Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Single-bullet theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Introduction

The SBT is NOT synonymous with the Lone Gunman theory. The SBT just explains how three shots could have been fired from one gun and caused all the wounds in the time span in which those wounds were thought to have occurred. Many consider it to be an essential part of the Lone Gunman theory. However, this was not the view of 3 of the 7 Warren Commission members: Rep. Richard Russell, Sen. John Cooper, and Rep. Hale Boggs, nor was it the view of the Connallys.Saskcitation 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The House Selection Committee on Assassinations concluded that the single bullet theory was correct, but believed (mainly on accoustical evidence) that there was still a second gunman who fired but missed the limousine and its occupants. So yes, the SBT and the Lone Gunman theory are not synonymous. — Walloon 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Various details

sorry, i think Alvarez' theory was separate. I got confused by JFK's "nuclear physicists" line. -- Kwantus 16:16, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re slight wrangle over "conspiracy theory" -- what i'm trying to get at, without actually saying it, is that the WC clearly set out with the idee fixe that LHO acted alone, and then filtered and wrought the facts to fit. They rejected a conspiracy theory (in the literal sense) at all costs, willing to kite this absurd MBT rather than admit the obvious, that multiple persons were involved -- Kwantus 17:18, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I recall reading that there's another problem with the 3-bullet theory: one of the shells found was damaged in such a way it could not have been the source of a bullet. Thus there's actually only two bullets available for the official nonconspiracy theory. I must try to refind that -- Kwantus 17:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I found a good page about it.[1] Apparently Posner tried to deal with this, but material like this and this and asides like this have convinced me Posner is quite simply full of it. (I'd love to know if there's truth to the claim he rewrote the book to support the WC after Random House rejected it because it didn't.) (Hm. I wonder how long it will be before a WC student says that the dent in the tail of the magic bullet matches the dent in the shell!)

Bullet trajectory

might need a little correcting: i think the bullet is supposed to have hit JFK in the back and turned upward, exited at the throat and turning downward -- ie more strange zigzagging. There's also the July 1997 kafuffle about Gerry Ford fudging something to make the path through JFK less crazy.[2]

Actually it did nothing of the sort. That would be the case if Connally had been sitting directly in front of Kennedy but he wasn't. He was sitting in a jump seat right centre in the car, not right, and Connally's seat was lower. In other words Connally's right was in front of Kennedy's left. In addition Connally was not sitting square on his seat but was sitting at an angle. The trajectory through Kennedy's neck to Connally, sitting lower down at an angle on a right centre jump seat, was a straight line, as detailed computer analysis shows. Indeed Connally could not be hit at that stop except through Kennedy's throat. FearÉIREANN 23:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Looks good, Gerd. What I started with was pretty editorial. Looks like you've added (or re-added) in facts but not skewed into opinion, which was th original problem - thanks. Skybunny 22:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Tague bullet merely fragment or whole

"one [shot] hit the curb [injuring] Tague" I may have miswritten that. I think it was a full bullet that hit the curb, but the WC--which is the context--may have tried to account for that as a fragment of the head shot.[3]

See the FBI report on the analysis of the curb fragment, August 12, 1964: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 27, WC 21 H 475. There was no copper in the curb sample that was analysed, which one would expect if the jacketed bullet had struck the curb. Also, the curb was a scratch, not a gouge. The FBI concludes that the mark on the curb was not caused by “the first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet”.Saskcitation 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Magic bullet

I just added a note about another meaning for "Magic bullet:" Paul Ehrlich's characterization of a goal which he believed was achieved with Salvarsan. It doesn't look right in the table of contents, though. If this article is to be kept under the heading "Magic bullet theory" perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. I hadn't actually checked before writing the note, but I see that the existing entries for Paul Ehrlich, Salvarsan, and arsphenamine all make specific use of the phrase "magic bullet" buttressing my assertion that the phrase is truly connected with Ehrlich and Salvarsan. Dpbsmith 18:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That material belongs on a separate "magic bullet" article which is not the same thing as the "magic bullet theory". I have moved the material accordingly. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

29+ Years Experience Investigating & Researching This Case

Anyone who would, entirely for free, and objectively like to have supplied for themself ANY specific reference you need for any detail, or, anyone who has never read the entire reports, never read the followup evidentiary and testimonies volumes, or never read for yourself the back round investigative files and individual documents performed by the following partial list of investigative agencies/departments/bodies, please, feel free, to contact me privately, anytime, with your specific reference request or constructive, detailed, referenced comments:

Parkland Hospital Doctors Reports, U.S. Navy Bethesda Hospital Autopsists Reports, Dallas Police Department Reports, Dallas County Surveyors Report, U.S. Defense Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Reports, U.S. Navy Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Reports, U.S. State Department Reports, U.S. F.B.I. Report, U.S. Secret Service Report, U.S. National Security Agency Report, Texas Attorney General Report, Texas Rangers Investigative Reports, U.S. Warren Commission Report, U.S. Warren Commission Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Ramsey Panel Report, U.S. Ramsey Panel Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Report, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Report U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Committee on Ballistic Acoustics Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies.

As of 2004, I have also spoken directly with Dealey Plaza witnesses and before-and-after assassination-related-events witnesses, still living or now dead, detailed in a personal database of over 4200+ persons.

The vast majority of persons (including historians, and, supposed, historians) who make too-broad, too-generalized comments may not have actually read these entire complete reports, nor actually read the entire supporting volumes, nor actually read publicly available investigative backround files and individual documents (1000's of pages of which are still classified against public availability), nor actually have spoken directly with assassination witnesses nor events observed witnesses. I have 29+ years experience of direct involvement as an investigator for, and research into, the micro-details of the assassination of President Kennedy for anyone who wants to, objectively, understand, and decide for him or herself the details, and truth, of what transpired on November 22, 1963.

When my free time allows, I will be updating with specific primary references of important, often overlooked details, from my 29+ year database.

JFKtruth 14:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind, JFKtruth, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and edits must comply with its Neutral Point of View policy. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, "JFKtruth's" comments above do not contain one, single expression that is not neutral. I, for one, am interested in someone who has stated he/she has a 29+ year backround investigating the case. Almost sounds to me as if "JFKtruth" may have had an official relationship investigating the case, and that could be very enlightening.

Just because one person "A" has learned and shared information that a person "B" has not learned yet does not mean that person "A" is sharing information via a "soapbox."

Unless anyone can specifically point out for us what he or she thinks is a biased comment made by "JFKtruth" in "JFKtruth's" comments above, I would suggest that, specifically, "BoNoMoJo" (a.k.a. "B") contain himself or herself to the full-time job the vast majority of us each have of worrying more about himself or herself, rather than being opinionated ("BoNoMoJo's" "soapbox" quip), nor attempting to be psuedo-bossy.

Just because the WC and HSCA final report is each written one way, does not even come close to indicating that when you have actually read the 1000's of investigatory notes and investigatory reports in the investigatory files that lead to what, should have been, the final report conclusion. The simple fact is the investigatory notes, the investigatory reports, and the investigatory files information, when actually read and actually understood as a whole, reveals completely different facts that were not printed in the WC and HSCA final report because the WC and HSCA (albeit deliberately?), and for assassination-illuminating reasons, chose to ignore, omit, etc., from the final report when the WC and HSCA sealed the files until 2039 trying to hide the micro-detailed investigatory facts from the people.

IOW, the final report and the investigated facts of the case are 2 distinctly separate issues, as anyone who has actually read them can easily read and then understand. -152.163.253.9 12:00 June 15, 2004 (UTC)

152.163.253.9, See my recent comments below. —B|Talk 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving this material and redirecting the article

TO accord with NPOV policy, this article should be at single bullet theory, not [[magic bullet theory]]. B 18:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

In line with my comment of over five months ago, I will be moving this article to single bullet theory. —B|Talk 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Should be: Single-Bullet Theory, or Single-bullet theory. I prefer the Title Case Version, as it was a specific theory known by that specific name. See contemporary magazine cover. User:Pedant (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV msg and Controversy message

My latest edits to NPOV the article have made it sufficiently neutral to remove the NPOV warning at the beginning of the article. I've replaced that warning with the controversy message. —B|Talk 20:14, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Controversial because it documents Warren Commission & HSCA documented investigatory backround facts?!?

The current article as it stands does an outstanding job detailing investigated backround information documented by the WC and the HSCA, that any/all individuals are free to research for themself. (as a majority of persons who have actually read the investigatory backround information can discover, some of the important backround investigatory information was hidden when the WC (via Lyndon Johnson's order) and HSCA tried to seal/hide the records until 2039)

I disagree that the article is controversial.

