Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The missed shot

I have omitted most of the text for the section on the missed shot for the very simple reasons there are a) no explanation as to why there is a "problem" with the SBT requiring a missed shot (given that the WC identifies witnesses which could place any of the three shots as the "missed shot" - including the third) and b) because the "witnesses" who it was claimed say ALL bullets struck the occupants most certainly do not support the contention that all three bullets indeed did so, with the sole exception of Nellie Connally who said JFK was hit, then her husband (John Connally, btw, claims he was hit with the second bullet, but from his description that "first bullet" could have been fired at 160 as he didn't see JFK and his self-described movements match his reaction from that point).

I have to disagree. You are expressing a POV. This article should deal with the evidence. There is a very good explanation provided: the problem with the "missed shot" is that there is abundant evidence that each of the three shots struck, as I have pointed out in the section now (just re-added the parts that you removed with some changes to clarify the point). If each struck, then obviously there was no missed shot and no SBT. (There is also no evidence of what this alleged missed shot struck). It is not necessary for each of the witnesses to provide evidence that all three shots struck. I am not sure why that should be an issue at all. It is rarely the case that a single witness provides all the evidence. AMSask (talk)

09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NONE of the other witnesses noted who heard or saw JFK struck with the first bullet say that they then saw Connally or JFK hit with a second bullet (besides the fatal head wound). The closest is Newman who describes a second shot, then Connally grabbing his chest, which appears to be more consistent with Nellie pulling him towards her. Indeed some, such as Hill and the Chisms, only heard TWO shots, so can't be used as a witness to claim all three shots hit their mark when, obviously, they only heard and saw two hit their mark.

What about Nellie Connally? She saw JFK reacting before the second shot and saw that her husband was hit by the second shot. Again, why does the same person have to see what both shots struck? None of the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot gave evidence that is inconsistent with the second shot striking JBC. Both Nellie and Gov. Connally said that he was hit in the back by the second bullet. Powers said that JBC disappeared on the second shot. Gayle Newman said he grabbed his stomach on the second shot. There is not one witness who gave evidence that is inconsistent with JBC receiving the second bullet.AMSask (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The section, IOW, needs to be rewritten to clarify why, if Kennedy was struck with the first bullet, that this somehow negates the SBT when the WC itself doesn't seem to have a problem as they suggest scenarios whereby a second bullet missed (fired around 255) or a third bullet missed (just before the limo went into the underpass). Canada Jack (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

JFK being struck with the first bullet negates the current "second shot SBT". The "first shot SBT" has been all but abandoned, it seems. In any event, it is not that the first bullet hit eliminates the SBT. The point is that there is evidence that the first, second and third bullets all struck in the limo. All of that evidence, together, negates the SBT because if there were only three shots and each of the shots struck, there was no missed shot. The missed shot is essential to the SBT. AMSask (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, Sask. The issue is not whether one can build a case that all three shots hit the car or the occupants. The issue is why is this relevant? The WC didn't seem to think it was particularly relevant to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. AS for the "second shot SBT," you seem to gloss over - or perhaps are not are aware - that the WC itself wasn't sure which was the missed shot. Your argument that all three shots hit is fine and dandy, but the way you have inserted it fails to state why it is significant (even if correct) and borders on OR. Besides, the WC had very good reasons to conclude that one bullet hit two people, and one missed. The evidence you cited was considered, and the WC concluded otherwise, as did the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

??Your question is rather odd, since this is a section about the SBT, not about the Warren Commission's conclusion about who shot JFK. The Warren Commission also said the SBT was not needed to support the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. By your standard, there should be no Wiki article on the SBT because the SBT itself is irrelevant. But here we are discussing the SBT. This is not an article about the WC or its ultimate conclusion. So the relevance of this evidence to the WC conclusion is not even an issue.

It seems rather obvious that evidence that all three shots struck JFK or JBC is relevant to the SBT, since the SBT requires that one shot did not strike them. It is important for the reader to know that the SBT does not fit this evidence. That is all I am pointing out.

You removed the parts for a reason that is patently incorrect: irrelevance. I wish to have these parts reinstated. This evidence that all three shots hit JFK or JBC is quite relevant to whether a shot missed, which is the essence of the SBT. But I am going to be polite and not simply reinstate them without giving you a chance to respond. If you can show that the evidence that each of the three shots struck someone is irrelevant to the issue of whether one of the shots did not strike someone, then be my guest.AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not doing this simply because of the past debate above. Putting aside my critique of the theory that all three bullets struck, assuming that your evidence for this is iron-clad and the argument cogent, the basic question of why this is relevant has to be answered as does the basic question for the purposes of wikipedia who claims that this is an issue and who claims all three bullets struck.(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The raison d'etre of this whole wikipedia page is to explain the SBT and show the evidence for and against it. The SBT can only be correct if one bullet did not strike someone inside the limo. This evidence is relevant, not to the WC conclusion, but to the SBT.AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way I see this as relevant - i.e., the negation of the SBT - is if it somehow implies there was another gunman. If it only, as you suggests, means an alternate sequence of shots, different from what the WC or HSCA suggests, but still concluding that Oswald did it, then it's not relevant. If you want to argue that, well, the evidence suggests that, notwithstanding the claims of others that the SBT is crucial to explain how Oswald, alone, fired the shots, Oswald could have landed all the shots, then as far as I know that is original research and has no place here unless someone is making that precise argument, ie., the SBT is not "crucial" because evidence suggests all three bullets found their mark. AS it stands, Sask, this appears to be your own pet theory, as I am unaware of anyone making this claim. Canada Jack (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is not about who shot JFK. It is about the SBT. The negation of the SBT is relevant only to whether the SBT is correct. Whether the SBT is correct is the issue. By your standard, one can only question the SBT if one is a conspiracy advocate. That not a NPOV position. With all respect, such a position has no place in this Wikipedia article. If you cannot tell us why evidence that all three shots hit is not relevant to whether one of the three shots missed, then you cannot say this evidence is not relevant to the SBT. So tell us, why is this evidence not relevant to whether one of the three shots missed? AMSask (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You suggest that the negation of the SBT is not important unless it implies there was another gunman. But negation of the SBT would not imply another gunman; Nor would it imply there was a lone gunman. What implies another gunman is the conclusion that JFK and JBC are reacting to being shot (JFK through the neck and JBC in the back) at Zapruder frame 230. This is why the SBT was first raised. Until April 1964, the FBI thought that JBC was simply turning around to see JFK from 230-270 and that he was hit around z275. Saskcitation (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp some pertinent points here, Sask. The issue is not the cogency of the argument that three bullets from Oswald's gun struck the limousine. Nor whether this is truly relevant (though I don't think it truly is, at least the WC pretended it wasn't). The issue is whether any source is making this argument. In other words, if we want a section here which argues that the SBT is wrong because evidence suggest all three bullets from Oswald's gun in fact struck the occupants of the car, then we have to have a source saying the SBT is wrong because evidence is there that all three bullets struck the occupants of the car.

Your condescension is inappropriate. I had no difficulty understanding the pertinent points you made before. I addressed them. You are now saying something quite different. First you say it is not relevant to an article on the SBT to point out evidence that all three shots struck occupants of the car. Obviously that argument doesn't fly. So you change your argument now and say that the real reason for your objection is that there is no source making this argument. It is pretty difficult to address a moving target, which is what your objections seem to be.

First of all, why do you view the reference to this evidence as an argument? It is simply stating the fact that this evidence exists and it is relevant and important because, if true, means the SBT must be wrong. To simply point out that there is evidence that all three shots hit is not to make an argument. It is to state a fact - that such evidence (a rather abundant amount) exists. Nothing more. The reader, when assessing the evidence for and against the SBT, will be able to understand it and evaluate it.

Second, the WC itself made the argument. It took painstaking effort to point out the evidence that each of the three shots hit. That it why it could not conclude which of the shots missed - precisely because there is abundant evidence that each shot struck. The reader should know this in order to assess the reliability of the WC's belief that the SBT is correct. AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, I do not suggest that there is a "requirement" that you have to be a conspiracy theorist to doubt the SBT. I point out that many conspiracy theorists doubt the SBT, but that they doubt it for entirely different reasons and I am unaware of any of them arguing that in fact all three bullets said to have been fired by Oswald found their mark. Therefore, what you are arguing here is something else, as far as I know a novel suggestion, and therefore Original Research.

But I am not arguing anything in the article. Nor should I be. I am simply pointing out facts - ie. that this evidence exists. My reasons for pointing this out are irrelevant and are not part of the article. This section of the article is under the general heading "Criticisms of the SBT" (the article should be restructured to show this clearly. All of the sections that follow this are criticisms down to the popular culture section). The fact that evidence that each shot struck is evidence that is fundamentally inconsistent with the SBT. This evidence must be taken into consideration when evaluating the evidentiary basis of the SBT. Now, if I have misquoted or misrepresented that evidence, you can object.

And, let's be clear here. Even if you have each and every quote here suggesting that three bullets struck properly sourced and cited, the argument that three bullets from Oswald's gun struck is the over-arching conclusion which needs to be sourced. Who is suggesting this? So far, only you as far as I can tell. And, again, this is not a comment on the strength of the argument you are making, just a problem that you seem to be the only one making it, therefore it is Original Research.

Well, the FBI was suggesting it until April 1964. So it is hardly original research. Any reader reading this evidence may suggest it to themselves. Mark Fuhrman (Simple Act of Murder, Harper, 2006) rejects the SBT for these reasons and others but still maintained that Oswald did all the shooting. The reader can look at this evidence and decide for themselves. AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But a note on relevance. The WC didn't say the issue was crucial, but the HSCA did. If the SBT was wrong, as the HSCA and many others have suggested, then that meant there had to be a second assassin firing from the rear. Literally hundreds have made this precise assertion on the importance of the theory to the WC's conclusion. But you are suggesting something entirely different - that the SBT was not crucial to the WC's conclusion. Unless you, again, have someone arguing that the SBT was not crucial (and the WC doesn't count because they said two, not three bullets struck), then we can't insert text which suggest precisely that. So, without an argument from someone, the issue is irrelevant as the only dispute sourced is whether a second gunman was present. Canada Jack (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The FBI (until April 1964) and Mark Fuhrman (2006) have maintained that all three bullets hit JFK or JBC. Re the HSCA: The HSCA was spectacularly wrong on a lot of things. The only reason the HSCA thought that the SBT was critical to the lone assassin conclusion was because it ignored the evidence of the shot spacing. Heck, it ignored all the evidence that there were only three shots too. Look where it got them.

