pace of investigative requests to check and double-check facts. Rankin had instructed that all such investigative requests should go to me before they went to him for approval. Rankin also felt the burden as he approved the taking of sworn testimony from an ever-growing list of individuals with potentially relevant information.
  This process ultimately produced testimony from 552 people: 94 witnesses who appeared before the commission, 395 witnesses deposed by commission lawyers, 61 witnesses who provided sworn affidavits, and 2 who provided statements. In assessing this entire record of testimony, and more than three thousand exhibits, the commission had the responsibility to do what federal investigative agencies do not customarily do—evaluate all the available evidence and make reasoned judgments of the conclusions that are supported by that evidence. This process is one that lawyers routinely are called upon by their clients—whether public or private—to undertake, and the commission members and lawyers had a wealth of experience in doing exactly that.

[Royell Storing]

Your “conclusions” are not supported by anything at all. Regardless of what was opined in an executive session of the commission, here are some facts:


“History Will Prove Us Right, by Howard Willens, pp.79-80:

Redlich and I shared the view that our reliance on an FBI we didn’t fully trust meant we would have to work harder and longer to be sure we checked out every fact. We felt the weight of the staff lawyers’ distrust of the FBI as they accelerated the pace of investigative requests to check and double-check facts. Rankin had instructed that all such investigative requests should go to me before they went to him for approval. Rankin also felt the burden as he approved the taking of sworn testimony from an ever-growing list of individuals with potentially relevant information.
  This process ultimately produced testimony from 552 people: 94 witnesses who appeared before the commission, 395 witnesses deposed by commission lawyers, 61 witnesses who provided sworn affidavits, and 2 who provided statements. In assessing this entire record of testimony, and more than three thousand exhibits, the commission had the responsibility to do what federal investigative agencies do not customarily do—evaluate all the available evidence and make reasoned judgments of the conclusions that are supported by that evidence. This process is one that lawyers routinely are called upon by their clients—whether public or private—to undertake, and the commission members and lawyers had a wealth of experience in doing exactly that.

   Does your, "EVALUATE all the available evidence...", include moving a back wound UP to the neck? It's difficult to rely on WC "evidence" when it has been manipulated.