It is the WC and HSCA, theorized, "single bullet theory" itself that IS controversial because the WC and HSCA documented investigatory backround facts, much to the chagrin of the WC and HSCA apologists, do not even support what the WC and HSCA printed in their final report.

The Wikipedia "single bullet theory" article itself is not controversial because it does provide and documents those investigatory backround facts. Some are trying to, imho, mistakenly (accidentally or deliberately?) blend 2 separate and distinct issues.

Of important note is that the WC final report itself could not even come to a WC agreement as to exactly when the, theorized, so-called "single bullet theory" occured. Additionally, The HSCA final report did not even agree with any of the WC theorized time points on when the, theorized, "single bullet theory" even occurred during the assassination. (the HSCA claimed the, theorized, "single bullet theory" occured at Z-190, --even though President Kennedy was hidden by the large live-oak tree from the, supposed, WC "snipers lair"-- but the WC was so nebulous about it that it, instead, gave the sbt a time frame of seconds during which the WC theorized it occured because before even theorizing about the sbt --which the WC did not theorize the sbt until the wounding of James Tague became more public knowledge 6 months after the assassination-- the WC at its Nov'63 outset --guided by Hoover and the FBI, the WC's main investigatory information supplier-- narrow-mindedly, was constrained to a time frame because it started its theory from the premise that there was only one assassin=talk about biased, pre-emptive, circular "logic"!)

As most persons who have read it have learned, the HSCA final report concluded, "that there was a probable conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy."

Much to the chagrin of a minority, the "single bullet," as a majority have learned for themself, really is the "magic bullet" that has been kept out of public view by the U.S. National Archives for going on 41 years. -152.163.253.9 11:41, June 15, 2004 (UTC)

152.163.253.9, nearly the entirety of your comments above are irrelevant (not to mention untimely) and appear to be based on a poor understanding of wikipedia policy regarding "controversy", "neutral point of view" and other article disclaimers. Rather than rant on, please educate yourself about these policies. The issue is not whether such-and-such fact or report is controversial, but whether the subject-matter is controversial...and this article deals with a controversial topic. For that matter it doesn't matter whether the article perfectly complies with the "neutral point of view" (which it arguably does not now comply), it would still be a controversial topic simply because there is more than one point of view on this topic and the differing sides are often divisive. In order to avoid edit wars, a controversy message advises potential editors to proceed with caution when editing to avoid violating the NPOV policy. As the article stands now, it complies well enough with the NPOV policy, but even the most informed person on this topic must present material under the NPOV policy. Contrary to what your grade school teacher told you, facts do NOT speak for themselves. If you have an agenda to prove that the "facts" do "prove" or "disprove" some theory, I suggest you take your soapbox to another forum because the wikipedian community will not accept a POV article. —B|Talk 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

description of external links

Despite 152.163.253.9's assertion, the external link to [4] is NOT a link to "modeling" evidence, nor does the website purport to be so. It is merely an interpretation of the meaning of various pictures and diagrams...which are not models. Modeling is a unique method often requiring technical expertise to create the model. —B|Talk 16:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

who refers to it as "magic bullet theory"

It is informative, relevant and NPOV to note who refers to this theory as the "magic bullet theory", namely, skeptics and conspiracy theorists. Censoring this material is inappropriate. —B|Talk 17:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

pictures

I’ve replaced the picture of dubious provenance and a strongly POV caption with two views of the bullet from the National Archives, and thus public domain. Gamaliel 02:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance

Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance 205.188.116.199 16:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations

Hello. I am working on this topic in the french wikipedia. Somebody created recently there a "magic bullet" page that is pure conspiration theory (Garrison type). Preparing to edit this page, I decided to create some illustrations, as I was not sure about the licence of the various picture you can find on the web. So I have created 2 graphics that I uploaded to commons. You can find them there, I let you with the decision whether or not they are appropriate to use in this topic. Alex lbh 6 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

More graphics and photos uploaded to Commons. They are now all on a specific JFK assassination graphics page in Commons. Alex lbh 09:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Harassment documented?

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, who, according to critics, later changed his mind that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents a documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

This is a bit of a mess. I've cleaned it up to read:

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, but then, according to critics, later changed his mind to claim that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents, as documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

However, I'm not at all sure that this is what was intended.... were the doctor's claims of harrassment documented several times in the weeks following the assassination (it seems unlikely that he'd become so vocal about this if he'd been so successfully intimidated as to "change his mind" about a key piece of evidence)? Or was it his original claim (that the wound was an "entry" point) that was documented several times?

Please review, clarify and cite sources. TheMadBaron 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Channel?

An episode on the Discovery Channel of its series Unsolved History recreated the angles, ammunition, trajectory, etc. of the Oswald shot and made a case that it is, at least, plausible that a single bullet caused the wounds described in the autopsy records--should any mention be made of this in the article? I don't know how we treat television evidence (although what I saw seemed very well documented and carefully done), and certainly it doesn't lay the matter to rest (because a single bullet could have done this doesn't mean it did), but I thought it might be a valid inclusion. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, the Discovery Myth Busters replicated the the assassination shot with two manequin made of ballistic gelatin and bones, a car of the same make and model, the Italian rifle, the same distance, direction and angle of the shot. The result was a nearly identical senario--one bullet, multiple wounds (one short of the historic number) and confused a forensics expert, to boot. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

JFK: Reloaded

I thought that the game was intended to prove a three-bullet theory. The assassination summary lists accuracy of three shots, not one.

Now with a signature! Miguel Cervantes 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neck wound location

RPJ has stuck in the following nonsense: "President Kennedy's Death Certificate places the bullet wound to Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra. [5]" If you click on the link to see the death certificate you see it mentions a lumbar SCAR and knee SCAR (the lumbar area is in the lower back-- this is JFK's old back surgery scar) and says NOTHING about the location of the neck wound. I am left to the conclusion that RPJ cited this and didn't even bother to read it. Take all the stuff OUT, RPJ.

The frantic reader above has just made the most basic mistake in doing research: He only read a document until he found something that he thinks supports what he already believes and then doesn't finish reading the document.

It is not on the first page of Kennedy's Death Certificate that describes the location of the bullet wound to the President's back. Instead, it is on the second page of the Death Certificate. On the second page, Dr. Burkely identifies the location of the bullet wound to the back being at the third thoracic vertebra.

The reader should please go back to the Kennedy Death Certificate and turn to page two. [6]

After over forty years of controversy, the hope is that the political reasons for the secrecy and confusing account surrounding the president's death can be put aside and the documents reviewed in a calm logical manner.

RPJ 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Okay, I now see page 2. I don't think I've ever seen a typed addendum to a death certificate, so it's hardly expected. Dr. Berkely must have been confused about what a death certificate is for.

One of the autopsy photos looks at this wound from behind, and you see basically the entire right upper skull blasted away, However, the scalp is very, very tough (the hair through it acts like re-bar) and it appears that little of JFK's scalp was actually gone, even if he was missing some of the side of his skull and brain. With the scalp sides down, you get the Dallas rear wound if that flap is back. With the rear flap pulled over to show the small entrance hole (as Humes does in another famous photo) you see no big wound in the back of the head at all (this flap is covering a loss of skull underneath, with a beveled half-hole at the edge of what is gone). Put ALL the flaps back, with some artificial support with cement underneath (as the morticians finally did after the autopsy), and you see the head miraculously undamaged, with hair combed normally. Which Admiral Burkely, his doctor, reports. JFK was prepared relatively quickly for open-coffin viewing by all accounts (not just Burkely's-- also the mortician), and nobody needed a toupee to do it with. But all of this has confused many people. It needn't if you remember all or nearly all, of the scalp is there.