What Wiki rule are you referring to here anyway? Is there a rule that says that facts cannot be mentioned unless they form part of someone's published theory? If not, then you have to let these facts get mentioned.

By your standards, one cannot point out the shot pattern evidence. The shot pattern evidence is inconsistent with a second shot SBT if there were only 3 shots in total. So it is relevant to the SBT. The WC pointed out the shot pattern evidence but it did not make an argument about it at all. What is wrong with pointing it out here? AMSask (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta apologize here, Sask. A re-reading of the article reveals a basic problem - there is no discussion as to the relevance of the SBT to the WC's conclusions, nor a discussion as to how the WC came up with the SBT in the first place. Because if there was - and there most definitely should be - then the problems I have identified become clear.

For example, the whole premise of this section is that the theory "requires" that a shot missed. Which in itself is ludicrous, because the original assumption was that all three bullets struck.

Not only is the premise not ludicrous, it is demonstrably correct. The essence of the SBT is that one bullet caused JFK's throat wound and all of JBC's wounds. The head shot accounts for the other bullet. If that is the case, a pristine third bullet could not strike anyone or anything in the car. That is not "theory". That is just unassailable logic. (Fragments from one of the other shots struck the windshield/frame but they were certainly not a direct hit from a pristine bullet).Saskcitation (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is what the FBI concluded in their initial report. However, as the WC gathered evidence they were struck by two problems: 1) only two bullets seemed to have been recovered and 2) JFK and Connolly seem to be reacting too close together to have been hit by separate bullets fired by Oswald. Therefore, far from "requiring" that a shot missed, the theory was created to account for the lack of a third bullet and evidence which suggested that JFK and Connally were struck by the same bullet.

This is not the basis for the SBT. The basis for the SBT is the following: 1) The bullet through JFK had to have hit something in the car. The only thing it could have hit was JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet: in the back; and 2) If JBC is reacting by z240, as FBI "expert" Robert Frazier stated (except that he said this is the case only if the bullet did not change direction in passing through JBC) there is not enough time for two shots to be fired from Oswald's gun if Oswald did not make the first shot while the car was obscured by the tree (which the WC thought was until z210). The WC mentions both (at WR p. 106 and 111) but relies mainly on 1):

"From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President’s neck and then most probably passed through the Governor’s body, (b) a subsequent shot penetrated the President’s head, (c) no other shot struck any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants." WR 111

"Based on the evidence analyzed in this chapter, the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds." WR 117

Also see generally: Belin, Final Disclosure (New York: Scribners, 1988), chapter 7. See also: “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt”, Life Magazine, Vol 61, No. 22, November 25, 1966, p. 48B. Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we add a section which traces a) the evolution of the SBT and b) explains why it was crucial to explain a single gunman. It's a bit ridiculous on this page to have sections of minutia explaining every layer of clothing pierced by the single bullet with virtually no discussion as why the WC concluded there had to be a single bullet. Which is a fundamental point.

The article can certainly be improved. A section on the evolution of the SBT from the first shot SBT (thought to be the consensus of those in the WC who supported the SBT) to the second shot SBT (HSCA, Posner) would be useful. The way in which the theory has changed shows how uncertain the evidentiary basis is for the SBT. But I would disagree on having the article state as a fact that the SBT is crucial to explaining the single gunman. It is only crucial for explaining the single gunman if the second premise is accepted (see above).Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is there where the evidence for a third bullet to strike - and the WC's reasons for rejecting that theory - should lie. It is, after all, what the FBI concluded initially and why they rejected that theory is important to note. IOW, we don't need a section which says why the SBT requires a missed bullet, we need a section which explains why the WC and the HSCA says only one bullet caused the damage and why that is crucial to their conclusion as to their being a single gunman. Canada Jack (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the WC did not outright reject the "theory" that three bullets struck. (It is not really a theory anyway. It is what the witnesses said occurred - hence my references to the evidence. The "theory" is that the evidence is mistaken.) The WC simply said that it is probable that all the wounds were caused by two bullets and one bullet, therefore, missed. Only 4 of the 7 WC members accepted the SBT (Sen. Richard Russell, Rep. Hale Boggs and Sen. John Cooper disagreed but accepted the conclusion so, presumably they did not reject the three shots three strikes scenario).

I don't see why we should not reinstate the references to the evidence for each shot hitting. If you like, we can just set out the evidence from the WR from the section on the Shot that Missed. How could you object to that? Saskcitation (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the premise not ludicrous, it is demonstrably correct.

Sask, with respect, you seem not to be able to see the forest here for the trees. This is an article about the SBT. This article should therefore trace why the WC came up with the theory and why it is important to their conclusion. Therefore, to have a section which states "the SBT requires a missed bullet" is ludicrous as that issue is something which properly should be considered within the evolution of the SBT, not as a counter to it.

Any difficulty in seeing the forest is because you keep moving the trees. First you say:

"For example, the whole premise of this section is that the theory "requires" that a shot missed. Which in itself is ludicrous, because the original assumption was that all three bullets struck. "

Now you appear to be withdrawing the words in italics and substituting the words: "as that issue is something which properly should be considered within the evolution of the SBT, not as a counter to it."

With all due respect, this argument of yours makes no sense. The reason the "missed shot" is a criticism of the SBT is because the SBT implies a missed shot and there is really very good evidence that each of the shots struck a target in the car. It is really that simple. The WC realised this but could not solve the mystery of which shot missed. It never reached a conclusion. The WC pointed out the abundant evidence that the first and third shots struck. However, it glossed over the evidence that the second shot struck. It suggested (likely from John McCloy) that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot but did not feel it. This, obviously, was not accepted by the Connallys who carried their distinct recollections of the second shot hitting and the impact that Nellie saw and the Governor felt all their lives. Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

IOW, the WC realized that the evidence as they saw it required two bullets, not three, as there were only two bullets they could account for. You have it precisely backwards. As if they come up with a theory which, by omission, required one bullet to disappear. The problem was there was no third bullet!

Arlen Spector came up with the SBT to solve the problem presented by the two issues set out above. You really should at least read the Warren Report, if not Belin's book. This is not the reason the SBT was created. This is a matter of record, not opinion. The SBT was created because the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet. This was the main reason given by Specter and by the WC. The other reason for the SBT, which Belin cites as the main reason for the SBT (Belin was a Commission lawyer as was Specter) was that if JBC was hit in the chest by z240, as they started to believe by April 1964, there was not enough time for two shots to have been fired by Oswald.

If that is the case, a pristine third bullet could not strike anyone or anything in the car. That is not "theory". That is just unassailable logic. But there was no third bullet. Three shots were fired according to the vast majority of witnesses, three bullet shells were found, but this extra bullet was not found. The presumption by the WC and the HSCA is that this missing bullet missed the limo entirely.

Are you just making this up? Where in the Warren Report do you see the WC concluding the SBT must be correct because the fragments in the car did not come from two bullets? The WC actually said:

"Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification. However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets." WR 85

This is not the basis for the SBT. The basis for the SBT is the following Seems you are rather confused on this point, Sask. You are referring to the alignment and the testimony from Frazier which came after the creation of the SBT. How could the SBT have anticipated Frazier's testimony? No, the SBT came about once it was realized only two bullets were accounted for and an examination of the Zapruder film revealed that JFK and Connally were reacting too close together to have been hit by separate bullets. So a working theory was developed which suggested that a single bullet caused these wounds. This working theory was confirmed, to the satisfaction of the WC, by the re-enactment and by Frazier's testimony, and the HSCA further confirmed the theory by doing alignment trajectories and closely examining Connally's wounds (the WC paid rather cursory attention to his wounds).

I'm confused? If you don't want us to believe that you are just making this stuff up you better provide a cite to your authority. The SBT was not created because there were only two bullets. The WC did not know whether they had fragments from one or two bullets. Besides, some of the fragments were known to have left the car (eg. the strike on Tague's cheek). It is not possible to know how much bullet material left eh car and did not strike anyone and were never recovered. Read Belin's book. Belin said in Ch. 7 that he found the expert (he must be referring to Frazier but he does not name him) who said that JBC could not have been hit after z240. Belin said that he was going to use that as evidence of a conspiracy.

Your comments on the alignment and Frazier's evidence make no sense. First you say that Frazier's evidence and the alignment issues came after the SBT. Then you wonder how it would be possible that the SBT could have come before Frazier's evidence!! Something wrong with your logic there.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why this article needs an explanation of why the WC came to this conclusion, as it addressed several problems they saw with the evidence, and why it became crucial for the determination that a single gunman was present. Now, I realize that you have a one-gunman/three bullet scenario here, but the reasons that the WC and the HSCA rejected that should be the focus here, not a section which lays out this alternate theory of yours.

What alternate theory? I am pointing out evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Do you not think people reading the article should be aware of this evidence? Why in a section on "Criticism of the SBT" would you want to put material that does the opposite of criticising the SBT?

A section on the evolution of the SBT from the first shot SBT (thought to be the consensus of those in the WC who supported the SBT) to the second shot SBT (HSCA, Posner) would be useful.

But this rather misses the key point - that a single bullet caused the damage. The WC didn't have a preference and indeed had witnesses which stated any of the three shots could have been the missed shot. Frankly, the missed bullet - which one it was - is a complete non-issue.

