cmikes, the vast majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were close together, and I have reason to believe that many of the "only two shot" witnesses may have interpreted the last two shots as one shot.
Alternately, many of the "two close shots" witnesses may have interpreted the head shot and the impact of the bullet on the head as two shots, not one shot and the impact of one shot.
There were three loud reports. The last two were most likely close together.
Three loud reports. Not three loud shots. Good, good.
I don't think it's a good idea to rule out the possibility of volly fire and/or silenced weapons.
Other than the fact that there's no evidence for either, you mean.
There is evidence that Connolly was hit by a second bullet that came shortly after the first loud one.
Depends on the meaning of shortly, doesn't it? Five seconds is a short amount of time, unless someone is putting a blowtorch to your toes.
Also, the incredibly likely fact that LHO could not have done all of the damage to President Kennedy, especially considering that the small circular wound near the EOP couldn't possibly exit from the top-right of the head.
All the witnesses that reported seeing a gunman that day saw him in the Depository.
All the shells found in Dealey Plaza that day were found in the Depository.
The only weapon found in Dealey Plaza that day was found in the Depository.
The only bullet found at Parkland is traceable to that rifle found in the Depository.
The only fragments found in the limo with sufficient lands and grooves to be matched to a weapon are traceable to that rifle found in the Depository.
The head wound was inflicted from behind and above, and only behind and above.
That evidence indicates to me that Oswald inflicted that wound to the head.
It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).
Hilarious. Stop reading conspiracy literature now. Of course they say that. They have to say that. They can't sell a conspiracy with the existing evidence because it all points to Oswald. So they try to find some reason to discredit every single item of evidence.
The typical methodology they employ is to quote some eyewitnesses (out of context is ok, three or four decades after the fact is acceptable as well), contrast it with the hard evidence, and then use the eyewitness recollection(s) to discard the hard evidence... which is the exact opposite way any real life investigation would proceed. Is it any wonder their methodology hasn't solved the crime after 53 years?
The sooner you realize the primary goal is to sell books to suckers the better.
They are not after a solution to the crime. The evidence points to Oswald. Throwing out the evidence doesn't solve the crime.
First of all, you are the one postulating that a bullet missed and was never found. I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover. There is also evidence for a broad bullet that came out of JFK's back.
The deep indentation is the remnants of a twig. The broad evidence of a bullet that came out of JFK's back is what, exactly?
John McAdams is not only a horrible human being, he is probably the worst source of information on JFK on the internet.
"Terrible human being" is just the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
Can you document ONE thing he said that's wrong? According to you, this should be easy, as he's "probably the worst source of information on JFK on the internet". Once example from his website -- documented -- should not be asking too much.
I found one.... in talking about the mysterious deaths, he says Mark Line is still alive.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
"4. Most well-known conspiracy witnesses and authors are still alive. For example, of the best-known conspiracy authors who wrote books in the 1960s, Mark Lane, Edward J. Epstein, and Josiah Thompson are still alive."
Clearly, he's lying scum. Unless you believe he wrote that over a year ago and hasn't updated it. Who will accept that nonsense?
I'm not interested in it. I know there's a House Select Committee earshot witness experiment which had results that overall said that while there were a lot of echoes in Dealey Plaza, you are most likely to correctly determine the origin of a loud gunshot.
Can you cite that experiment and the precise conclusions? With a verifiable link and quotes?
Hank