Speaking of which, Dr. Burkely's report in the WC does not discuss wounds anatomically. On page 2 of the death certificate (thanks for that ref) Berkley does indeed locate the back wound at "about" the 3rd thoracic verteba, but I'm afraid the photos from the autopsy and the official autopsy doctors' report (which both show C6) has to take precedent over an informal report. If Dr. Burkely had some big inside knowledge to report, as you suggest in your revisions to the article, he should have included it in his 10 page letter, not stuff like how many flowers he gave to Jackie. In his report he does say he spent a lot of time shuttling between the autopsy and the family, so one supposes he missed the befuddlement of the autopsy doctors about an exit for the back/neck wound. Humes later found out about the trach by talking over the phone to a Dallas doctor, long after the autopsy had concluded. Wups. Dr. Burkely could presumably have put him straight if he knew enough to do it. But he either didn't, or was missing. So he's not in the picture as a big expert on JFK's wounds, no matter what he wrote on the death certificate, and no matter if he was both in Dallas and at Bethesda. He didn't do his main job given two chances at it (in the autopsy room and in his letter to the WC), so why should we assume he had anything real to offer?Sbharris 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know why the WC and the HSCA placed the neck entry at C6, other than the obvious fact that C6 was fractured in the X-ray, take a look at the JFK autopsy photos yourself (google JFK autopsy photo). In the photo of the back, you'll see the entry wound is in the neck, ie, it's well above the spine of the scapula (which you can feel on your own back if you care to) and well above the pack of muscle above the spine, which is supraspinatus and muscles leading from there Rhomboid minor muscle to the biggest neck spinus process, which is C7. Feel that largest protruberance in your spine at the base of your neck-- that's C7 (vertebra prominens). Anything superior to that is your neck, not your back, and it's marked with a dot in the photo because it's a prominant anatomical landmark. (JFK was a bit humpbacked, but C7, the major prominance in his neck, can still be seen as the part where his neck juts out the most, as in all of us). The ruler in the photo shows the bullet hole a bit less than 2 inches to the right and above C7, putting it in the region of C6. The bullet hole is clearly above the scapular spine, which can be seen. It's nowhere near T3.Sbharris 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To: SbHarris

- The doctor who signed President Kennedy's official Death Certificate was the President's personal physician who was in the emergency room with the President when he died, and attended the autopsy in Wahington D.C. He was a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy at the time. He knew the President well.

- I am happy that you read the entire Death Certificate of President Kennedy. The easiest way to tell if a document of any importance is authentic is to check for a signature. As in the case of Kennedy’s Death Certificate the signature is at the end of the document on the second page.

- As you were able to see, the second page of the Death Certificate, contains the official summary of facts relating to the death of President Kennedy. It desribes a second bullet wound suffered by the President that struck him in the back, which Dr. Burkely locates at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

You do not understand what a death certificate is or what its purpose is. It is not the place for "official summary of facts" in a gunshot death. That comes from the examiner's report and autopsy. Death certificates merely inform the state registrar that somebody has died, and (very generally) how they died. Detail is not wanted or needed, because only secretaries and statisticians will be dealing with the information. Don't make more of this than there is.Sbharris 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

- I am surprised that you attack Dr. Burkely in such a manner. He was the personal physician of the President and obviously held both the president and the First Lady in high regard. Besides signing the official Death Certificate, Dr. Burkely did write the ten page statement about the time period around the assassination. It is this document you ridicule. But, Dr. Burkely did not write this for the Warren Commission. I don't believe the Warren Commission had even been formed.

- What further surprises me is your advice to the reader to type in autopsy photo on the internet and make some decision where the bullet hit Kenndy in the back. Since there is so much controversy over the authenticity of Kennedy autopsy material, you should direct the readers to a reliable site.

The reason there's so much photo controvery is people don't want to believe their own eyes. If you have a "reliable site" for the photos please give it. The Assassination Records Review Board doesn't have them, because they've never officially been released.

I would suggest the reader look at the material assembled by the Assassination Records Review Board which was created by Congress in 1992 and entrusted with gathering authentic documents relating to President Kenndey's death, especially the medical records. [7] The Board did collect a large number of previously secret documents and they are being made public often with startling results.[8] RPJ 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevent. If you don't like the photos, read the autopsy report, where people had time and rulers and could later examine photos. These people placed the back wound 5.5 inches (14 cm) inward from the acromion and 5.5 inches (14 cm) down from the mastoid (that's that bone under your right ear). And over the TOP margin of the right scapula. I suggest you get out cardboard or two rulers and make a hinged bit with two arms 5.5 in long. If you're about 6 ft tall, have somebody line them up on your right ear and shoulder with your head erect, keeping the intersection above your right shoulder blade. You'll find this is nowhere near T3. Furthermore, the autopsy clearly shows the bullet passed over the top of the right lung, never entering the thorax, which would be impossible if it hit at T3. The tip of the right lung comes up above the clavicle into the neck. A bullet which passes over the top of it, bruising it, but not hitting it, must be passing through the throat. So Burkely is wrong. But why should be be right? Careful measurement of the dead president's back was not his job. Sbharris 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious mistake on this page that needs to be fixed. It says the back wound was identified as being at the level of C6 on the spine. This is nonsense, designed to support that the wound was above the throat wound. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, the supposed source of this location at C6, actually located the wound two inches lower on Kennedy's body, at the level of T1. This is demonstrated beyond all doubt in Figure 24 of the HSCA Medical Panel's report, here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0064a.htm. Dr. Michael Baden, the medical panel's spokesman, testified that the back wound was below the level of the throat wound. In recent years, single-assassin theorists have tried to move this wound back up to C6--the approximate level of the back wound in the Warren Commission's drawings--but this location has been fully discredited by the HSCA's pathology panel and the widespread availability of the autopsy photos. The HSCA released Figure 4, a drawing http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm of the autopsy photo of the back wound to prove once and for all that the wound was a back wound, not a neck wound. A wound at T1 would be a back wound, while a wound at C6--2 inches or so above T1--would be on the neck, as demonstrated in HSCA Figure 24. It's disheartening to see that Wikipedia has been so totally snowed on this issue.Patspeer (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By re-reading the entire discussion above, I see that sbharris is the major proponent that the back wound was at C6. This simply isn't true. As demonstrated in the HSCA drawing on Wiki's page, the HSCA doctors determined that the bullet traveled in an upwards direction within the body on its way to the throat exit, when the body was in the anatomic position, and that the only way for a bullet on this trajectory to have come from the sniper's nest was for Kennedy to have been leaning forward when struck. A quick look at any anatomy book will show you that the throat wound was at the T1 level. Now how can a bullet travel from the C6 level (C=cervical, neck) to the T1 level (T=thoracic, chest) in an upwards fashion? It can't.

