Paul Baker

Although most conspiracy theorists insist on describing it as such, the so-called "magic" bullet was not pristine.

I've listened to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op radio many times. In my opinion, as a witness, she is utterly incredible. She says that her pockets were searched in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and photographs confiscated. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement. She says that she chased somebody in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement. She says she saw Jack Ruby running from the scene ... etc. Apart from solid evidence that Jean Hill was lying, I think the interview itself tells us a lot about the kind of person she was. Listen to how she implies that copies of her book in storage were deliberately destroyed! Then there are the numerous attempts on her (and her children's) lives. So these people, whoever they are, can murder the President in public and get away with it, but they can't sort out a relative nobody like Jean Hill. What would be the point of killing her after she'd told her story in any case? Best of all, listen to how her voice breaks when she says "I saw a shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll ..." She also takes credit for the term "grassy knoll". Fantastic! Any theory that is dependent in some way on the statements of Jean Hill is fundamentally flawed. And let's face it, Black Op radio does nothing to progress research into the death of JFK, or anything. Listen to any Fetzer interview. Paul.

I believe a bullet travelling at about 1000 m/s will weigh about the same as one that is stationary. If a bullet travelling at 1000 m/s hit you, assuming it weighs 10.45 grammes (equivalent to 161.2 grains), even if it transferred all its momentum to you, your resultant initial speed would be about 0.14 m/s, which isn't exactly 'ragdoll tossing' speed. In reality, if the bullet passed right through you, you'd gain a mere fraction of its momentum.

Well said Jim! By the way, I believe the "Umbrella Man" was in fact Mary Poppins.

Anyone with a basic understanding of Newtonian physics (specifically the principle of the conservation of momentum) will understand that an impacting bullet will not have sufficient momentum to cause any appreciable movement in a target that is much heavier (apologies - I don't know what the precise ratio is, but I'm pretty sure JFK's head weighed considerably more than the bullet that penetrated it). The film also clearly shows debris ejecting in front of JFK. Only a bullet fired from behind could have this effect. The 'headsnap' is therefore irrelevant in determining the direction of the bullet. I'm not even convinced the film shows a headsnap. Assuming the film wasn't faked (no-one has ever provided any convincing evidence that it was), the shot that hit JFK's head came from behind. Simple.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

This thread has too many problems. Jack, start another one!

Has anyone ever tried to wedge a disassembled Carcano rifle between hand and armpit? I've seen a picture of it (along with the packaging, which is the same size and shape as the disassembled gun - there's another suggestive piece of evidence). It doesn't look prohibitively long. Anyone know how long it is?

Thanks for your replies, I hope I haven't offended anybody. Doesn't the weight of evidence strongly suggest that LHO took his rifle into work that morning, irrespective of whether he used it to shoot the President? Someone will no doubt tell me, or speculate, that some (or dare I say all) of these points are incorrect. 1. Lee kept a rifle in the Paines garage. 2. Lee visited his wife at the Paines the previous evening, conflicting with his usual routine. 3. Lee never mentioned curtain rods to anyone but his ride into work the following morning. 4. Lee's rifle was discovered in the TSBD after the shooting. 5. Lee's rifle was missing from its usual location in the Paines garage after the shooting. 6. The discarded packaging was found in the TSBD. 7. The curtain rods were never found anywhere. 8. Lee didn't need curtain rods at his rented room in Oak Cliff. 9. Lee denied taking a package into the TSBD (conflicting with witness testimony). ... That's all I can think of at the moment. I'd say that was pretty convincing support for "Lee Harvy Oswald took his rifle into the TSBD on the morning of 22 November 1963".

If Oswald is innocent of murdering President Kennedy, I wonder why he smuggled his rifle into work that day. I'd be interested to hear a reasonable explanation for that behaviour. Or is it a mere (and extremely unfortunate) coincidence? Or were they really curtain rods?

Hi Steve, I think there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered to support the assertion that a single bullet did not cause all that damage to Kennedy and Connally. As it stands, and however unlikely it may be, the SBT is the simplest explanation of the facts, which is what makes it appealing (certainly to me ). I don't see an answer that is quite so - for want of a better word - elegant. If you start with the premise that the SBT is false, there is a lot more explaining to do, and shaky assumptions to be made, in my opinion. But in answer to your question, yes. I just can't imagine any alternative explanation being as convincing as the SBT. But that might be because I don't know enough about this. Paul.

Thank you Charles, I'll certainly take a look. Please call me Paul, there's no reason for us to be formal here. I'm interested in the truth, as I hope you are. For me the truth can never be a burden. Paul.