Again, the point keeps changing every time you write. What do you mean "that a single bullet caused the damage" (I think you are referring to the damage except the head shot)? The reason the WC concluded this is because they had accepted that the bullet through JFK had to have struck JBC in the back. It was assumed that all of JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet. The missed bullet may be a non-issue to you. But it is a necessary consequence of the SBT. If there is evidence that no shot missed (and there is - that is the evidence which you deleted), it is quite obviously a relevant factor to be taken into account by the reader in taking a critical look at the SBT.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The way in which the theory has changed shows how uncertain the evidentiary basis is for the SBT. How has it changed? It went from the WC which gave scenarios for any of three shots possibly being the missed shot to the HSCA which declared it was the first shot which missed. That's a refinement, giving a definitive answer when before there was none.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? I can't believe you said that. There is a significant difference between the WC, HSCA, Posner and now Bugliosi. After the WC, the consensus was that it was a first shot SBT (second shot missed). The HSCA thought it was a second shot SBT fired around frame 190 (it thought that an earlier first shot between z143-160 missed):

"... the shot may have been fired between frames 181 and 192, and impacted in the limousine between frames 182 and 193. This conclusion is reinforced somewhat by the Photographic Evidence Panel's visual observation of the Zapruder film which reflected a reaction by President Kennedy to some severe external stimulus by frame 207 when the President disappears behind a sign frame." 6 HSCA 28.

Posner believes it was a second shot SBT at z224. Posner came up with the theory that you can actually see the second bullet flipping JBC's lapel at z224 after passing through JFK's neck. First shot missed at z160 or so.

Bugliosi doesn't like Posner at all. He agrees with the missed first shot (z160) and the second shot SBT but puts it a bit earlier than Posner at about z207-222 (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 482).Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But I would disagree on having the article state as a fact that the SBT is crucial to explaining the single gunman. It is only crucial for explaining the single gunman if the second premise is accepted Then source it. By far the consensus for both pro and anti-conspiracy researchers is that the WC's case falls apart if JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. And, I would add, if all you have is the single case of Mark Furhman who argues all three bullets strike, then this would not rise to the level of being included. It's not a representative argument. You have to do better than that. And, again, this is beside the strength of your argument.

I am not making the argument that the SBT is or is not crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. The fact is that it is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. My point is that you cannot say that it is crucial (ie. as a fact). That is stating an opinion.

First of all, the WC did not outright reject the "theory" that three bullets struck. (It is not really a theory anyway. It is what the witnesses said occurred - hence my references to the evidence. The "theory" is that the evidence is mistaken.)

It was what some witnesses said. But others said otherwise. And we have contradictions - the best you have is Nellie's testimony. But she says Connally was hit after he yelled out - he was adamant he was hit before he yelled out. Which would mean he was struck the same time as JFK. In the end, contradictory witness evidence is trumped by physical evidence.

It is not a simple matter of physical evidence trumping witness evidence. In the end it is all evidence and it all has to be considered. It is a matter of seeing how the evidence does or does not fit together. There are, in fact, no witnesses who said that they saw JFK did not react to being hit on the first shot. There are at least 22 (many cited by the WC) who said he did. There are no witnesses who said that JFK waved and smiled after the first shot. Dozens said he did this before the first shot. Nellie said JBC was hit after he yelled out and JBC actually agreed with this in 1966 (Life, 25 Nov. 1966, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt") because this is what he said:

“Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”

What you cannot do in assessing evidence is ignore several independent consistent witness recollections and conclude they were wrong because you prefer a theory. Saskcitation (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should not reinstate the references to the evidence for each shot hitting. If you like, we can just set out the evidence from the WR from the section on the Shot that Missed. How could you object to that?

Because, as it stood, it was Original Research. It is not enough to simply supply citations which support an argument - in this case, three bullets found their mark - you must supply citations of someone who argues that. [4]

Again, you have a rather strange way of interpreting original research. Amassing the evidence without drawing any conclusions is not original research. Saskcitation (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How is pointing out the evidence original research? I think we will have to get a ruling on that one. I will redraft the section and point out the evidence cited by the WR. How can you argue with that? This is not about stating a conclusion. It is about pointing out the evidence that the WC itself pointed out that.Saskcitation (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

I have no doubt that one can fish out evidence from the WC to come to a conclusion. However, to avoid the charge of OR, one must frame this conclusion as an argument. We need not do it for the WC themselves because this article is about the argument they made. But we do need to do it for any counter-argument. Because, obviously, the WC, while at one point assessing the three-bullet scenario, quite clearly rejected it. Which is why I suggest a discussion on the evolution of the SBT should be made which would explain why the WC rejected the FBI's initial conclusion and the three-bullet scenario. Canada Jack (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I really, really, don't understand why you can't comprehend this, Sask. Please, do me a favour and carefully read the page on Original Research. What I have done here is suggest a way to frame this issue on three bullets which would pass muster. AS it stood, it was Original Research, pure and simple. You had a bunch of links to the WC suggesting all three bullets struck. But the point is that you have to frame this evidence - i.e. conclude that three bullets struck - from someone who actually claims that the SBT is wrong and all three of Oswald's bullets struck! You seem to pretend simply inserting sourced quotes is fine. It isn't. Read the section I directed to you in Original Research.

Take your line The reason the "missed shot" is a criticism of the SBT is because the SBT implies a missed shot and there is really very good evidence that each of the shots struck a target in the car. Fine. BUT WHO IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SBT IS WRONG AND ALL THREE BULLETS STRUCK? The best you can do here is note that that was what the Connallys claimed. But that's as far as you can go as they didn't make a case beyond their own testimony and beliefs that three struck and the WC said TWO bullets struck. You CAN'T make a case by pulling evidence from the WC testimony without framing that evidence around someone who claims that the evidence says three bullets from Oswald struck the car.

Can you not make a point without using such condescending tone? Is it because you are from Toronto? If so, I can accept that your inability to carry on a conversation without sounding condescending is perhaps a congenital disability and I won't be critical.

You ask "who is making the argument that the SBT is wrong and all three bullets struck"? I am not making that argument in the article. You seem to be wanting to make it for me. All I want to do is show the evidence, fairly, that conflicts with the SBT. But to answer your question, certainly the Connallys made the argument. The three dissenting members of the WC made the argument. I think that would be enough to merit mentioning of that view.Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your utter confusion on this matter is clear. What I have done is simply map out a way, via the emergence of the SBT via the FBI and Warren Commission to state the evidence for three bullets striking and why the WC ultimately rejected that evidence.

Arlen Spector came up with the SBT to solve the problem presented by the two issues set out above. You really should at least read the Warren Report, if not Belin's book. This coming from someone who says Spector came up with the theory? (He didn't come up with it by himself, btw.) And earlier claimed it was Frazier's testimony which compelled the WC to come up with the SBT? Sask, you are hardly in a position to sagely suggest I read something when you are so confused on some basic points!

I think you are confused about the confusion. There really is not much confusion as to the reasons for the SBT. They are as I have stated. Belin said that he found an expert who said that JBC could not have been hit after z240. He said that he wanted to use that evidence to suggest that there were two shooters because if JBC is hit by z240 there is a timing problem if the first shot was after z210. He says Arlen Specter then came up with the SBT to explain the timing problem. Now you can debate whether Belin's historical account is correct. But you can't debate whether he said what he said. That is why I suggested you read his book. No one connected with the WC ever said that the SBT was created because there was evidence of only two bullets striking the car. No one. There was no evidence of only two bullets striking the car. They tried the NAA route and that was inconclusive. If you disagree, then please enlighten me on who it was, what that evidence was, and provide a cite.The only thing I am confused about is why you keep changing your "key point". Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of record, not opinion. The SBT was created because the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC and everyone thought he was hit by only one bullet. And how would they know this before the reenactment? You should reaquaint yourself with the timeline here, Sask. The reenactment confirmed the theory, which came before the reenactment, and Frazier's testimony strongly suggested that any bullet which struck JFK would have had to hit Connally. But this was in no way obvious before the reenactment. To suggest the theory came after this testimony is, in a word, wrong.

as they started to believe by April 1964, there was not enough time for two shots to have been fired by Oswald. Which is precisely what I said. Since there were only two bullets accounted for, and the Zapruder film seemed to indicate a near-simultaneous hit, the SBT was created as a working theory. The later reenactment confirmed that. The way you had it it was the reenactment itself and testimony from Frazier which caused the theory to emerge. No, that confirmed, for the satisfaction of the WC, the theory.

The reenactment was not done until May 1964. The SBT was first documented in a memo dated April 22, 1964 by Melvin Eisenberg following conferences on April 14 and 21 to deal with the sequence of the shots. You can read it for yourself: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm It is not that difficult to see, without a re-enactment, that there is a problem for a downward bullet from right to left through soft tissue in JFK's neck missing everything else in the car.

Belin credits Arlen Specter with coming up with the SBT: see Ch. 7 of Final Disclosure. He was a co-counsel with him. Arlen Specter has for 45 years accepted the acknowledgment that he came up with it. To be fair, Specter maintained that it was fairly obvious that the bullet through JFK had to hit JBC so he does not take a lot of credit for it. Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification. However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets." WR 85

But the WC concluded that the fragments were likely from the fatal shot, the intact bullet a second bullet. So, they concluded, the third bullet was not accounted for. Sask, they had limited evidence, not conclusive, but they put together what the most likely scenario was and they concluded the fragments added up to two, not three, bullets. Your laser-like focus on minutia I have seen causes you not to see the forest for the trees.