When shown the autopsy photos in 1996, Kennedy autopsist Dr. J. Thornton Boswell testified under oath that the back wound appeared to be at the T2 level. This was even lower than T1. One can read his testimony, here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0079a.htm This meant that there was no group of doctors, past or present, holding that the back wound was any higher than T1. The statement that the autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound to be at C6 is unsupportable and should be removed, replaced by the fact that the HSCA panel determined the wound to be at T1 and said the bullet traveled upwards within the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ````76.91.34.82 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, RPJ. FYI, it means no such thing. It just means that Boswell, testifying 30+ years after the fact, is out to lunch. All the radiologists and the committees disagree with him. Where's your cite for T1 from the HSCA?? The photo [9] speaks for itself. You can see the wound is at least a couple of fingers' thickness ABOVE (toward the head) the spine of his right scapula. It's about on level with his shoulder. It's certainly downhill from the most prominant vertebral process on his back, which the ruler is lying on. And that point is the process of C7, which looks to be slightly below it. In any case, whether C7 or T1, it certainly cannot be T2, since you cannot enter the back at T2, leave a trail of metal fragments and buises over the top of the lung pleura and pleural cavity, and exit the throat at the thyroid cartilage, going over the top of the manubrium, which articulates with the rib from T1. It's very difficult to hit as low down as T2 and yet go over the top of the lung, plura, rib cage, shoulder girdle and sternum. Yet the trail of metal fragments in the body on X-ray, and the buise on the top of the lung without penetration of the pleural cavity below, tells us this is exactly what happened. So that's it. The pleural cavity is basically a cone with a truncated top defined by the T1 rib, and this bullet went over the top of it, without hitting anything. See the diagram in wikipedia if you're not getting this.S B H arris 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SbHarris, not one of the HSCA's "experts" said the bullet entered at the C6 level. It appears you're working backwards. You seem to think that because, in your opinion, the single bullet theory works, the bullet MUST have entered at a place where it would work, and never mind that the "experts" agreed that the bullet entered at a place where it probably wouldn't work. My research, available in chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer dotcom, shows why it probably doesn't work even at C6. It's called a spine. Any bullet entering just right of the spine and exiting from the middle of the throat would have to pass through the spine or its transverse processes. CE 399, on the other hand, lacked any damage to its nose, and almost certainly did not strike the spine or its processes. Your assertion that damage to C6 indicates the bullet entered at that level runs counter to opinions of the HSCA FPP and their radiologists. They, in fact, were much more concerned with the damage to T1 and C7, as demonstrated here; http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm In his testimony before congress, in fact, Dr. Baden, the HSCA FPP spokesman only mentioned one fracture, at T1, as demonstrated here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm Patspeer (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all in volume VII of the HSCA report, as you've noted. First, I admit that the HSCA pathology panel didn't think C6 had been injured, and it's fair to alter this article to reflect that conclusion (and I think it does not now say C6). The HSCA did indeed focus on right transverse process fracture(s) at T1, C7, or both (they disagreed as to where: Dr. Seaman saw a fracture at C7, but McDonnal and Davis saw it at T1. The final report says that air opacities make it impossible to be sure of a C7 fracture). The X-ray is at [10] and to me it looks like there's a neat round hole right through the process of C7. But I also admit it could be a round bubble on an overexposed film.
The possible angles through the neck are compared at [11]. It's possible for the bullet to exit at a higher vertebral level than it entered, if JFK is leaning forward and slouched, as he was to rest his arm on the door.
Next, it not me who's working backwards to put a through-and-through wound though JFK neck base, from back to front. As the HSCA makes clear, the apex of the right lung is bruised, without the pleura underneath it penetrated, and the shortest explanation for THAT is that a missile went over the top of the lung, buising it with a shock as it passed. That severely limits how low the path can be, but SOMETHING damaged the top of that lung, and it wasn't two bullets each entering into the body only a tiny way. Those who want TWO separate wounnds (one in the throat, one in the back) have to argue that they aren't connected, even though the lung between (and underneath) is bruised. And again, there's a problem that a bullet into the throat disappears before it gets to the back, and a second bullet into the back disappears before it gets to the throat. That's a little hard to believe, considering that there's work to be done and explained, between these points! Connect the dots, as the committee did! [12].
Finally, there have been many tests with the FMJ 6.5 mm bullet from the 6.5 x 55 cartridge fired by the MC weapon. It's a very tough bullet, capable of being stopped by solid wood without any deformation. It's been tried against very thin bits of bone like a transverse spinal process, and that simply isn't enough. This is not the same as hitting the major part of the spinal bodies. It's even possible that delicate things like processes were fractured by the bullet blast cavity, without being physically hit by the bullet at all, which may have passed between C7 and T1 (if I'm wrong about that round defect in C7 being a literal hole). Look, I can live with a wound as low as the top of T1, as this still does the whole job seen on autopsy, causing the apical lung damage without pleural penetration. All that is required is that the bullet pass over the top of the pleural cavity, and if it goes over the top of the first rib (which articulates with T1, of course), that does the job and damage seen. (Not to mention lines up perfectly for a hit in Connally's side). Whether the bullet hit JFK in the "neck" or the "back" is a gray area, as of course T1 defines the beginning of the back, and C7 defines the end of the base of the neck. We are right on the dividing line, and I don't think it makes a technical difference. Again, all that is needed is to go over the top of the first rib and over the top of the lung. I think among autopsy docs and M.D. reviewers of autopsy evidence, ONLY Boswell puts the wound so low as to make this impossible. S B H arris 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The bullet hit the back where Dr. Burkley described it

The bullet hit Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra just as Dr. Burkely said in the Death Certificate. Look at the autopsy diagram, [13] Kennedy's shirt [14] and Kennedy's jacket. [15].

RPJ 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The autopsy drawing was freehand, and since it really doesn't reference any other spine landmarks, it's only approximate. The coat and shirt have the problem that a sitting man with his right arm held up to chest level (as JFK's was, in waving at the crowd) will have both ride up a couple of inches relative to the skin. That's especially true of the coat. The hole in the short looks about C7 to me-- just about where the spine is most prominant.

If you want to see exactly where the bullet hit, you need to look at the autopsy photo: [16]. The dot in the middle of the president's back is C7, the most prominent vertebra. The bullet hole is clearly higher, over the top of the scapula. No thoracic entry would allow a bullet to pass through the body without entering the thoracic cavity and puncturing the lungs. Yet the autopsy shows that something did traverse the president's body, and it traversed it over the TOP of the right lung, bruising it, and knocking off a piece of C6. There was also a hole in his throat at that level. The photograph has the right placement for such a missle striking from the rear.

Now, you can claim the autopsy photos have been doctored, but all three Bethesda physicans have had the chance to review them, and none of them thinks they've been altered. So you have the work of 3 autopsy doctors vs. Burkely.Sbharris 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, let me ask you for your theory explaining all this, if you don't believe the Bethesda doctors OR the photo? Have you tried taking a 5.5 inch piece of cardboard, putting it at the bone behind your right ear, and seeing where the end winds up, on your "back"? TRY THIS. If you can get it down to L3 in any reasonable sitting position, you're Tom Thumb.

Now, you don't like the Warren conclusion, so spin YOUR scenario out for me. The rear bullet hits JFK at T3, traveling through coat and jacket to do it, but it doesn't penetrate into the chest cavity because no hole is found through the lung (which it would have to be, at that level). We know JFK gets shot in the throat at essentially the same time, from the Z film, and he has a hole in his tie to show it, and the Dallas doctors saw the wound it made, where they made the tracheotomy. Now that's a coincidence-- two shots at once, nearly in line (but not quite, according to you).

The throat shot hits at C6 level, travels over the top of the right lung, buising it, knocks off part of the transverse process of C6 in the X-ray, then (according to you) DISAPPEARS. It does not pass through the skin. So you've got two bullets, hitting nearly simultaneously, one of which hits in the rear, and makes it almost into the chest, and the other of which hits in the front, traversing the throat, and nearly makes to out of the chest. Golly. Then they both evaporate. Magic indeed.

But if you take autopsy photo and measurments as accurate, of course all the above problems go away, because all wounds here are caused by passage of one bullet passing through from back to front (or of course front to back, but now you have to look at possible angles). Occam's razor, say I. Sbharris 17:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about Occam's razor.

Both the Governor, to his dying day, and his wife to this day, have been adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

That's fine, but the governor may be wrong. It can take a second to register a bullet hit.

JFK was hit at Zapruder frame 224 at the latest. Connally didn't react until 238, 1.4 seconds later. Look at Zapruder 230. JFK has clearly been hit, yet we see Connally siting upright, smiling, with his right hand held to the right of his body at shoulder level, holding his Stetson. The single bullet theory requires you to believe that this is a man who already had a bullet enter his back, break his rib, collapse his lung, exit his chest, shatter the bones in his hat-holding hand (which is not in front of his body) and enter his leg. That's one tough Texan.

Single frames lie. LOOK at the best image stabalized version of the Z film (it's the second link in the Z film wiki). You'll see that just as JFK emerges from the Stemmons sign, there's an instant where BOTH he and the governor react at the same instant. C's hands both fly up (and yes he keeps hold of his hat), his mouth comes open, and in general he makes exactly the sort of reaction somebody does when they're punched in the ribs without expecting it. WATCH IT. Watch it ten times if you need to. Something happens to Connolly RIGHT THERE. All of his later reactions are a slow roll into his wife's lap. There's no sharp movement anywhere to indicate a bullet strike later. Analysis of this frame-by-frame isn't nearly as good as what your brain supplies if you watch the movie. Here (wait for it to load-- it takes a few seconds) [17]

Bullets do not fall out of wounds. They just don't.

They do. In the Discovery Channel piece the bullet was moving so slowly it actually bounced off the Connally figure's leg. I saw it in slo-mo. But had it not hit two ribs instead of one, it would have penetrated the ballistic gel, I bet.

A bullet which travels through 2 men breaking several bones will lose some of its mass and be severely blunted.

Nah, that depends. You really need to see the Beyond the Magic Bullet special.

Then, of course, there are the fragments in Connally's wrist to consider. The Parkland bullet was unblunted and had 99% of its original mass.

We don't know what the mass of the fragments in Connally is/was.

The "cloth movement" stuff is nonsense. When a man is wearing a tailored shirt belted into his pants, and a jacket over it, while sitting down, and he raises his arms to throat level, the shirt cloth near the center of his back does not move at all. Try it. Joegoodfriend 7:05, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

You may need to move both jacket and shirt to get comfortable. YOU try it. If you look at the really good Kodachrome Image: JFKmotorcade.jpg that begins the JFK assassination wiki you'll see the back of JFK's jacket is raised quite a ways above the level of his tie knot, simply from having his arm up. Explain it however you like-- it's up there. Really.Steve 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop Reverting Bethesda/Warren Commission data

Inclusion of Burkely's death certificate is fair game (I only objected when I couldn't see page 2). Removal of Bethesda autopsy findings, just, because you don't agree with them, is not. I have included them without attempting to interpret them in the article itself, and you must do the same with your own primary source findings. Please carefully read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Ultimately, WP needs a "JFK Autopsy" article, gory photos and all, where people can debate all this.Sbharris 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bethesda autopsy data

I've included more Bethesda autopsy report data from the Warren report. It concludes passage though the neck with bruising of top of right lung, but no penetration into the thorax. That's not consistent with L3, but I let the reader draw his own conclusion. The Bethesda docs thought the bullet went through his neck, and they're the best ones to judge, since they had several hours of disecting and measuring to reach their conclusion.

