Marjan Rynkiewicz

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Uhoh.  The main point of Barry Ernest's The Girl On the Stairs is that Adams and Styles did *not* see Shelley and Lovelady when she and Styles reached the first floor.  S&L weren't there yet. Adams indicated to Ernest that the passage in her testimony about seeing them did not even sound like her.  Notice how she often inserted "sir" in her answers. There was no "sir" in that passage.

 

Thus, the WC presumably inserted her saying she saw S&L in order to discredit the timing of her descent. by claiming she came down a couple of minutes after Oswald. Not interviewing Styles and the women's supervisor, Dorothy Garner, who would have corroborated Adams' timing  made it easier for WC staff to discredit her..

 

Typewritten testimony was easy to change but not the stenotype of the interview.  So  Ernest contacted NARA to get the stenotypes.  They are missing, he was told, and so were the stenotypes of the testimony of S&L, who were interviewed the same day as Adams.  Surely that implies there was something to hide.  

 

Several months ago Greg Parker expressed skepticism about Ernest's telling of Adams' story.  He said Sean Murphy had been skeptical too and Murphy had talked to Adams several times about her story, including Styles' initial reluctance to go along with it.  I'm not sure how those conversations ended. My conversation with Parker pretty much ended when I pointed out the stenotypes of the three testimonies had gone missing.    

 

Several months ago Pat Speer and I went round and round on the question of Oswald and the steps.  I believe Oswald was not on the 6th floor and did not come down the steps. Pat pretty much agrees.  He thinks Adams and Styles *did* come down the steps

when they said

and didn't see or hear Oswald, but reaches his conclusion for a different reason.  They did see S&L,  he says, because those two lied about how soon they returned to the first floor after the murder.  The central lie Pat sees in all of this was the timing of S&L to the first floor claimed by the WR.

 

Now comes Adams, almost 40 years before talking to Ernest, saying she *did* see S&L on the first floor. 

Casually, at the end of the segment. Lane and Sahl obviously did not understand the significance of what Adams said.

 

How important is this discrepancy?

 

For me, of the women on the 4th floor, Dorothy Garner has always been the more important witness. She stayed behind on the 4th floor while Adams and Styles went down the steps. She corroborated Adams estimate of the timing of their descent.

 

More importantly she was still on the 4th floor when Truly and a cop, presumably Baker, reached there. *Without seeing or hearing Oswald*. This is besides the fact that the WR made no attempt to explain how Oswald came down those steps without anyone on the intervening floors saying they saw him.  Garner's account is devastating.

 

Which, knowing what Garner would say, is why she was not asked to testify.

 

So what to make of this latest surfacing of an Adams interview?  Does anyone have a line to Ernest?  I wonder what he thinks.

 

One thing is clear.  Without Adams' testimony there is still ample evidence to establish Oswald did not come down those stairs as the WR claimed.

 

 

I see 2 mistakes.

U cant say .... when they said.... koz, Adams & Styles did not agree. Styles said that they did not leave the window at an early time. And, Styles said that they firstly went to the elevator, & then went to the stairs.

Nextly, u are wrong re your reference to S&L. There is no such wording (by Adams)(by anyone) in the recording.  Adams did mention 2 gentlemen outside the building, not inside.

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I agree that some of the witnesses to the large wound were confused. 

But I thought you were saying there was no small entrance wound low on the back of the head. Every autopsy participant observing the small entrance wound said it was low on the head. Donahue was fooled by the Clark Panel, who said it was actually near the top of the head in the cowlick. The HSCA confirmed that. 

But most everyone to view the autopsy materials since have said there is no entrance where the Clark Panel placed the wound. 

Yes, i have MORTAL ERROR & JFK THE SMOKING GUN, & yes, Fisher told Donahue that the inshoot was higher up (higher than where Olivier fired his 10 test inshoots).