I repeat my previous comment. The conclusion of the WR that the bullets added up to two not three bullets was BECAUSE they accepted the SBT! (the majority anyway). Apart from the SBT there was nothing to establish that the fragements were from one or two bullets. It is still debated with the NAA data. You are quite wrong on this point. If you disagree, cite a reliable source.Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First you say that Frazier's evidence and the alignment issues came after the SBT. Then you wonder how it would be possible that the SBT could have come before Frazier's evidence!! Something wrong with your logic there. ??? I never "wondered" about how the theory emerged before Frazier, indeed, I quite clearly state it emerged before Frazier's testimony. You were the one who claimed otherwise. Let's run through this (I don't have the sequence at hand, otherwise I could provide precise dates). The FBI issues its report on, oh, Dec. 9, I think. Three bullets, three strikes. Autopsy report Dec 23 - the bullet emerged thru JFK's throat, so the FBI's conclusion was called into doubt as they went by the FBI men at the autopsy who reported the (then) belief that there was no exit wound. January - the WC starts to watch Zapruder, realize there is a timing problem. Also realize that there seems to be only two bullets accounted for (true, it was not definitive that the big fragments were from different bullets, but those fragments, some of them at least, would have been more clearly associated with Connally as the bullet through JFK's neck would have been relatively prisitine, but they weren't - those were the working assumptions). So, the commission staff (not just Spector) came up with the working theory, the SBT, by April. The reenactment took place on May 24. It was during the reenactment that it became clear, to the satisfaction of the WC, that the working theory, the SBT, was correct, and Frazier who could only have known the alignments from May 24, subsequently testified to his belief that a bullet thru JFK would have had to hit Connally to, I think, frame 240.

What alternate theory? I am pointing out evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Uh, that's an alternate theory, Sask. To suggest a differing scenario that what was concluded is an alternate theory. And this is Original Research if it is not connected to those who claim it is an alternate explanation. Just as if I were to, for example, (and on this you can relate), pull out a lot of quotes which suggest the first shot missed. I could make a compelling case for that. But because the WC did not argue that, I would have to frame it in the context of someone who did. For example, I could cite the HSCA, or Posner or Bugliosi. You can't get around this, Sask. That's the basic problem here, and it is completely outside of any dispute I have with the theory itself. I have no problem with a bunch of stuff suggesting it was "impossible" for the SBT to work for various reasons because there are many who say the SBT is impossible for various reasons. I do have a problem with three Oswald bullets, three strikes, as no one is arguing that. The closest you have are two witnesses who claim that (even though their testimony contradicts) but as far as I am aware the only person actually making this case is one Mark Furhman. Which means this is a distinctly minority position and I submit should not be on the page as virtually no one is making this argument.

The missed bullet may be a non-issue to you. But it is a necessary consequence of the SBT. I truly feel like I am beating my head against the wall here... CLEARLY, this is a big issue for YOU, but it isn't an issue for any researchers I am aware of! Why? Because the ONLY concern for researchers is if a negation of the SBT means the premise that a single gunman was wrong. And THAT is the consensus. What YOU are saying is that the SBT is wrong - but Oswald was still the lone gunman. BUT NO ONE IS MAKING THAT CASE!!!! That is the key here, and that is what we, at wikipedia, must do, frame the issue in context of someone who argues that. And since, as far as I can tell, only a single person actually says as much - Furhman - compared to probably literally HUNDREDS of researchers, pro- and anti-WC - who say the WC's case collapses if the SBT is wrong. You believe otherwise, and that's fine. YOU MAY EVEN BE CORRECT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS NO ONE IS MAKING THE CASE. AND THEREFORE TO INCLUDE THE CONTENTION WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH AS YOU ARE DRAWING ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? I can't believe you said that. You claimed that the WC consensus was that the 2nd bullet missed. In fact, they gave no opinion on which bullet missed, and they gave evidence which suggested it could have been the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd bullet. Then the HSCA said it was the first bullet which missed. Posner and Bugliosi both agree (though, yes, Bug hates Pos). That fundamental scenario has been in place for 30 years. There will always be debates on the precise timing as the visual evidence is ambiguous. But I never pretended otherwise. On the issue of the missed bullet, there has been little debate amongst those we mention here. Indeed, all that happened WC-HSCA was the latter chose to answer the question of the missed bullet, the WC didn't bother to come to a conclusion.

I am not making the argument that the SBT is or is not crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. The fact is that it is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. My point is that you cannot say that it is crucial (ie. as a fact). That is stating an opinion.

Okay. Now this is, with respect, I believe you are dead wrong and I believe where, perhaps, you have been somewhat misled here in respect to wikipedia. In terms of the argument you are or are not making, by presenting evidence which tends to negate the SBT, I would say you are making a case - if not that there was a lone assassin, then that the SBT itself was flawed. Either way, a case is being made. As for the latter, you are so wrong that I fear you don't understand some basic wikipedia precepts. We most certainly can say that the SBT is "crucial," as long as that is explicitly linked to those who claim as much. Indeed, this article needs to say that, as it is the mainstream understanding that the WC's contention stands or falls on the premise that the SBT is correct. I could probably get literally 100 citations as to this belief from both sides! Which is why I say we can't put in the view that the SBT is wrong, but Oswald did it, as no one is making that case!

The Connallys did. Simply pointing out evidence which shows that conflicts with the SBT is neutral. Everyone agrees that there is evidence that conflicts with the SBT. Heck, that is what makes the SBT interesting. The fact that there is evidence that conflicts with it is the reason it took 6 months for the WC to come up with it. What flows from that is up to the reader.

Re your opinion that the SBT is crucial to the lone assassin conclusion: the WC did not say it was crucial, the Connallys did not say it was crucial and the HSCA did not say it was crucial. So if you write an article saying that the SBT is in FACT crucial to the lone assassin theory you are misleading the reader. The reader should be able to determine from this article why the SBT is thought to be crucial to the lone assassin conclusion. That hinges on the second reason for the SBT: the timing problem. The timing problem only arises if Connally is reacting to being hit in the back by frame 240. Since we cannot see any wounds or blood on Connally it is not unequivocally clear where he begins reacting to being shot. The reader should be aware that the point at which Connally is hit in the back was the subject of much debate and discussion among members of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and is still a matter of debate.

What you cannot do in assessing evidence is ignore several independent consistent witness recollections and conclude they were wrong because you prefer a theory.

Sask, with respect, do you understand the function of the page? You seek to keep pushing a theory you believe in, and you cite a ton of evidence to show it is correct. But that utterly misses the point. You are treating this as if this is a court case or something. It is not. It is a page which a) describes the topic at hand, and b) describes the main pro and con arguments for it. It is not an article where we can insert evidence - no matter how compelling - which an editor or editors feel tell a different story or alternate account which is not already present in the mainstream literature on the subject. And, I say this again, even if your argument is perfect and air-tight, if it is not a mainstream, citable ARGUMENT, (as opposed to the evidence) WE CAN'T INCLUDE IT ON THIS PAGE. PERIOD.

For the umpteenth time, I am not making that argument. You seem to be. Let's get Wiki to make a simple ruling on whether it is against the rules to point out this evidence.

Again, you have a rather strange way of interpreting original research. Amassing the evidence without drawing any conclusions is not original research. The text as you had it suggests no bullet missed. That is drawing a conclusion. It is therefore Original Research as this conclusion is not linked to someone who explicitly (i.e., using the same evidence) makes that contention.

How is pointing out the evidence original research? I think we will have to get a ruling on that one. I will redraft the section and point out the evidence cited by the WR. How can you argue with that? This is not about stating a conclusion. It is about pointing out the evidence that the WC itself pointed out that.

This is basic wikipedia stuff, Sask. You are wrong on this fundamental point, which is MY fundamental point. You can go to an arbitrator but they will - I guarantee it - agree with me. It's a no-brainer. This is not a place to make a court case, it's a place to reproduce the mainstream arguments on a particular subject. No Original Research. I have offered a solution, and that is to spell out the emergence of the SBT with reference to some of the evidence for three bullets which was rejected by the WC. But, post April 1964, virtually no one on the planet has made the published claim that the SBT is not needed to establish a lone assassin. And that is what is needed here to make the section stay.

The Warren Report was delivered in September 1964, by the way. It maintained that the SBT was not needed to support the lone assassin conclusion.

Okay. I will try one last time. No one is trying to publish a claim that the SBT is not needed to establish the lone assassin. My only goal is to point out the evidence that conflicts with the SBT. The reader can think for him or herself. Now I know that you disagree with the evidence that conflicts with the SBT but I don't think that is a defensible reason for saying it can't be mentioned. The evidence exists. So long as I do not offer a conclusion, which I agree would be inappropriate for the article itself, the reader gets a fair picture.

I hope before you respond that you take it in good faith what I am saying here. Do some reading on the Original Research page and you will understand that what you are attempting to do here - which, by the way, I see as being in good faith - is against wiki policy. And that my suggestion, while not offering the perfect venue for the three-bullet scenario, nevertheless would include some of this evidence while underlining the main "fact" needed on the page - that the WC concluded otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are off-base on your objection to citing evidence. You think mentioning evidence that conflicts with the SBT should not appear here. It is not that it is my opinion that it conflicts. It does conflict. You can't have an SBT, the essence of which is that one shot missed, and have all three shots hitting. So evidence that each of the three shots is by its very nature in conflict with the SBT. I think the reader should have the opportunity to be aware of that. I think we should have Wikipedia decide the issue since we don't seem to be getting close to an agreement. Saskcitation (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will try one last time. No one is trying to publish a claim that the SBT is not needed to establish the lone assassin. My only goal is to point out the evidence that conflicts with the SBT.

Quite simply, Sask, you are not permitted to do that. I am at a loss as to why you can't understand this. Have you read the page on Original Research - it most definitely includes drawing original conclusions, a common error for editors who think as long as the citations for claims are there, one can draw a conclusion. Nope. The conclusion - in this case that the evidence you mention is in conflict with the SBT - has to be cited. Period. Take it to arbitration, you will lose. Might as well do it my way, Sask. We can do it together, if you wish as this page needs some major clean-up. Canada Jack (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least we appear to join issue on not being able to understand why the other does not understand that the position he takes lacks merit.