I've deleted the reference to the death certificate in the heading. If it's death certificate vs autopsy findings, you can read about that in the body of the article. Sbharris 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Connally not hit at the same time?

Both John and Nellie Connally said that Connally was not hit until he turned to his left, but Connally did not begin to make the turn to the left until Zapruder Frame 310. So when they came behind the sign, what happend to John Connally?

The governor said he heard the first shot, and was turning to look at the president when hit by the second (which he didn't hear, but felt). The third fatal shot of 313 was clearly later, and noted by both Connallys well after the governor was hit. Since Connally never actually saw JFK clutching at his throat, it may well be that he heard the first shot that missed everybody, had decided to turn around to look, was hit by shot #2 at frame 224, and didn't realize it (the impact pain and shot didn't travel up to his brain and register) until he was in that act of turning, that you see. Right in the middle of that turn, the pain hit him. This is not crazy. People not realizing they've been shot until a fraction of a second later, is very common. And if you've ever stubbed your toe and waited for the pain to hit, you know the delay is juat about what you see on the Z film. Pain travels slowly. As for the kick of impact, it's actually mild (no worse on one end of the rifle than the other). Not enough to knock Connally over, nor does it. Connally believed to the end of his life that he wasn't hit by the same bullet that hit JFK in the neck, but he never SAW JFK hit in the neck! He never saw JFK hit at all. All he really knows is that he wasn't hit by the first shot he heard, which he ASSUMED was the one that hit JFK. As we know now, it wasn't. So that's resolved. Nellie Connally was sure the governor was hit by the second shot (she heard all three) and that also fits.

Reply: The problem with the above is that Nellie observed JFK reacting to the first shot BEFORE her husband was hit in the chest. Although Gov. Connally may not have seen JFK react to the first shot, Nellie (and many others that I have quoted in the Criticism section) did.--Saskcitation 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The WC also thought both men were hit by the second shot, and the first one (around 210) missed everybody in the car (probably it hit a branch, the street, and frags hit an onlooker near the underpass).

Reply: This is not quite correct. The WC was unsure which shot missed. There is a whole section entitled "The Shot that Missed". The WC was thought to favour a first shot SBT but in the end were not certain that the SBT was correct at all. Posner believes that the first shot missed (also preferred by the HSCA). No one has been able to explain how one of the shots could have been so wild to have missed the entire car (especially when it was so close on the first shot). At that distance, the car was a huge target that virtually anyone could hit without difficulty. See the evidence of Ronald Simmons, WC 3 H 447-448. Three FBI shooters using Oswald’s rifle fired seven sets of three shots as quickly as possible while aiming at three targets spaced at distances comparable to those from the sixth floor Texas School Book Depository window to the President’s limousine. All 21 shots hit within nine inches of the centre of the respective targets.

As to the evidence of a missed first shot striking something, the WC suggested that the shot or fragment which struck the curb near James Tague was from the second or third shot. Tague was not sure if he was hit on the second or third shot but believed it was the second: Tague: WC 7 H 555[18]. --Saskcitation 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the Costella Z film or any other stabalized version, and switch back and forth between frames 223 and 224, you can basically SEE Connally hit. His lapel flips up hiding the right side of his white collar, and he blurs out. That can't be anything other than a bullet through the chest. The lapel is down on 223, and back down by 225. As you watch the film in real time, at that moment, after emerging from the sign, Connally almost jumps and does a reflexive arm jerk with BOTH arms, VERY fast. It looks exactly what happens when you sneak up behind somebody and pop a baloon or hit them between the shoulders. Clearly, that's a reaction to something. Could be noise or a hit. I think the easiest interpretation is a hit. Even though Connally didn't feel the pain and blow for another third of a second, and contained to turn to look at the president, still reacting to the noise of shot #1, when he got hit by the pain and registered that he also was hit. S B H arris 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply. First of all, there is no physical evidence that a bullet will make a lapel flip. Bullets just go through cloth - they don't push them aside unless they are just about stopped. This bullet went right through the jacket and shattered the radius. Second, it is highly doubtful that what we see is a lapel flip. The bullet passed through the jacket front several inches from the lapel. How does the bullet flip a lapel without striking it? Dr. Lattimer tried to duplicate a lapel flip but could not. What we see is a decrease in the visible area of Connally's shirt. That is all. That can be caused a number of ways. Posner chose to assume it was the lapel flipping. It could be simply the result of Connally moving his torso to the right (ie turning slightly inside his jacket) and the later restoration of the visible shirt area being the result of the right turn and lifting of his right shoulder taking the right side of his jacket with it. Finally, getting the bullet to pass through the torso at frame 223-224 makes it very difficult for it to then hit his wrist, pass throuh it and strike his thigh. The right wrist is below the side of the car at that point on his right side (see his hat come up a few frames later).Saskcitation 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the lapel that flips, but the entire right side of his suit coat bulges out. You have a supersonic shockwave in there, you know. The "restoration" you see takes 1/18th second. That's not arm rotation-- that's airblast. Take a look at the difference between Z-223 and 224. [19]. And do I really have to find you one more line up of the neck, chest, and wrist wound? It really can't occur too many other times than Z-224, since the wrist is actually too HIGH after that, from the arm jerk.S B H arris 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Saskcitation 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC). If you look at the MPI frames from "Image of an Assassination", which are the best available, you can see that there is very little difference in the appearance of his jacket between frames 222 and 224. In z223 his jacket opens up because his right hand drops. He then brings his right hand back up in z225ff and his jacket looks the same as it does in 224. So that would seem to be explainable by the movement of the jacket due to his arm motion. I don't see any bulge there at all. Bullets go through things and do not impart much momentum to the things they strike unless it is hard and massive, which a jacket isn't.

Reply, If i can say something, if you look close to the frame's 222,223 and 224, you can see Connally's jacket flip up twice, first at 222 then it is normal at 223 and it flips up again at 224.

Reply by Saskcitation 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Yes. That was what I meant. There is very little difference between the jacket appearance in z222 and its appearance in z224 or after. The difference is in z223 where the jacket seems to open up to expose more of his white shirt. Notice his hand goes down from 222 to 223: it is visible in 222 and out of sight (below the top of the door) in 223. It reappears in 225 as he brings it up with his hat. I have no idea how a bullet could pass from JFK's neck at that point and strike JBC in the back without it striking JFK's hands which are in front of his chest. The trajectory from the neck to JBC's right armpit is downward. That is just one of several problems with a shot at that point.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Connally says when he was hit And the bullet did not passed by his lapel if you watch his jacket http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r64/jfk90/Connallys_Jacket.jpg

Again, Connally is not the best judge of the exact moment when he was shot. Due to the fact that the man had just been SHOT <grin>. You know? He didn't even HEAR it. He was in SHOCK. Okay? No, the bullet didn't go through his lapel, but it created a blast and shock wave which blurs everything in that one frame, near Connally. All this happens far too fast for Zapruder to be reacting to it (Zapruder's reaction to the sound happens a bit later, but you don't appreciate it from the stabilized film). Look at the moment the car emerges from the sign. There's a point THERE where Connally "jumps" and startles very suddenly, as if smacked, but nobody else in the car does (JFK's own response is hidden behind the sign). Watch the film again, is all I advise. And again. And again. S B H arris 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what about Mrs Connally she said she shaw the president's hands fly up his throat and after he did that, Connally was hit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Or rather, then after that, she NOTICED Connally was hit. So? If you look at the Z film, the governnor makes his startle-response (I think at the moment he takes the bullet) at the moment they emerge from the sign, and JFK has been hit, and has hands to throat. Nellie starts out by looking back at JFK, just as advertized. THEN she looks up front to see if the secret service people have noticed JFK's in trouble, THEN finally she looks at her husband and notices HE is in trouble (by this time, he's beginning to realize it, too). So now Nellie focuses on her husband and moves in toward him, and just about that time BANG, JFK's head blows up and Nellie pulls the governor down. It's not at ALL obvious Nellie knows the governor is hit, as soon as he is. In fact, since he's facing away from her somewhat and she's looking first back at the president, then up front to the secret service, it seems quite clear to me that she misses the exact moment her husband is hit. Which is natural. His head doesn't explode, POW. When he's hit he doesn't do anything particular dramatic except the arm-flinch, and the wife is looking elsewhere when that happens. S B H arris 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in 2002 Mrs Connally was at the Larry King Live show and she said,

KING: You had a disagreement over the -- where the shots went or -- Connally thought he was shot with the same bullet that hit Kennedy, right? CONNALLY: No, but everybody else thought he was. And they couldn't find... KING: The third bullet. CONNALLY: The third bullet. And, see, just think about it. Six seconds a shot. John turns, can't see anything. He turns over here, he can't see anything. He starts back and there's another shot. That bullet couldn't have just hung in the air. KING: Couldn't have gone through both? CONNALLY: No, it just couldn't have.

