Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[John Iacoletti]

Before? How do you know that the back shot hasn't already occurred?

Exactly. So you agree then that Dan’s reference to the Croft photo as being “seconds before he is shot in the back” is unfounded, right?

[John Iacoletti]

And should we consider the fact that JFK is not sitting back against a seat and that there's no coat over the shirt in this photo?

Nor does he have a back brace on.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Nellie Connally and Jackie both stated that the first shot hit both men, referencing when JBC cried out Oh No No No, which Gov Connally stated he cried out when he was hit.

I'm sorry, but that's just comical. It is well known that Jackie Kennedy did not believe the single-bullet theory, and it is especially well known that Nellie Connally didn't buy the theory. Let's read Nellie's testimony. She said she heard a noise, that she saw Kennedy reach for his neck, and that Gov. Connally was in the process of turning around to look at Kennedy when "the second shot was fired and hit him":

I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck with both hands.

He said nothing. He just sort of slumped down in the seat. John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no," and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him.

So Nellie Connally most certainly did not say that JFK and her husband were hit by the same shot. And, of course, Gov. Connally himself insisted that he was not hit until Z234, and, after all, he was the one who experienced the hit. He looked at high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine and was adamant that he was not hit by Z224 and that Z234 was the frame of impact of the bullet that hit him.

In defending the idea that the shirt bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, someone else said (I'm paraphrasing),"We don't know what was going on with the shirt under the coat." Well, true. We don't know, but, gosh can't we use some common sense? When JFK was hit in the back, most of his back was reclined against the seat. Given the nearly perfect alignment of the coat and shirt holes, the shirt would have had to almost perfectly duplicate the bunching of the coat, both vertically and horizontally. You do not have to be a scientist to know that such a scenario is wildly implausible.

Furthermore, I see that SBT defenders are still ignoring the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch from T3 up to and over C7/T1. Just any modest bunching anywhere on the coat will not work. It has to be bunching that would pull the part of the coat that was over T3 and move it to be over C7/T1. The modest bunching that we see in some photos/frames in JFK's coat just before the shot to his back does not even come close to doing that.

Below is a graphic to give you some idea of the vertical difference between a wound at T3 and a wound at C7/T1. The graphic also shows how far down a T3 wound would be based on the white dot that was placed on the back of stand-ins to represent the location of the hole in JFK's coat in some WC reenactments (since the graphic is large, you'll need to scroll over to see the reenactment photos--or you can just click on the link to open the photo in a new window).


https://miketgriffith.com/files/t3vst1c7.jpg

[Jack Nessan]

I'm sorry, but that's just comical. It is well known that Jackie Kennedy did not believe the single-bullet theory, and it is especially well known that Nellie Connally didn't buy the theory. Let's read Nellie's testimony. She said she heard a noise, that she saw Kennedy reach for his neck, and that Gov. Connally was in the process of turning around to look at Kennedy when "the second shot was fired and hit him":

So Nellie Connally most certainly did not say that JFK and her husband were hit by the same shot. And, of course, Gov. Connally himself insisted that he was not hit until Z234, and, after all, he was the one who experienced the hit. He looked at high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine and was adamant that he was not hit by Z224 and that Z234 was the frame of impact of the bullet that hit him.

No, Jackie never said a word about SBT. She believed there was just two shots. Jackie could not believe anything but SBT. Gov Connally screaming is what diverted Jackie's attention from JFK.

Nelly, Jackie, and JBC all reference the same utterance of Oh No No No by JBC. Nelly and Jackie say that is after the first shot and JBC says it was after he was struck by the bullet.

----------------------------------------

How do you explain the bullet wound to Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

[Dan O'meara]

Before? How do you know that the back shot hasn't already occurred?

JohnM

The Croft photo can be synchronised with the Zfilm with a reasonable degree of accuracy to z160, give or take a few frames. Croft can be seen on the right-hand side actually taking the picture. As the Zfilm rolls from this point Kennedy waves at the crowd. He would not do this if he'd been shot in the back. This should be fairly obvious. It is a fact that Kennedy has not been shot in the back at the time of the Croft photo.
Less than 9 seconds after the Croft photo is taken the infamous head-shot occurs. We can be confident JFK is shot in the back before the head-shot so when I say that JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo, it is an obviously accurate statement. To claim this statement is 'unfounded' displays wilful ignorance. JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo is taken. That is a fact.

[Thomas Graves]

The Croft photo can be synchronised with the Zfilm with a reasonable degree of accuracy to z160, give or take a few frames. Croft can be seen on the right-hand side actually taking the picture. As the Zfilm rolls from this point Kennedy waves at the crowd. He would not do this if he'd been shot in the back. This should be fairly obvious. It is a fact that Kennedy has not been shot in the back at the time of the Croft photo.
Less than 9 seconds after the Croft photo is taken the infamous head-shot occurs. We can be confident JFK is shot in the back before the head-shot so when I say that JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo, it is an obviously accurate statement. To claim this statement is 'unfounded' displays wilful ignorance. JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo is taken. That is a fact.

Dear Dan,

Thank you for including the photo of Gloria Jeanne Holt, Karen Westbrook's and Stephen "Smilin' 'n Noddin' Fagin's ... uhh ... "Gloria Calvery".

--  MWT 

PS  I, too, think JFK was hit in the back (by the second shot that was fired from the sniper's nest) a short time after the Croft photo was taken.

[Dan O'meara]

I think you'll find that's "Gloria Calvert" according to Westbrook Scranton 

Don't know what your overall thoughts are on things but I thought the work by you and Larsen on Calvery was excellent and will take some seriously convincing counter-evidence to convince me otherwise. 

[Tim Nickerson]

In defending the idea that the shirt bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, someone else said (I'm paraphrasing),"We don't know what was going on with the shirt under the coat." Well, true. We don't know, but, gosh can't we use some common sense? When JFK was hit in the back, most of his back was reclined against the seat. Given the nearly perfect alignment of the coat and shirt holes, the shirt would have had to almost perfectly duplicate the bunching of the coat, both vertically and horizontally. You do not have to be a scientist to know that such a scenario is wildly implausible.

We know that the jacket was bunched up because we can see it. What you are suggesting is that the shirt wasn't bunched up. Yet the holes in Jacket and shirt basically lined up with one another. You're the one presenting a widely implausible scenario here.

Furthermore, I see that SBT defenders are still ignoring the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch from T3 up to and over C7/T1. Just any modest bunching anywhere on the coat will not work. It has to be bunching that would pull the part of the coat that was over T3 and move it to be over C7/T1. The modest bunching that we see in some photos/frames in JFK's coat just before the shot to his back does not even come close to doing that.

Below is a graphic to give you some idea of the vertical difference between a wound at T3 and a wound at C7/T1. The graphic also shows how far down a T3 wound would be based on the white dot that was placed on the back of stand-ins to represent the location of the hole in JFK's coat in some WC reenactments (since the graphic is large, you'll need to scroll over to see the reenactment photos--or you can just click on the link to open the photo in a new window).

https://miketgriffith.com/files/t3vst1c7.jpg

As Jerry Organ has pointed out, about an inch of bunch would suffice in getting the hole in the jacket up high enough to match the entry wound seen in the autopsy photo. An inch of bunch actually results in a little more than two inches of lift. We can't tell to exactness how much that the jacket was bunched at the time. However, the bunchup while on Turtle Creek was more than an inch.