Even if showing evidence that conflicts with the SBT is drawing a conclusion, it is certainly not an original conclusion because it is precisely what the Connallys and the WC stated. The WC even editorialized:

"On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile." WR 111

I am not sure why you think that stating evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot is stating any conclusion at all (I take it your concern is really with the recital of the evidence relating to the first shot).Would it be contrary to Wikipedia Rules, in your interpretation, to simply quote the Warren Report? If it would, why? Here is what I suggest we quote:

"Other eyewitness testimony, however, supports the conclusion that the first of the shots fired hit the President. As discussed in chapter II, Special Agent Hill’s testimony indicates that the President was hit by the first shot and that the head injury was caused by a second shot which followed about 5 seconds later. James W. Altgens, a photographer in Dallas for the Associated Press, had stationed himself on Elm Street opposite the Depository to take pictures of the passing motorcade. Altgens took a widely circulated photograph which showed President Kennedy reacting to the first of the two shots which hit him. (See Commission Exhibit No. 900, p. 113.) According to Altgens, he snapped the picture “almost simultaneously” with a shot which he is confident was the first one fired. Comparison of his photograph with the Zapruder film, however, revealed that Altgens took his picture at approximately the same moment as frame 255 of the movie, 30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds) later than the point at which the President was shot in the neck.a43 (See Commission Exhibit No. 901, p. 114.) Another photographer, Phillip L. Willis, snapped a picture at a time which he also asserts was simultaneous with the first shot. Analysis of his photograph revealed that it was taken at approximately frame 210 of the Zapruder film, which was the approximate time of the shot that probably hit the President and the Governor. If Willis accurately recalled that there were no previous shots, this would be strong evidence that the first shot did not miss." WR 112.

A person can read that and the referenced evidence and decide for him or herself whether it is is reliable.

Do you also object to mentioning the evidence that some say supports a conclusion that the first shot was early (z160) and missed? If so, how does the reader get a balanced view of the evidence?

As far as working together on this, so far you don't seem very willing to work together. You prefer to act unilaterally rather than collaboratively. I am certainly not willing to work with you if you want yourself to be the final arbiter of everything. But I do agree that the article needs substantial work. Saskcitation (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least we appear to join issue on not being able to understand why the other does not understand that the position he takes lacks merit.

You have clearly not read, or not understood, the "Original Research" policy, which is fundamental here. AS is clear from the following from you: Even if showing evidence that conflicts with the SBT is drawing a conclusion, it is certainly not an original conclusion because it is precisely what the Connallys and the WC stated. The WC even editorialized...

The point is not the the idea is "original," the point is that someone has to be making the argument. Is the WC making the argument that three bullets struck? No, they are saying there is conflicting evidence and some suggested the first shot struck. But this was never central to their conclusion as they suggested #2 or #3 might be the bullets which missed. Indeed, I could do precisely what you did and pull WC testimony and have a section which states "Second Bullet missed" or "Third Bullet missed." But who is making those argument? I think you'd see that it was the EDITOR who would making that argument in those cases, even though the evidence is there to suggest those scenarios.

And then you say this: A person can read that and the referenced evidence and decide for him or herself whether it is is reliable. Uh, no. It is not the place of wikipedia to make a case pro or con without reference to those who make the case, or without establishing this is a mainstream interpretation of whatever it is the subject is about. We can use the quote, but it has to be to uphold an argument, an argument which someone is making. Are the Connallys saying that because of what Hill, Altgens etc said they believe there were three shots which struck? No, they are basing their contention on their own experience. And the WC certainly wasn't arguing that, based on that testimony, that the SBT was wrong.

Do you also object to mentioning the evidence that some say supports a conclusion that the first shot was early (z160) and missed? If so, how does the reader get a balanced view of the evidence?

There's a fundamental difference here, Sask. And that is the HSCA and others have made precisely that case. That's all this is about - who is arguing X? In the case of the missed shot Z160, we have several who argue that, and it's the most-argued position by supporters of the SBT. So we can put it in. How about the second shot missed? I think that there have been arguments over the years which claim that, but I don't know them. Third shot missed? The WC cites witnesses who claim as much, but I am unaware of who is making that argument, so it can't be included even though there is evidence a third shot missed.

And, to be succint, in terms of wikipedia, the "balance" we seek is a balanced presentation of the prominent, main arguments in a case. It is not to present a "balanced" presentation of the evidence which may exist. For the simple reason that it is, by definition, only the opinion of an editor what evidence is or isn't important, so to avoid POV presentations, we have to frame evidence around those who cite that same evidence to make their case that contention X is the truth.

As far as working together on this, so far you don't seem very willing to work together. You prefer to act unilaterally rather than collaboratively. I am certainly not willing to work with you if you want yourself to be the final arbiter of everything. But I do agree that the article needs substantial work.

That's rather insulting, Sask. I'm the one who offered, but I stronlgy suggest you follow the wikipedia guideleines which you are pretending do not apply to you. And I have further suggested we can incorporate the three-bullet stuff within a section which traces the creation of the theory and its importance to the WC's conclusion.

I was intended to be a complaint about your autocratic approach. If you find that insulting then perhaps you should be less autocratic. Who made you the sole judge and interpreter of Wiki Rules for this article? You say you are being balanced but you do not wish the public to know about all the evidence that conflicts with the SBT. It is not me who says it conflicts. The WC said there is evidence that conflicts with the first shot missing.

Supporters of the SBT debate whether it is a first shot or second shot SBT. They are not all in agreement as to when the shots occurred. There are many theories of the SBT. Some of those who advocate the first shot SBT such as Brian Kelleher of Cupertino Cal (who thinks there only two shots fired) say that the evidence that the first shot struck JFK is overwhelming. See: http://www.kelleherassoc.com/jfk.html

John McCloy was certainly of the view that the first shot hit. The general tone of the WR certainly suggests that this was the consensus.

Since the general view of SBT supporters NOW is that the first shot missed, this difference has to be addressed somewhere in the article if the reader is to understand the SBT. I would be interested to know how you could possibly object to that.

On that final point, because I saw it elsewhere here, we most certainly should state that the SBT is considered central to the WC's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. This is unquestionably the oft-stated belief of both pro- and anti-WC researchers, even though the WC itself did not say it was central. (THis could be covered with reference to Richard Russell etc.) Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I still think we should explain why it is considered to be essential. Just saying that people believe it is essential without saying why is not very illuminating.Saskcitation (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was intended to be a complaint about your autocratic approach. If you find that insulting then perhaps you should be less autocratic. Who made you the sole judge and interpreter of Wiki Rules for this article? I don't think you will find many experienced wiki editors who will agree with your interpretation of how to present this evidence. That's all. I know you want to present the evidence, I have offered a way to do so within the scope of how wikipedia operates. You will note I have not quibilled over the more direct attacks on the SBT. Why? Because these are published well-cited critiques (though I think more work here needs to be done to supply the citations).

The WC said there is evidence that conflicts with the first shot missing. But they didn't conclude the first shot missed. So it's not particularly relevant to their conclusion. And even if you say that, well, the HSCA said so, unless you have someone saying why sticking with the 1st bullet negates the SBT, then you have nothing to include here. It's as simple as that. And, recall, because the WC stated there is evidence of bullet one hitting, they cited evidence for any of three bullets missing. So what makes bullet 1 hitting special? You have to cite someone who sees this as important in terms of three bullets hitting.

The importance of the evidence from the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot, not by smiling and waving but by leaning left and bringing his hands up, is not just in relation to how the WC viewed the evidence. The WC dodged the issue, after all. They said one shot missed but refused to be pinned down as to which shot missed, citing evidence that supports each of the shots hitting. But the HSCA, Posner, Bugliosi etc. all are firmly of the view that the SBT is correct and that the first shot missed. The importance of this evidence that the first shot hit is not in disproving the SBT but in showing that it is that it is in direct, obvious conflict with the first-shot-miss-SBT. Since this is the most widely held view of the SBT, I think it is relevant and important for the reader to be aware of it. What conclusions the reader draws is up to the reader and how much the reader wishes to go into the detail. Otherwise, the reader will get the impression that there is no "other side" to the first-shot-miss SBT. It is not all about making the case against the SBT. I don't wish to make that case here. It is all about having the reader understand the subject.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of the SBT debate whether it is a first shot or second shot SBT. They are not all in agreement as to when the shots occurred. There are many theories of the SBT. Some of those who advocate the first shot SBT such as Brian Kelleher of Cupertino Cal (who thinks there only two shots fired) say that the evidence that the first shot struck JFK is overwhelming.

But how does this negate the SBT? The WC itself said it wasn't germane, Bugliois cites timing which could allow, theoretically, bullet 1, 2 or 3 missing, but this does not negate the SBT. The central thrust of the theory is not which bullet missed, but whether a single bullet hit the two men in question. In other words, it's a giant non-issue in terms of the veracity of the theory. Unless, of course, you can cite some commonly expressed published opinions which state otherwise. i.e., the issue of which bullet missed calls into question the SBT itself.

It doesn't have to negate the SBT to be relevant to the subject. If it negates the current widely held view of the SBT (ie the first-shot-miss-second-shot-hit SBT) it is relevant.

We most certainly can discuss the various opinions on which bullet missed, as these are readily citable. However, to conclude from those discrepancies something else, well we can't do that. IOW, we could say "various supporters of the SBT have disagreements over which of the three bullets fired was the SB - the first or the second." We can't say, without citation something like "The lack of agreement over which bullet was the SB calls into question the veracity of the theory..."

John McCloy was certainly of the view that the first shot hit. The general tone of the WR certainly suggests that this was the consensus. But the WC expressed their view on this, quite clearly, as there was evidence for any of three bullets being the missed bullet, no conclusion of which bullet missed could be determined. If there was a consensus with the WC, it would have been presented. So to present an opinion from a WC counsel as if this was a representative opinion, again, requires at the least a citation from someone who claims this was a representative opinion, the WC conclusion notwithstanding. Otherwise, this is merely the opinion of an editor that the "general tone of the WR" "suggests" and "consensus."

Since the general view of SBT supporters NOW is that the first shot missed, this difference has to be addressed somewhere in the article if the reader is to understand the SBT. I would be interested to know how you could possibly object to that.

But I don't see how this is of any importance to the SBT. Because the central point, again, is not which shot missed but whether one bullet (and it doesn't matter if it #1 or #2) did all that damage. There is certainly room to mention disagreements over which shot missed, but this issue isn't of much weight unless there is a substantial published opinion out there saying this issue somehow negates the SBT. (Like, for example, there is with the dispute over the antimony, etc.)