Criticisms

An interesting and overlooked criticism relates to the shot pattern observed by the vast majority of witnesses. As the Warren Commission observed, a substantial majority of witnesses recalled unequal spacing of the shots and the majority of these recalled that the last two shots were closer together. The WC did not really make much of this. But the evidence is more than merely significant. It is overwhelming. It is by this count[20]there were 44 witnesses who recalled the last two shots closer together, 6 who recalled it the other way around and 9 who recalled that the shots were about equally spaced. This consistency among witnesses is very difficult to explain as being driven by mistake. It means that this was the shot pattern. That shot pattern cannot be reconciled with the second shot SBT. Saskcitation 05:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, it could mean that the first shot missed, and it occurred earlier than we think it did (e.g., that Connally's head-turning reaction was not as instantaneous as we thought). — Walloon 06:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: No. This is not possible. If the first shot missed then the second shot hit JFK. Leaving aside the 17 witnesses by my count who said that JFK reacted to the first shot and none who said that he continued to wave and smile as we see him doing prior to z200, this is simply not possible if one is to have a shot pattern with the last two shots close together. Even if the second shot was as late as z224, you cannot get the last two shots closer together unless the first shot was before Zapruder started filming (224 to 313 is 5 seconds so you would need a first shot at least 6 seconds and probably 9 or 10 seconds before z224). Note: This shot pattern is actually the reason Max Holland has recently postulated such an early first shot 11 seconds before the head shot, (11 Seconds in Dallas: [21]). But this is obviously seriously flawed - there simply was not a shot that early according to the evidence. Saskcitation 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Z223 to Z313 is 90 frames, or 4.9 seconds. So, a first shot any time before Z133 (223 - 90) would create a larger gap between the first and second shots than between the second and third. P.S. Your article is very well researched and presented. — Walloon 06:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: A shot at z133 (which is the first frame of Zapruder's film of the motorcade) would not have resulted in the last two shots being closer together. And it is difficult to understand how 4.9 seconds would be perceived by so many people to be "rapid succession" or "very close together" or "real close" or "almost as if one were the echo of the other" or "practically no time element between them".

In order for the shots at z224 and z313 to be noticeably closer together than the first two, the first shot would have to be several seconds before Zapruder started filming the motorcade. Since Zapruder started filming about 1 second after Tina Towner stopped filming, this means that the shot would have to have taken place before Tina Towner stopped her camera. But Tina Towner said that she stopped filming and started to get ready to leave when the first shot occurred (see Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain Ch. 8, p 215-221; It contains references to an article in Teen Magazine in June, 1968 and also a copy of Life Magazine from Nov. 24, 1967. Trask quotes from the Teen and Life articles:

"Just after she stopped filming, Tina would later relate "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle that I had ever heard")

In her personal account which is on display in the Sixth Floor Museum, Tina Turner estimated that the first shot was 4 to 6 seconds after she stopped filming.

Croft also puts the first shot after his third photo (later shown to have been snapped at z162). Croft's account is also mentioned in Trask's POTP Ch. 9, p.221-229. Trask interviewed Croft and also obtained documents on FBI files relating to Croft's photos. Croft's third photograph was taken before the first shot. In fact, Croft moved further down Elm wound his camera and may have twiddled the shutter speed or fstop before taking another photograph which, he said, he took just as the first shot sounded. He thought this photo #4 was taken simultaneously with the first shot. Unfortunately, the shot was un- or under-exposed and there was a blank negative. The point is that not only was #3 taken before the first shot, it was taken enough before that he was able to walk, wind the camera and take another.

Betzner, Willis, Woodward, TE Moore, the occupants of the VP and VP security cars and many others put the first shot well after the beginning of the zfilm.

So if the shot pattern was 1.....2..3, the second shot was well after frame 224. Saskcitation 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Material added, earwitnesses, etc.

A lot of material has been added by anon posters. Since some of it says stuff which is NOT true (ie, that Zapruder thought people had been hit by this or that shot-- he says himself he couldn't tell if there were 2 or 3 shots), I'm going to remove it unless you source it.

Reply: I have posted the sources for all these witnesses. As for Zapruder, the transcript of his TV interview about an hour and a half after the assassination is given. He said:

And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.

So Zapruder was quite clear in his recollection that JFK slumped to his side after the first shot. The original WFAA-TV (ABC) interview is available on the MPI Teleproductions DVD Image of an Assassination.
--Saskcitation 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Ms. Connally and all three shots hitting the car, that's just wrong. The most famous Altgens photo, taken about Z-230 and probably in unconscious reaction to the sound of the second shot, shows JFK with hands to throat and his wife assisting him. And yet in that very frame, every single secret service agent on the running boards of the car behind is already looking upward and back, toward the TSBD. That's WAY too fast a reaction to a first shot. They had to be primed for that action by previous sound from behind (a shot before). And (by the testimony of many of them) they were, for they looked back and up immediately after seeing JFK hit by shot #2. But that first shot at Z-160 had no effect that anybody ever saw. Some people thought the second shot was the first, but they simply missed the first one. Many people testified to a first shot that was without effect. Zapruder jumps early in the film for no reason, and a little girl stops and looks around, all about Z-160. You can see the effects of the sound, but no effect on the limo. S B H arris 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to above paragraph: I am not sure what your source of information for your statement:
"As for Ms. Connally and all three shots hitting the car, that's just wrong. The most famous Altgens photo, taken about Z-230 and probably in unconscious reaction to the sound of the second shot, shows JFK with hands to throat and his wife assisting him. And yet in that very frame, every single secret service agent on the running boards of the car behind is already looking upward and back, toward the TSBD. That's WAY too fast a reaction to a first shot. "

Altgens photo was taken at frame z255-56. You can match Jacquie's hands to the zfilm and verify this for yourself. You are ignoring the fact that Altgens said that his photo was taken after the first shot but before any other shot. Although he was not sure whether there was one or two shots afterward, he was sure there had only been one to the point he took that photo. If the first shot was at z202, which is what Phil Willis said (it was at the same instant he took his photo which is exactly at z202) this gives the agents almost 3 seconds to react the way they appear in the Altgens photo.
There is a great deal of evidence that all three shots hit the occupants of the car: Many witnesses said the first shot hit JFK; the Connallys, corroborated by others such as David Powers, Gayle Newman, and driver William Greer, said that the second shot hit the Governor in the back; the Zapruder film shows the third bullet striking JFK. That is three shots, three hits. One can disagree with the evidence and suggest that it was not correct, but one cannot say that there was no evidence.
The Warren Commission obviously believed that one shot must have missed, but it could not say whether the first, second or third shot missed. It is a logical corollary to the single bullet theory, but there is no independent evidence of a missed shot. --Saskcitation Jan. 21, 14:00 CST

You are right, oh anon one from Canada, that Altgens is later than I'd thought. Yes, about 255 indeed (checked). However, you can't have it both ways. If the first shot hit JFK at 202 as Willis said from the sound, and you think it was a hit, then JFK sure did a lot smiling and waving afterwards, because you can see him do some of it, over the top of the sign. Now, THAT's a delayed reaction! On the other hand, the 255 Altgens frame gives the agents still 255-223/18.2 = 1.75 seconds to react to shot #2. I really doubt, but cannot prove, that all four would have managed that to a shot #1, in that time. A first shot can be anything-- a backfire, a cherry bomb, you name it. All four agents aren't going to stop looking at the president and look backward less than two seconds after just one first sound. S B H arris 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can see what JFK is doing while behind the sign. His actions are quite consistent with being hit at z202. At z207 he appears to begin reacting - at least according to the HSCA panel who looked at it. I can't tell. He may not have felt much impact and his reaction may have taken a second or so to begin - we may be seeing the beginning of it at when he emerges. That is not much of a delayed reaction - 1.25 seconds at the most and possibly as early as z207.