I havent tried to follow all of the contradictions. And i havent tried to understand the xrays, but it surprises me that the back of the head entry (or exit) hole is not clear re pozzie in xrays. Surely the xrays should settle that exact (pozzie)  issue, re height & re off-center (or are the xrays really that poor?).

Exhumation would tell us. An mri scan of the whole casket would tell us i think.

If an mri scan showed a hole above the lambda then what would that do to most of your stuff?

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So all those claiming to see an EOP entry were lying? And all the descriptions by the doctors of an EOP entrance on the photos and x-rays were a hoax? 

What are you saying? 

Hi Pat, i  love your stuff. I daresay that no-one was lying, just wrong. For example Hume says that re his autopsy report he expected the xrays & photos to speak for themselves. But as u know Hume hizself did not have access to the xrays nor photos after leaving Bethesda. 

Yes, all ovem were wrong when describing a large hole at the back of the head.

The driver of the johnsonlimo helped to get jfk out of the jfklimo, & the driver said that he never saw the hole (here i mean a big blowout hole)(not the small bullet hole), koz he only ever got to see the back of the head.

All it needs is a good BS meter, & it appears that i have the best BS meter around here.

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, go back and read what Dr. Hodges said. He said he could see the wound in some of the autopsy photos. Let's read his statement again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

I might add that when the autopsy doctors examined the autopsy photos in late 1966, they reported that the autopsy photos proved that the EOP entry wound was correct:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. (p. 3)

In Dr. Finck's January 1965 report to General Blumberg, Finck said the entry wound was in the occiput (p. 1). Are you going to tell me that Finck could have so horrendously blundered as to locate a wound in the occiput that was actually visibly above the lambda and even more visibly above the lambdoid suture and thus obviously in the parietal bone?

Military aide Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from General Wehle, told the HSCA that the entry wound was "just inside the hairline" (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10). 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). 

I repeat ........Hodges did say that the EOP site had been described as being the entry..... These words exist & can never be erased (but apparently have been been ignored, but not by me).

Anyone with a good BS meter can see that any claim that the entry was other than above the lambda is wrong.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Marjan, I read the lengthy education forum thread you linked. Like others there I don't buy it. I only found one statement in the entire thread where you spelled out an actual positive argument for a Hickey shooting (the rest was assertions you had found the truth and photo analysis arguing trajectories were theoretically possible): "the strong smell of gunsmoke being the most powerful evidence I think that Hickey fired. No--wrong--the dent in the chrome trim is its most powerful evidence". The problem there is neither of those two items establish Hickey fired since it assumes there are no other reasonable explanations for either of those phenomena, which is not the case. On the other hand, nowhere in the lengthy thread did I see a satisfactory rebuttal to what I cited as two deal-killers to the theory. I don't find satisfactory your only explanation I could find for why no one in the followup car around Hickey told of hearing a burst of automatic weapon fire from Hickey ("I reckon that everybody knew--I mean--Jacki, Bobby, LBJ, Hoover, etc. That's the real reason it has been successfully hidden"). The other, the notion that a random accidental burst from Hickey would only hit the target of the assassination attempt, JFK, exactly where needed to blow his head off, and hit no other person or miss, as opposed to the alternative that that JFK head shot hit JFK where it did because someone aimed it there, I did not see addressed apart from repeated circular assertions that it happened therefore it happened. So thanks, curiosity satisfied concerning what you had, not further curious.  

What are the chances that next Friday i get out of bed at 8am & turn my computer on & then at 8:05am i find that i cant move my right hand & then at 8:10am find that i cant talk & then at 8:45am find myself in Emergency surrounded by doctors.

Virtually nil.

 But that is what happened last Friday.

On 9/28/2023 at 4:36 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I knew Howard Donahue, not well, but I knew him. He began to suspect that a rifle from the follow-up car caused the head shot because (1) he knew that the dented shell found in the sniper's nest could not have fired a bullet that day, (2) that the trajectory from the sixth-floor window through JFK's head was impossible given the entry point and the skull damage, and (3) that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on or just below the outer table of the skull when they enter the skull. 