The statement: "One shot missed" is exactly equivalent to: "the SBT is correct" (if one accepts that that there were three shots and one shot hit JFK in the head only). I don't see how anyone can say that evidence that establish that the first shot missed is not relevant to an evaluation of the correctness of the current widely held view of the SBT. It does not disprove the SBT. It merely says that if the SBT is correct, it must have occurred on the first shot. And that is very relevant to an understanding of the SBT.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should explain why it is considered to be essential. Just saying that people believe it is essential without saying why is not very illuminating. Absolutely. Which is my main critique with the article. 159.33.10.92 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we seem to agree on something. Progress.AMSask (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullet Caught in Connally's Hat?

A very strange thought just occurred to me. In Zapruder frame 223 et seq. Connally's hat, held in his right hand, is seen to move outward at the moment he and the President are shot. I think he must have actually caught the bullet in his hat when it exited his wrist. His hat likely stayed with him all the way to the hospital and then was taken away when he was prepped for treatment. The bullet fell out of the hat somewhere along the way! During the Civil War, soldiers used to joke that they could put out their hat and catch it full of bullets..A felt hat is a very tough piece of cloth, particularly if well-worn.

I wear a hat regularly. When traveling in a car with the hat off, a hat wearer will typically hold it the hat upright in the lap with the dominant hand, with the fingers curled underneath the brim and into the crown space, the palm facing upward, with the heel of the thumb applying pressure to squeeze the hat brim between the fingers and thumb. This would have placed the hat in the perfect position to catch the bullet as it exited Connally's wrist. This would solve one of the great mysteries posed by conspiracists - how did the bullet get onto the hospital gurney? Antimatter33 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, a bullet pierced Connally's thigh, a bullet which was travelling with reduced velocity indicating it had struck intervening objects. And the only candidate bullet to do that was the same bullet which went through Connally's wrist. So, you are left with an interesting theory which as far as I can tell lacks any evidence in its favour and has to account for evidence which tends to discount the theory. As for the "mystery," there is simply an uncertainty whether the bullet worked itself out of the thigh and rolled onto the side of the gurney, or it fell off and was placed there by someone who never reported doing so. Just because we can't say with certainty how the bullet got there doesn't mean the doors are flung open for any suggestion pointing towards conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all we know is that his thigh was hit by some fragment. It could even have been bone from his wrist. I have never heard of a complete bullet working its way out of someone's flesh - swelling around the wound would seem to make that impossible. It's hard enough to remove a superficial wood splinter with effort. Furthermore the bullet had no traces of blood in its striations and jacket seams, meaning it could not have spent much if any time in a bath of unclotted blood. Antimatter33 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We know that the bullet that hit Connally's thigh was a low-velocity bullet. It was a superficial wound owing to its low velocity (having passed through Kennedy's back, Connally's back and wrist) so it is not surprising at all that such a bullet would have only superficially wounded the thigh and fallen out. The problem with your argument is that if not CE 399, what caused the wound? If it was bone, there were no bone fragments found which might have caused the wound. Therefore, lacking evidence for something else, the weight of evidence we have points to that bullet. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New section - "Origin of single bullet theory"

As previously discussed, I have identified the need to include a section for the article which traces the origin of the SBT. A lot of the article makes little sense without an exploration of why the Warren Commission came up with the theory. I am in the process of writing this section, so I hope some of the usual suspects here can help clarify the section once I get it posted. Canada Jack (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I have inserted a sectiion tracing the genesis of the SBT. While a major addition, I felt that the page strongly needed a section to explain why this theory emerged. I have most of the citations needed, I hope, so please identify anything missing and any suggestions on what else needs to be in this section. Canada Jack (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

I added a perfectly good diagram to this article - my own work - and some one took it down. This article can now exist without original diagrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.58 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the previous comment, it was rude and gross and had nothing to do with the artical in question. Call it censorship if you'd like, I call it trying to keep what little creditability WP has.

Just Some Questions

I think it is easy to discern who is in favour of the SBT and who isn't on this page! Neverthless, theories and nonsense (I refer to both sides) aside, there is evidence in the Z' film that the throat wound shot took place in frame 200. Kennedy falls backward (a motion obvious in the film, his tie and right side of his blazer fly off to the right. The Beyond Conspiracy film did not discuss this, and I think (like some of the 'conpiracists') was highly selective in fact finding. Is there room for including this point of view in the article?

Canada Jack seems to post here quite often, I am interested to know his opinion - does he share the WC conclusions? given the HASC have been dragged kicking and screaming in 1979 to admit a conspiracy might have taken place - even though they severely resisted.

And Oswald: Is there any room for the fact witness saw a man on the knoll, smoke, and Lee Oswald on the 2nd Floor of the Book depository? 62.30.49.75 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this till now... I certainly didn't think the WC was correct in the past, but a close examination revealed to me that the only sequence of events which match the evidence we have is if a single bullet struck the two men. As for the HSCA, they drew an identical conclusion in terms of the SBT, while saying acoustic evidence indicates a second gunman. However, they concluded any potential shot from the grassy knoll must have missed as there is no evidence of a head wound consistent with a shot from that location.

In terms of the article, I think it suffices to say that there are multiple critiques of the SBT, and multiple interpretations of what may have happened. The frame 200 evidence falls under this. As Vincent Bugliosi noted, much of the evidence on the Zapruder film is subject to interpretation. Outside of the instant of the fatal shot, it is hard to pinpoint the exact frame of any of the other events, the missed shot, the SBT, or any other potential shots.

If we were to include the frame 200 stuff, that would have to come from a major published challenge to the SBT. And it should be incorporated into the critique section. Canada Jack (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dale Myers and the Coat Bulge

The main article states that:

"In the same ABC documentary, Myers uses a close-up examination of the Zapruder film to justify the "single bullet theory." He claims to have found a little-known anomaly on the Zapruder film. When Kennedy's limousine appears from behind the street sign in Dealey Plaza, there is a moment — seen between frames 223 and 224 on the Zapruder film — where the right side lapel of Governor Connally's jacket appears to "pop out," as if being pushed from within by an unseen force."

This paragraph implies that Myers was the one who discovered the "Coat Bulge". Actually, Myers does not claim this and the "Coat Bulge" was actually discovered by someone else in the 1970's. Myers is merely pointing out to the viewer the apparent movement of the coat between frames 223 and 224 and not making any claims to being the first one to notice this.

StanislausJoe (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this too and changed the appropriate text. Myers makes no claim that he saw this first. Canada Jack (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do people not affiliated with the government still believe this?

Do people not affiliated with the Warren Commission or other government agencies still think this magic bullet happened? I think one must be jingoist or unable to view the US government in a negative light in order to believe this junk science. Wikipediarules2221 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd say unbiased people who have actually examined the evidence believe this. I've found that those who most strenuosly deny the SBT don't know the evidence in favour, and come up with alternative scenarios which are at odds with the evidence which we have. Or just throw out terms like "junk science" without suggesting what that is supposed to mean. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me start with this, I don't think it was one gunman however; The problem with 'belief' is that there is no evidence to support any other hypothisit. By evidence I mean the verb definition "to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest" Key word's Clear and Clearly, the Zapruder film does show Kennedy being shot and killed, it does not show any bullets, obviouslly even today regular film can only show tracer rounds. So there is no solid evidence for either claim. That being said; this, the SBT, is the only 'official' explanation as to the wounds cause by a single shooter. So "[d]o people not affiliated with the Warren Ccommission and other government agencies still think this [single] bullet [theory] happened?" Yes, it's the only 'official' therefore in many mind's 'real' explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reloading?

I don't know much about the topic and have no opinion on it, but it looked odd to see a comment about reloading the rifle between shots. I checked the sources and it seems to me someone with a bias against the SBT embellished things a bit and expanded from the source's actual claims. If I've made an error, revert, but I wanted to explain my edit as I am not knowledgeable on the topic itself. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

→The Mannlicher Carcano is a bolt-action rifle. After a bullet is fired the shell must be ejected and a new bullet placed in the firing chamber manually using the bolt load mechanism. So in order to fire two aimed rounds, the shooter has to fire, manually operate the bolt-action to load another bullet in the chamber, aim and fire again. The MC can be fired twice in much less than 2.3 seconds if the shooter does not have to re-aim before the second shot. I have rewritten the original to make this a little clearer and have provided the reference to FBI Ronald Simmons' testimony on this to the WC.AMSask (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 07:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text - Simmons' testimony was not part of the WC conclusion, therefore it should not be in the lede. 2.3 seconds was what the WC determined to be the minimum time. The HSCA, testing via iron sights, determined the minimum time to be 1.66 seconds. (I will insert the page reference asap)

Where do you get the 1.66 seconds from? That is not part of the HSCA report or evidence as far as I can tell. Better to make the changes when you have the cite. I have provided the quote from FBI Agent Shaneyfelt that the Warren Commission refers to in its conclusion on page 97 of its report regarding the spacing of the shots. It is important to note that the FBI tests involved aimed shots. They were not just trying to fire reload and fire without aiming. The MC can be fired reloaded and fired without aiming in less than that time. AMSask (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Committee test-fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the iron sights. It found that it was possible to fire two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds." [5] As for the FBI agent quote, it'd be better to simply quote the WC as to their conclusion, whether that is "2 and a quarter" or "2.3" seconds. The issue of aimed shots etc is not particularly relevant for the lede. That issue should be further explored on the rifle page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the reference to tests done to determine if it was possible to fire two successive shots in 1.66 seconds and have one of them miss. The HSCA was not trying to establish the minimum time for two successive hits, as the WC was trying to determine. Rather, the HSCA wanted to know if the two putative gunshot sounds from the acoustical analysis that were spaced 1.66 seconds apart could have come from Oswald's rifle on the assumption that one of the shots missed. So the 1.66 seconds is not relevant to the point being made here to explain why the SBT is thought to be necessary to the lone gunman conclusion: that Oswald did not have sufficient time (between the time JFK shows signs of being hit to the time that the WC concluded JBC was hit - before frame 240) to have fired two shots that hit each man separately.AMSask (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's your opinion, Sask. Others - like Bugliosi - cite the 1.66 s when discussing the SBT as the minimum time required to take two shots. So, when we ask "what did the WC say?" we answer 2.3 seconds. But we can also add - since others have made the point - that 1.66 s was the minimum time required for two shots. Canada Jack (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

At page 83 of its report the HSCA (found at: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pdf/HSCA_Report_1B_Acoustics.pdf )said:

"The committee test fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the open iron sights. It found that it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds.(120) One gunman, therefore, could have fired the shots that caused both impulse pattern 1 and impulse pattern 2 on the dispatch tape."