Forward through the individual frames at [22]. JKF's hand motion at 207 is merely the continuation of a right hand wave he's making as he begins to go under the sign. But you can see his forhead and hair for some time after that, and the top of his head (which you can identify by relation to Jackie's hat) doesn't disappear to 215. In no time is there any change in the height or position of it. Not what you'd expect to see of a man shot through the throat. On the other hand, at 224, you see a sequence where BOTH JFK and Connally sit straight up. JFK's arms come up (both of them) and so do Connally's. They are clearly reacting to the same event and it happens RIGHT there.

Reply. Reacting sure. But Connally said he reacted to the first shot. He recognized it as a rifle shot and turned back to see JFK. He said he just wasn't hit by it im the back. He said Oh, no, no, no before he was hit. He appears to be saying oh, no, no, no. around z235-40. --Saskcitation 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see JFK from Z-215 to 226, but based on what he's BEGINING to do at 226, almost in ballet time with Connally's beginning bilateral arm flex-flinch, I think they are both hit there at the same time. We can disagree on that till doomsday, but we certainly know that Connally didn't recall correctly doing what he said he did do, unless the Z film is a fake. So we can't trust the memories of a guy who's just taken a bullet through the chest.

Reply. You are assuming he was hit in the chest at that point. If he wasn't, his recollection might be just fine. He never lost consciousness. I am not aware that Connally didn't recall correctly what he did after the first shot and before he was hit. He was unsure exactly what his position was when he was hit, and he said so. But he distinctly recalled trying to look back to see JFK and I don't see him beginning to do that before z235. I see a rather obvious turn to see JFK in after that and it is quite evident from the Altgens photo at z255 that he is turned to the right. --Saskcitation 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your witnesses, you ought to call them earwitnesses, but it's clear JFK is shot while behind the sign, and there's a LONG time between then and 313. So the Earwitnesses are wrong about the short interval there, unless there's there an extra shot which has no effect on anybody. If you want to shoot JFK through the neck at 206, you need to do it with a bullet that then just disappears. If the earwitnesses say that happened, I'm just going to assume they didn't "hear" the second shot until they saw the president react to it, and that was the point they realized it WAS a shot, and committed that as fact to memory. WHich is a tricky thing. Don't place too much evidence on testimony. You may have written a whole paper on this, but that only makes you more partisan.S B H arris 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You are just going to assume that 44 witnesses who recalled hearing a distinct pattern were wrong because they don't fit with what you see in the zfilm? I would suggest that one should try to see if there is a reasonable interpretation of the zfilm that is consistent with the shot pattern. I don't see any reason in the evidence why these 44 witnesses got it wrong - all the same way. What is the explanation? Besides, the witnesses said that they saw JFK react to the first shot, not the second. Why would they not hear a shot when it sounded?--Saskcitation 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we cannot say with any confidence what is and what is not a reasonable reaction to these events. We have to look at the evidence and stay away from "expert" opinions. The "science" of interpreting reactions is fraught with uncertainty. The evidence of many witnesses converges on a first shot at z200 or so. This is a complicated analysis but essentially it involves looking at the testimony of witnesses along Elm St. near the President and relating their actual location to their descriptions of where the President was in relation to where they were standing when they heard the first shot.

Another important body of consistent evidence is ths shot pattern: 44 witnesses recalled confidently the shot pattern of: shot, long pause, shot, short pause shot. 6 witnesses thought it was the other way around, but none were confident. 10 thought the shots were about equally spaced, but none were confident. If you would like to read my paper on the shot pattern, you can download it at http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf The 1......2...3 shot pattern is wholly inconsistent with a second shot SBT. The only possibility for the SBT with this shot pattern is a first shot SBT. --Saskcitation, Jan 21, 2007, 14:20 CST.

I see no reason at all to stay away from "expert opinions." I do see a lot of evidenc from law (DNA evidence and so on) plus a HUGE social psychology experimental literature, that witness testimony on events is NOT to be trusted, except in VERY special circumstances (ie, you see somebody know know previously very, very well, so something very very simple and bad).

Reply. How about a cite? Courts rely on witness evidence every day. Our laws make it very difficult to ignore corroborated witness evidence. I happen to be a Canadian trial lawyer with 25 years of trial and appellate experience, so I would challenge you on any blanket statement that in law witnesses are presumptively not reliable.
Of course, witnesses can be reliable or unreliable. Knowing how to tell the difference is important. Courts and investigators depend on witness testimony and generally do not have difficulty distinguishing between recollections that are reliable and those that are not. Psychologists have tested and studied witness perception, memory and recall under a variety of conditions. While these studies confirm that individual witnesses are fallible, they show that honest witness recollection is, more often than not, accurate - with the greatest accuracy on the most salient details. Courts find it safe to rely on witness testimony where the testimony is consistent with other evidence and particularly if there is corroboration on material details.
See: Elizabeth Loftus on Witness reliability. Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 25 ff. She lists several studies showing that witnesses are quite reliable on salient details. Not 100%, but even with suggestions being made to them, witnesses are right 60% of the time and when not interfered with over 90%. So when you get several witnesses saying the same thing either they made the same mistake for a common reason or actually observed the same thing.
Hate to burst that bubble, but Loftus has since moved on, with a new edition of her book, and is now a darling of the witness-distrusters, especially now the DNA is making her look really good in a lot of cases. [23] also [24]S B H arris 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I think you are overstating Loftus' point. She does not say that witnesses tend to get things wrong more often than not. She says witness evidence needs corroboration in order to support a reliable conviction. This is a quote from the article you cited:

"LOFTUS: Often times, eyewitness testimony is accurate and in many cases has proven to be accurate, because you have circumstantial evidence. You know the victim's belongings are found in the defendant's home. The defendant's fingerprints are found in the victim's bedroom. You have corroborating evidence that helps to confirm that the eyewitness testimony is accurate. So it's no wonder that we see many situations where eyewitness testimony is accurate, we see it's accurate, we know it's accurate, it's just that fraction of the time where it's uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, that's all we have and it could be mistaken especially if things weren't done right."

Now with respect to the shot pattern or number of shots, we are talking not about one witness. We are talking dozens of witnesses that are corroborated by other evidence. For example, the shot pattern is corroborated by the zfilm: witnesses who said that JBC was hit just before he fell back (Greer, Powers, Newman). He falls back at z280 or so, which fits the 1....2..3 pattern. Loftus does not suggest that such large numbers of consistent corroborated witnesses are unreliable. --Saskcitation 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The odds of 10 independent witnesses being all wrong on fact recollection in the same way become vanishingly small. This is quite different than eye-witness identification evidence. Such evidence requires extreme caution and rigourous techniques to obtain properly and is not reliable unless corroborated. Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, nonsense. Example: 9/11. A huge fraction of people interviewed later said they clearly remember where they were on 9/11 and that on that day they saw footage on TV of the first plane hitting the first tower, before the second one hit. They were all wrong. No such footage was available that day to the public, and nobody saw it. Not just thousands, but millions of people got it wrong. Just one example for you. S B H arris 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Classroom demos with video cameras of faked unexpected events (with later essays and then comparisons) are a must in every college Psych class 101. How is it that you missed all that?

Reply. I need a cite. I have read Loftus (see above). I don't see her saying that witnesses are not reliable, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence from some other source.Saskcitation 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you must go though all that scientific crap to become a medical or social psychology expert, and you just didn't bother? What?

:Reply. A cite would help. If it is scientific presumably you can give us a cite. Again, read Loftus. Courts accept witness evidence all the time and miscarriages of justice are rare. DNA is unequivocal evidence. You can't really compare the zfilm with DNA. It does not show Connally being hit. That is just a matter of interpretation.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if you think the single bullet Wiki is going to get skewed this badly by a paper from one guy (namely you) when a thousand people have worked for years untangling this mystery, think again. We have room for major conclusions from major investigations-- that's about it. I can name you three computer graffic investigations that see Connally hit at 224.

Reply. Cite? Not Dale Myers.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Dale Myers is one. And here's your cite. [25] and actually the better one from Myer's website: go through all sections.[26]S B H arris 07:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Myers just does an animation of the shots and trajectory. He never says he can see JBC hit at z224. Never. He is positing his theory. --Saskcitation 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He says the computer animation shows it THERE. How much clearer does he need to be? [27]

I can SEE that he is.