Then you have about as much credibility as a researcher as Jean Hill had as a witness. Bullet passed through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest and wrist, and ended up in the latter's thigh. It caused every wound to Kennedy and Connally except the fatal wound to Kennedy's head. It might be unlikely, it certainly isn't impossible (this makes me a xxxx, apparently!) If it didn't happen, I'd like to know: 1. Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air? (There's a magic bullet) 2. How the bullet that entered Connally from behind steered its way around Kennedy first. (There's another magic bullet!) Phew, all these magic bullets. A wizard was afoot in Dealey Plaza that day. There is supporting evidence from credible eyewitnesses (unless you cherry-pick a fraction to support more than three shots fired, a shooter behind the picket fence, etc.) The Z-film also supports the single bullet theory. Connally and Kennedy appear to be reacting to their wounds simultaneously, but I suppose that is open to some interpretation due to the obstruction by the freeway sign. I've also seen that diagram which shows Kennedy and Connally sitting at the same height, same distance from the inside of the car, and both straight shouldered and sitting forward at the time of the single shot that hit them both. Now there's a lie. I've also seen the picture of the 'pristine' bullet which shows it is not pristine (the one you never see in a CT book). Real liars are easier to find in the conspiracy world. Sorry, getting off topic I suppose. I just don't like being labelled a xxxx by someone who is clearly blinkered, entrenched and ignorant. Paul.

Hello ... this is directed at me, right ... no other Pauls around? Yes of course. I'm not entrenched in my opinion, and would not be disappointed if a conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I really am as happy being right as I am wrong, as long as the truth is left at the end. Yes, I would. But I firmly believe at this moment in time that there was no consipiracy. This of course makes me an idiot on this forum, a "nutter" even! And thank you for being so civil

You guys crack me up. I don't mind engaging in sensible debate with those who can reciprocate. If the best you can do is respond with "grow up", as far as I'm concerned you're not a serious researcher, or even an intelligent one. The fact remains that the SBT is by far the best explanation which fits the physical evidence. No doubt the extra shooters were using bullets made of ice, which is why there is a distinct lack of ballistic evidence which points to any weapon being fired in Dealey Plaza other than LHO's rifle, which he took into work that morning in order to have a pop at the President. I'm not a "serious" researcher, so by all means tell me I'm wrong on this point, but please refrain from telling me to "grow up", it's not nice.

There is no alternative theory of the SBT (or SBF, as I prefer to call it) I can see here, let alone a plausible one. And thanks for the advice on growing up, I hope you don't mind if I choose to ignore it. It's a shame that sense seems to go out of the window so quickly around here. Multiple shooters!

I not only believe it's possible, I believe it happened. No-one has yet come up with a plausible alternative theory.

Can you elaborate? I've no idea what the point of this post is.

Yes, of course. Apologies Jack, I was a bit hasty in my response. So what is peculiar about a man in a white sweater managing to move about over the course of an interminable number of seconds? If he was made of cardboard, I suppose that would be strange. And, Professor Fetzer, if the Zapruder alteration evidence put forward in HOAX is as weak as that in MURDER I don't think I'll bother, thanks.

Frames Z100-Z135 cover a time period of about two seconds. How is that "sudden", and what happens in the intervening frames? The spectators positions in Z100 are not identical to those in Z135. Yes, certainly worthy of inclusion in the next edition of Murder In Dealey Plaza!

If you accept that the Zapruder film was altered, then you *must* logically accept that other film and photographic evidence was correspondingly altered, since there is a distinct lack of inconsistency between the photographic and film evidence available. This is something I find unlikely in the extreme. And printing frames in the wrong order does not constitute alteration. Paul.

Hi Tom, Thanks very much for your replies, I have a better understanding of the fateful moment now. Looking forward to reading more. Paul.

I've always been intrigued by the line of equidistant fragments that appear above JFK's head in Z313. I've always assumed their regularity is an illusion - i.e. they are separate artefacts on film that represent the same fragment, but not being an expert in photography I struggle to find an explanation. Can anyone here explain? Apologies if this has been covered before, but I've yet to come across a reference to it. In any case, the trajectory of the dots does suggest to me that they are a result of a shot from behind. I can't imagine how a shot from the front or side could result in that effect. It's not so clear from the stills, but if you watch the film there does appear to be a forward outburst of material at right angles to the line of fragments, which to me supports a bullet entering from the rear. Conservation of momentum, basic principle of Newtonian physics. Paul.

In her interview on Black Op, Jean said (words to the effect) that in hindsight she was pleased about the ridicule she received as a result of her observation, since it helped discredit her and might even have saved her life. Of course, to some degree this does contradict her own accounts of the attempts on her life in "The Last Dissenting Witness" ("They" could kill the President, but Jean Hill was much more of a challenge).

Merely an understanding of the issue and a healthy sprinkling of commone sense, Jack. I make no claims to be an expert, but I do have the mental capacity to see through many of the flimsy "studies" presented here. Stop shouting Jack, I hear you. However you wish to define research, it certainly is NOT achieved by posting a cropped image with an open-ended question. As for Mr Healy, I was simply making an honest observation. If you know of any post he's made that is built on a piece of research please put the link here, I would be genuinely interested to read it. As far as I can tell all he does is create flame wars. Can anyone dispute that? I don't mind being proved wrong. Wrong Jack. Real researchers keep an open mind. Clearly you are entrenched in your own opinion... er, research. With pleasure. You are excused. Kind Regards, Paul.