The reference (120) is to Dr. Robert Blakey's memo which can be found at: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_4C_Firing.pdf . Blakey says at 8 HSCA 184:

(2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.

(3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1 .66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target on each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2".

But I think you are right that this is not the place for this discussion. What we want to convey to the reader is that the WC concluded that a minimum of around 2.3 seconds was needed to make two shots, the first hitting JFK and the second hitting JBC. Having concluded that 2.3 seconds was much longer than the time between when JFK and JBC were hit, the SBT was necessary for the Lone Gunman conclusion. That is not to say that it is the only reason or even a major reason for it. Arlen Specter thought the SBT was the only way to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK's neck went: it must have struck JBC because there was nothing else that it could have hit. But the significance of the SBT and its historical importance, is that without it there is a serious timing problem IF JBC is indeed hit before z240. That fact is not altered by the HSCA claiming 1.66 seconds was sufficient to fire two shots with one of them missing.AMSask (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ovoid entrance wound

User:Richwales addressed another editor's insertion of the following paragraph with the comment: "if this new paragraph is going to stay, it needs substantiation via a reliable source ASAP".diff

An ovoid entrance wound is consistent either with the bullet yawing or tumbling on exiting Kennedy's throat (bullets often lose stability when striking a solid object) and entering Connally at an oblique angle or with Connally being turned at an angle to the bullet's direction when hit. An elliptical entrance wound is consistent with a bullet entering Connally with no yaw. This is simply a matter of geometry: a bullet whose nose is pointing in the direction that the bullet is travelling will make a circular hole in a flat surface that is perpendicular to its direction of travel. If it strikes at an angle other than 90 degrees it will make a symmetrical, elliptical hole. If the bullet is not pointing in the direction of travel (bullet yaw), it will make an asymmetrical hole that is more pointed at one end and wider at the other (an ovoid or egg shape).

The source subsequently provided can easily be found online and while it may be a reliable source for bullet wounds, it does not directly address the single bullet theory. This, unfortunately, has now moved into the realm of original research and analysis so I am removing the material from the article and preserving it here. If we have a Warren Commission witness presenting his or her analysis, then I imagine that could work. Location (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is Figure 46 from the HSCA report, which says about everything you need for this: a tumbling bullet such as is theorized to have hit Connally causes an abrasion cuff that looks non-round:

Illustration from the HSCA report on the JFK assassination, noting that wounds from a tumbling bullet are expected to cause non-round abrasion cuffs in skin, upon entry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharris (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

An image is not a sufficient reference for a paragraph of text, but I'm happy to ask in WP:RSN for a second opinion. It's redundant material anyway given that the section entitled "Theorized path of the bullet CE399" already states that the Warren Commission believed the bullet tumbled and created an elliptical wound. Location (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's also recall that the shape of the wound was only part of the determination that the bullet was tumbling - the other determination was the direction the bullet was traveling through Connally. THAT, combined with the shape of the wound indicated a tumbling bullet, in the opinion of the WC and HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement: "An elliptical entrance wound is consistent with a bullet entering Connally with no yaw." is hardly controversial. Most bullet holes are elliptical. Does anyone expect a round hole if one fires a bullet at a flat surface at something other than a right angle? AMSask (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a lengthy description of uncontroversial material? This article is about the Single bullet theory, not the John F. Kennedy autopsy. Location (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a caption on that illustration that counts as an authoritative source. You can also read Frazier's WC testimony. [6] The hole in Connally is not helpfully since it was enlarged by the surgeon. The hole in JFK's jacket was round and a quarter inch in diameter (25 cal = 6 mm). The corresponding hole in Connally's coat was one quarter by 5/8 inch--clearly a keyhole by a bullet about a quarter inch in diameter. But not fully 1.2 inches long which was the length of CE399. So it wasn't fully sideways. SBHarris 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that Dr. Shaw was wrong and the bullet hole was not elliptical? An elliptical wound .5 cm x 1 cm can be made by a non-tumbling bullet striking at an angle. In this case, that means that the angle was roughly cos^-1(.5) = 60 degrees (30 degrees from perpendicular to the surface, at a downward angle). If it hit sideways you would not see an ellipse. You would see the shape of the bullet, not an ellipse.AMSask (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. The shadow of a partly rotated round nosed bullet will be an ellipse. The doctor's testimony is believable but a measurable thing is better. A wound or scar in a live patient that has been altered is not helpful either way. SBHarris 07:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the talk page header, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Is there any further discussion of why the article requires additional description of the wound? Location (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the title of this section: The Ovoid Entrance Wound. The original wound before treatment was described by Dr. Shaw as "roughly elliptical in shape". An ellipse is symmetrical. Ovoid refers to an asymmetrical egg-shape. A tumbling bullet makes a skin puncture that is not symmetrical. The shape of this wound is relevant to whether the bullet was tumbling which is important in determining whether the SBT occurred. So it is important that the reader be aware of the implications of the different shapes of entrance wounds. AMSask (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the problem is with the title of this section, then I guess we can mark this issue as "resolved" since this section is not part of the article. As the first post indicates, the reference to "ovoid entrance wound" has been removed from the article. Furthermore, Dr. Shaw's description is already included and cited. Location (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Sounds of rifle fire

Coupla things about high-velocity rifle fire : part of the sound you hear is the bullet breaking the sound barrier ("crack" in flight), in addition to but separate to the noise made by the cartridge firing ("bang" from the muzzle); depending where you are in relation the bullet's flight you will hear its sonic boom just after it passes you, and you hear this and the gun firing after the bullet hits, not before, if you're at the other end. At short range you hear it not long after it hits, but still after. Then the sounds bounce off solid structures. This affects analysis of event timings and number of shots heard and needs to be mentioned in the article. I believe the investigators would have been asking "describe the sounds you heard" rather than "how many shots did you hear". Rcbutcher (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence:

"Obviously evidence based on shots heard presumes no silencers were employed. nor would it discount the possibility of simultaneous shots from multiple sources."

as it is really a statement of opinion. It implies that there were 'silencers' for rifles in 1963 that would have made a rifle shot completely silent. There is no evidence that such technology existed or even exists now. If it was intended to mean that the number of shots heard does not preclude someone with a handgun using a 'silencerthat is another issue, but there is no evidence of any handgun being used so I am not sure why it would be relevant.

As for the comment about simultaneous shots from multiple sources, this is not at all obvious and is simply wrong. The simultaneity of the sound depends on the distance of the listener from each of the guns. Someone close to one and 150 feet from the other would hear a timing difference of more than a tenth of a second, which is quite detectable.AMSask (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutron activation analysis of bullet fragments

Six years ago yesterday, User:Saskcitation, whom I assume is AMSask, added the section that is now entitled "Neutron activation analysis of bullet fragments" (diff) and added a comment on the talk page that this was "added in conformity with NPOV" (diff). I think this section, which is larger than most Wikipedia articles, is unnecessarily detailed for the purposes of discussing the single bullet theory, particularly since 1) it is built upon an overabundance of primary sources and 2) there is a notable absence of secondary sources discussing this aspect. The relevance of the material is lost in the details and it really needs to be trimmed down to one or two paragraphs. Location (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. But since it is considered by supporters of the SBT to be very important in proving the SBT and since it has been the subject of a great deal of scientific controversy, it needs more than a couple of paragraphs. First of all the NAA data and Guinn's evidence has to be explained and then the scientific controversy over his opinion has to be explained. Let me know if you think it still needs trimming. The section on CBLA could probably be reduced to a simple reference.AMSask (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is how I summarize the information: WC, based on FBI tests, states NAA is inconclusive; HSCA, based on Guinn's test, states NAA/CBLA shows 2 bullets and supports SBT; Rahn and Sturdivan state NAA/CBLA shows 2 bullets and supports SBT; Randich and Grant state NAA/CBLA is inconclusive (could be anywhere from 2 to 5 bullets); CBLA is discredited. Conclusion: SBT is not supported or refuted by chemists and metallurgists (i.e. inconclusive).

It doesn't seem as though any of this was important to the WC or HSCA conclusions, so if "it is considered by supporters of the SBT to be very important" then there needs to be some reference to that which is found in what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Otherwise, it is Wikipedia editors who are saying it is very important to the issue and that violates WP:OR and/or WP:WEIGHT. Location (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The HSCA attributed a great deal of significance to the NAA data and refer to it as substantiating the SBT (HSCA Report, p.45 which can be found here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0038a.htm )

The NAA data as interpreted by Guinn is referred to in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History at p. 814:

"When subjected to NAA by Dr. Guinn, all five of the specimens produced a profile highly characteristic of the Western Cartridge Company's Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. Even more interesting, the results fell into two distinct groups. Of the five samples, two had a concentration of antimony of about 800 parts per million, and three had a concentration of antimony of around 600 parts per million. This could mean only one thing: all five specimens had come from just two bullets. 'There is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence there are two,' Guinn told the HSCA.

"Guinn concluded that the large fragment found in the limousine, the smaller fragments found on the rug of the limousine, and the fragments recovered from Kennedy's brain were all from one bullet.

"His most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically defeating the notion that the bullet found on [Governor John] Connally's stretcher had been planted, was that the elemental composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a second bullet, the stretcher bullet. The stretcher bullet, then, had to be the one that struck Connally … ."