Where is the blood? How is it that David Powers, Gayle Newman, Wm. Greer, all said Connally fell back immediately on the second shot? All I see is a rather robust looking Governor trying to turn back to see JFK for three seconds from z230-270 - just as he said he did after the first shot and before he was hit. Altgens said his z255 photo was taken after the first shot and before the second. Nellie Connally said she never turned to look back into the rear seat after her husband was hit on the second shot. She is looking back as late as z260. So, while you may believe that you SEE him being hit, others who are just as honest and objective disagree. A public document about the SBT must point out all the evidence, for and against.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the public is entitled to assess the SBT against the evidence, such as the fact that 44 witnesses distinctly recalled a 1......2..3 shot pattern (ie. it is a fact that they gave statements recalling the pattern). Of course, that pattern is inconsistent with a second shot as early as z224. People interested in finding the truth will take all evidence seriously. I think it is important in putting out a public objective statement that you state the evidence for and against the theory and let people use that information to form their own conclusions. It is not up to us to say what occurred: merely to objectively provide the evidence.Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can SEE JFK waving at Z-204 with one hand, not clenching at his throat. GO back and watch the film again. And again. And again. Watch it till you get it. S B H arris 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. A human being cannot physically begin to react to anything in less than about 100 ms. and usually require 250 ms. to actually do something (like press a brake pedal). In the case of JFK, no nerves were hit and no bone (except perhaps a small bone protruding from a cervical vertebra). It may be that he did not feel it but only noticed the loss of function (breathing problem). If he was hit at z202 as Phil Willis stated (he said his z202 photo was taken at the instant of the first shot. Hugh Betzner said his photo at z186 was taken just before the first shot (as he was quickly winding his camera to take another). 2 frames is about 100 ms.

You seem rather defensive about your interpretation of the zfilm. Readers may wish to see what the witnesses say they saw before trying to interpret the film. Saskcitation 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK Lancer It says that Connally said in a Life magazine interview that he tought he was hit at Z frame 234.

Reply:That is true - Life, November 25, 1966. He also said it to the Warren Commission in 1964. No one asked him where he turns to his right and looks behind him to see the President. I don't see any such turn before z234 and no one else has been able to see it. Are we supposed to think it happened behind the sign in 1 second? Connally insisted that it was the second shot that hit him and that he made a turn right around to his right and tried to see the president after the first shot and before the second. So his opinion that he looked like he was hit at z234 is not consistent with the events that he recalled.--Saskcitation 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but again if you look at Myers' analysis there's a simple explanation for this. Connally does do a rapid right head turn after Z-160, which is when the first shot probably is. Not far enough to see the president, but he never claimed he had seem him. That's probably the first shot he remembered and the head turn he remembered making after it, also. After he was hit (indeed a later shot) he didn't remember any of the head turning he did after that. Or else collapsed it into his earlier looking-action, in memory. He missed the sound, too.
As for Mrs. Connally, she says says her husband was hit AFTER she saw JFK with hands to throat, but as noted, all that really means is that she noticed he was hit after that. After the throat shot the Z film shows her look at JFK, then up front to the secret service, THEN finally at her husband, who is starting to react. Again she may have collapsed two memories into one.
I mentioned the first-plane-into-the-twin-towers false-memories for a reason, and you missed it. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing Loftus says happens. People who saw that footage later, misremembered and thought they'd seen it on 9/11, when they really only saw plane #2 that day. That is, people who saw the second plane footage on 9/11 later collapsed that memory with footage of plane #1, available only later. It happens. It happened on 9/11 to a LOT more than 44 people. Why don't you get the point? If we had no actual record that plane strike #1 footage had not been broadcast on 9/11, and were going by witness testimony alone, we'd have a HUGE testimonial base that it had been broadcast on that day. But IN FACT it wasn't, end of discussion. No matter how many people THOUGHT they saw it. Okay? S B H arris 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply by --Saskcitation 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) All I said was that when 44 people agree on a particular fact out of many possibilities, either they were all mistaken due to a common factor or they all actually observed the fact. You cannot compare 44 witnesses independently hearing the 1......2...3 shot pattern without any suggestion being made to them (read their statements) to confusion on the part of many witnesses as to the direction of the sound of the shots (or the recollection of which of two identical buildings TV watchers thought they saw a plane hit on 9/11 - come on now). Many people were confused as to the direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza (although they still generally converge on the TBSD as the source). This may well have been because there were common factors relating to sound reverberation that distorted their perception of direction. What common factor caused them to hear the wrong shot pattern - all the same way????

--Saskcitation 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) As to a shot as early as z160, not only do the 44 shot pattern witnesses exclude that as a possibility, so do about 16 "first shot hit" witnesses" (see above under "Criticism" section); so do a similar number of witnesses who place the first shot at about z200-220: ie the 5 occupants of the VP follow-up car who said their car was just turning the corner (parallel to the TBSD) at the time of the first shot (it is not there at z192); the occupants of the VP car who said they had completed the turn and were going down Elm at the time of the first shot (it is still turning at z175); Hugh Betzner who said he took his z186 photo before the first shot; or Phil Willis who said he took his z202 photo at the instant of the first shot, or Linda Willis who said that the limousine was between her and the Stemmons sign at the time of the first shot (z199-204); Or T. Moore who said that the President was about opposite the Thornton Freeway sign (located at z210); or Wm. Greer driving the limousine who said the limo was just about past the west corner of the TBSD when the first shot sounded. No one said there was a shot any where near z160. And no one said JFK did not react to it.

These recent changes have really changed the balance of the article. I think we need to trim down or condens what has been added recently. The quotes, weasel words ("if one is to believe" ect.) and eyewitness testimony that contridicts the ballistics, or the Z film, need to go IMO. Some of the text is redundant as well. Mytwocents 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I am not sure what you are referring to. But you cannot simply ignore eyewitness testimony, especially when it is corroborated by many witnesses. Ballistics evidence and interpretations of the zfilm are not necessarily reliable. Experts can, and often do, disagree. Eyewitness evidence very often converges on a common scenario that can have only one reasonable explanation: it was observed. This is the case with respect to the shot pattern witnesses. The convergence of 44 witnesses on the same shot pattern is signficant and cannot be explained by 44 witnesses having the same incorrect recollection at random. Either they all made the same error due to a common factor or they actually heard that pattern. If it does not fit with an expert's interpretation of the physical evidence, then the opinion should be questioned. A good example is the expert opinion of Dr. Guinn on the NAA which is now being seriously questioned. I would say that it is not balanced or neutral to prefer expert evidence over witness evidence. Let's include it all and let the reader make up his/her own mind.Saskcitation 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Basics

This article is far too long and detailed, while at the same lacks in-line citations for many of its claims. It is biased throughout, nowhere providing a clear, concise and objective description. For example, the introduction contains a sarcastic criticism of the theory. The remarkable length of this talk page and the theory-wars within it is indicative of authors who misunderstand the basic function of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.197.84 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 2.8 million articles in English alone. Thus, is it not a "basic encyclopedia," but a library of 10,000 volumes, at least. Why you believe that something which is NOT a basic encyclopedia should perform the function of a basic encyclopedia, is beyond me. If you want a basic encyclopedia, buy one. S B H arris 06:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 76. I mean, buried in the long-winded argument I am in the midst of above with Sask is my point that, uh, the reasons why he Warren Commission saw fit to come up with the theory in the first place are lacking, something which if fixed would make this article somewhat more coherent. AS for the sneering criticism of the theory, I am shocked - shocked! - that the various sneering writers haven't documented each layer of skin the bullet pierced - "...the bullet then pierced the epidermis layer of skin, followed by the dermis layer, and finally the hypodermis layer before proceeding to penetrate the muscle..." .

When the reasons the Warren Commission came up with the theory are made clear, and the various corroborative pieces of evidence were arrived at, one can see this was not simply some desperate attempt to "explain away" something here but the only solution to some evidentiary problems. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions on "Shot Pattern" section and "The Right to Left Trajectory from 6th Floor Window" section

A cursory look at these sections reveal the same problem I note above with the "missed shot" section. While I think a lot of work needs to be done on stuff here which will presumably be retained if there is editing to be done on the page - such as supplying some citations for "the critics" of various aspects of the SBT (and I am well aware of critiques of many of these aspects out there) - it seems that the sections I mention here in the head are NOT critiques arising from various published sources, those who fault the SBT in whatever form. Correct me if I am wrong on this, anyone out there who knows more about those aspects than me, but I am unaware of these arguments being made in published sources. So, if we don't have critics citing a) shot pattern or b) right to left trajectory as reasons for faulting the SBT, then those sections must be omitted. As far as I can tell, there is simply a lot of links to WC testimony, nothing linked to an author making the argument. At the very least, we need to know, when it says "A further criticism..." in the first section, who is making that "further criticism," and when it says "...has also been criticized on the grounds that it does not fit the shot pattern recalled by most of the witnesses," who is making those criticisms. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)