It is also referred to as being conclusive evidence of the SBT by Gerald Posner, Case Closed:

"Guinn's finding ended the speculation that CE 399 had been planted on the stretcher, since there was now indisputable evidence that it had traveled through Connally's body, leaving behind fragments." Ken Rahn and Larry Sturdivan wrote in an academic journal that, "The NAA results were the most important new physical evidence that surfaced as a result of the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation. It knits together the core physical evidence into an airtight case against Lee Oswald."

In addition to that it is referred to as conclusive proof by WC counsel David Belin in his book about the JFK Assassination, Final Disclosure, 1988. As cited in the main article, Sturdivan and Rahn have written extensively promoting the NAA data as conclusive.AMSask (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at this more in-depth later. Location (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the analysis has been used to suggest the SBT has been "proven," but I also agree that we don't need the excessive detail that exists in this section, and as written, it doesn't fairly represent some of the issues. Some clean-up here which could be done - we don't need the table showing the different antimony levels etc., as there is not really anything the average person can assess. All we need to know is the data was interpreted to show two distinct groups with similar antimony levels which meant two and only two bullets were represented.

Further, we don't need this quote: In his testimony Dr. Guinn had some difficulty in stating the precision that he could give to this probability: Dr. GUINN. I wish that I could put a number on it, as we often can do, that is, calculate a probability, but we really don’t have the background information to make a numerical calculation in this case. If he DID state a probability, it is relevant. He didn't, therefore this is not relevant.

Similarly, we have several quotes like this: Professor Rahn’s analysis can be found on his “Academic JFK Assassination Site”. All we need here is, after the previous line, a link to his site. It is not relevant information to include the name of his website in the body of the article. And... The analysis was published in 2004 (Rahn K.A., Sturdivan L.M., "Neutron Activation and the JFK Assassination. Part I. Data and Interpretation." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 262(1):205-213[84] and Part II. Extended Benefits 262(1): 215-222[85] co-authored with Larry Sturdivan, a Warren Commission and HSCA ballistics expert Irrelevant. All we need is the reference.

Then, we have this line and quote: The authors identified a deficiency in the Guinn analysis: "This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination." Here, we don't need a quote saying "there is a deficiency" when we already know the authors identify a deficiency, we need a quote identifying what that deficiency is, or, better, a description of that deficiency. Why do they disagree? That's what we want to know.

Then, this: In August 2006 Sturdivan wrote a response critical of the Randich/Grant paper. [87] At the very least, we should describe that response!

Finally, the section "Forensic use of compositional bullet lead analysis" is highly misleading. Sure, the NAA is now discredited as an analysis tool. But, as Sturdivan noted, what is applicable from 2002 onward was NOT applicable in 1963. The section says NOTHING about this point. It should either be removed, or it should be noted that though the NAA is no longer considered of value, this is because of the homogeneity of bullets manufactured today and, the HSCA defenders note, not applicable to the bullets available at the time of the assassination. As it stands, it suggests the analysis has been recognized as useless, an extremely misleading thing to say.

Here are my suggested fixes: 1) Describe what the analysis did - it identified the levels of antimony in the bullet fragments and concluded two distinct groupings meant there were two and only two bullets. Then, identify the critique - that the groupings are not necessarily indicative as, basically, there is no justification to conclude the levels of antimony, if similar, represent separate bullets as this assumes a heterogeneity that may not exist. Therefore, there could be multiple bullets represented. Finally, the 2006 response, which states that though the NAA is no longer being used as it is no longer a valid method of discerning different bullets, the bullets from the era - the early 1960s - were NOT homogeneous and therefore differing levels of antimony were present in different bullets, and therefore the NAA could identify with a high degree of probabilty that different groupings of bullets could be associated with single bullets. This would cover the "forensic use..." section, which can be omitted. At the very least, we should describe that response!Canada Jack (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Data table. The problem is that it is difficult to understand any of the arguments for and against the conclusions relating to the NAA data without seeing this table. Anyone wanting to understand the significance of the NAA data will want to see the data.

RE: VPG not stating probability: He did state a probability: he said it was "highly probable".

Re: Deficiency identified by Randich/Grant. The deficiency explanation requires detail. I thought you wanted to remove that kind of detail and simply provide references. The deficiency is explained in the 2006 Randich Grant paper abstract:

"Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. Alternate statistical calculations, based on the historic analytical data, incorporating weighted averaging and propagation of experimental uncertainties also considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory. In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting."

Re: "At the very least, we should describe that response!" Again, that was in the original. Do you want to put the quotes back in? Summarizing it takes just as long and risks inaccuracy. The reference is there if anyone wants to look it up.

Re: "Finally, the section "Forensic use of compositional bullet lead analysis" is highly misleading. Sure, the NAA is now discredited as an analysis tool."NAA has not been discredited. CBLA has been discredited. NAA is a reliable scientific technique for determining composition. What is discredited is the notion that each batch of bullets has a unique composition, which is the central tenet of CBLA.

Re: But, as Sturdivan noted, what is applicable from 2002 onward was NOT applicable in 1963. ...As it stands, it suggests the analysis has been recognized as useless, an extremely misleading thing to say. It has been recognized by the FBI, based on the 2002 paper by Grant and Tobin and endorsed by the NAS in 2004 (as well as its more recent (2009) comprehensive survey of forensic techniques that includes CBLA), provide actual data on this issue and conclude that CBLA was never reliable. Sturdivan argues that what is applicable in 2002 was not applicable in 1963. But these other sources, including the NAS, say that is not correct. Randich and Grant analysed the composition the Western Cartridge ammunition used in Oswald's rifle in the assassination and find it similar to all other ammunition (see quote below). There is nothing in the data that shows a material difference between 1963 bullets and later ones by WC or other manufacturers. Randich and Grant in their 2006 paper point out errors in, and lack of data to support, the analysis and conclusions of Vincent Guinn on that point.

Re: 1)... two distinct groupings meant there were two and only two bullets. The theory on which Guinn/Sturdivan/Rahn relied is that for the bullets used in the assassination (Western Cartridge 6.5mm copper jacketed ammunition) the bullets' lead composition was heterogeneous (highly variant) BETWEEN different bullets but reasonably homogeneous WITHIN each bullet (slight variations within). What Randich and Grant say in their 2006 paper, is that the theory is not true, based on their analyses of the composition of many of the actual WC 6.5 mm bullets. They also say that the accuracy of the NAA measurements was significantly overstated.

"VPG noted that the MC ammunition ‘‘was found to differ sharply from typical bullet leads’’ because ‘‘Although individual bullets were found to be fairly homogeneous in their antimony and silver concentrations, they differed greatly from bullet to bullet amongst samples taken from the same box.’’ Thus, ‘‘it would be possible to distinguish one bullet (or bullet fragment) from another, even though they both came from the same box of MC cartridges’’ (6). As will be shown below, the variations in antimony, silver, and copper contents are quite similar in all bullet leads and not ‘‘sharply different.’’ In fact, VPG was noting large relative differences (but small absolute-value differences) in small quantities of the measured antimony and copper. These same differences are seen in lead alloys with higher antimony and copper contents, but they are smaller relative differences. The common occurrence of segregation (both microsegregation and macrosegregation, although microsegregation is the major concern for this study), as discussed below, explains VPG’s observations and the variability in his measured antimony and copper data."

"Re: Finally, the 2006 response, ... the bullets from the era - the early 1960s - were NOT homogeneous and therefore differing levels of antimony were present in different bullets, and therefore the NAA could identify with a high degree of probabilty that different groupings of bullets could be associated with single bullets". That is not a non-controversial statement so it is important to make it clear to the reader that Sturdivan/Rahn's view is not shared by Randich/Grant and the National Academy of Science. And, again, it is not NAA that is the problem (although Randich and Grant find that Guinn overstated the accuracy of the NAA measurements).

The validity of the JFK NAA conclusions of Guinn/Sturdivan/Rahn depends on the theory that WC 6.5mm ammunition had uniform Sb concentrations within each bullet and significant differences in Sb concentrations from bullet to bullet. AMSask (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, Sask, how about I rewrite this for you. This shouldn't be difficult, but the areas you address above are either irrelevant or can be addressed with concise verbiage. You are making this FAR more complicated than it really is - and, frankly, as written, it not only is confusing, pertinent information is left out and irrelevant information left in. If I have part of it wrong, you can correct me. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would be interested in seeing a draft presenting this in a more encyclopedic manner (i.e. detailed stripped to show main points in a much more concise manner). Location (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed the following text from the article:

FBI documents declassified by the ARRB in the 1990s also cast doubt on the identification of CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland. Neither Darrell Tomlinson nor O.P. Wright, the two men who originally found the bullet, or the two Secret Service agents who handled the bullet on the afternoon of the 22nd of November, could identify it as CE 399.

An FBI memo to the Warren Commission in 1963 stated that Agent Bardwell Odum later showed Tomlinson and Wright CE 399, both of who told him it looked like the bullet they found at Parkland.

However, in an interview to author Gary Aguilar in 2002, Bardwell Odum denied this ever took place, and denied ever possessing the bullet or showing it to anyone.

As is, this is an original evaluation and interpretation of primary source material (i.e. it violates WP:PRIMARY). I have no objection to the reinsertion of material that is backed up by coverage in reliable secondary source material. Location (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Rewriting NAA section

Here is my suggestion for redrafting this section:AMSask (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This still seems more detailed than it needs to be, however, I would support it until an alternative is suggested because it does trim the section a bit. Location (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the article as above. Again, I still think this is much longer than it needs to be. Location (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ron Hepler's analysis

I haven't found any mention of Ron Hepler's analysis anywhere on Wikipedia. Should it be included as another criticism (mostly) based on the Zapruder film?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion of an edit by Scgator2001

I haven't made a close examination of this edit, but phrases such as "The book solves the shooting mystery", and the entire second paragraph, are not in keeping with our policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. I have reverted the piece pending discussion of how material from the book "0.7 Seconds to Conspiracy" should be treated in this article. --TS 20:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also a conflict of interest as Mr Gator would seem to be the author of this book, as an identically named person has a video and has been pushing this theory and promoting his book on YouTube. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case this book, from November last year, doesn't seem to have had any significant impact on the field. --TS 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)