Howard was one of those fine Americans who found it very hard to believe that his government would brazenly lie to him about something so important as the death of a president. He just could not process it. Thus, he accepted the SBT and went looking for a non-conspiratorial explanation for the head shot. 

Michael i appreciate your commitment to the jfk saga. But, i have never corrected u on one little point that i have seen u make umpteen times on this & other forums. So i will correct it now.

Donahue did not say that the existence of many small fragments inside the head near the front of the head support a shot-from-the-front (u love the shot-from-the-front theory).

No, Donahue said that the small fragments near the front support a shot-from-the-back. See top of p228 paperback. See bottom of p247 paperback.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Marjan, on the Hickey shooting idea, may I ask why you think so? 

I have recently looked at the McLaren and Menninger books which make that case and can't see it. The 6.0 mm measurement for an entrance bullet wound I assume is too close to distinguish from human measurement error and coincidence, and that's about it for the positive case apart from an argument for plausibility.

However against plausibility is nobody in the followup car told of hearing Hickey firing (and they surely would have heard it), and its a bit extreme to assume a successful silencing and coverup of all the witnesses in that followup car without someone leaking. And even more, the hit to JFK's head is just obviously from someone intending to hit him, not an accident (too freak perfect of a hit). And Hickey for sure was not intentionally shooting JFK which excludes him as the source on that grounds (extreme improbability).  

So, no strong positive evidence, and two extreme improbabilities. Please say where you differ? Also, can you say which in-print or off-the-shelf available published argument is in your opinion the best, in making the Hickey case?

Incidentally, I think the witnesses who saw and smelled gunsmoke and heard a shot near the limousine probably reflect a gunman firing a shot from the storm drain, perhaps as source of the throat shot entering from the front in an upward trajectory and exiting at the lower back of JFK's head, at Z327, in keeping with the original bullet track of the autopsists (according to Sibert and O'Neill), not a Hickey shooting. So I do not see those arguments as calling for a Hickey shot or shots either. But never mind me, I'm interested in your argument if you can spell it out in a nutshell (and optionally give a reference to read more). Thanks.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27985-hickey-might-have-fired-his-ar15-members-survey/page/13/#comment-515142

Read my comments/postings on this forum (link above to one ovem). And on the jfkassassinationforum. I am No1 in the world on the jfk accidental homicide.

Then, if one atom of any of what i have said (written) is wrong, get back to me.

I of course have MORTAL ERROR & of course JFK THE SMOKING GUN. Wonderful works. But it appears that i am the only one in the world who ever realized that Hickey fired an auto burst (not just one shot). I am the only only one who realized that Bronson proves it (not disproves it).

All else supporting Hickey-did-it on the web is of little value, just a repeat of mortal error at best. 

Before i joined this forum i visited every thread on this forum (876 pages today i see). Took me weeks.

All u have to do is read my say 333 postings (easy). I will wait.

On 12/22/2023 at 4:30 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Also, although the Rockefeller Commission's final report endorsed the Clark Panel's cowlick entry site for the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges rejected the site in his report and said the EOP entry site was correct (pp. 2-3). 

Hodges did not say that the EOP site was the entry. He merely said that the EOP site had been described as being the entry.

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Custer IS on record late 1970's (Lifton interviews) up to/ including 1992 stating that the back of the head was gone. THIS is why this whole issue is confusing- even Clint Hill (a BOH witness from 1963 to 2013) has been recently moving the wound to the side. I think it is clearly a case of some of the witnesses realizing the ramifications of what they said and are retreating at a late date (Dr. Jenkins "I never did say occipital"; Carrico did an about face on the issue; among others).

Look where Paul Landis places the wound!

 

Bronson shows McIntyre looking at Hickey (shooting) up to Z313, after which McIntyre quickly looks towards jfk to see if any damage has been done. So, Bronson proves that McIntyre was lieing when he said that he saw jfk's head blow up.

We cant see Landis in Bronson koz Landis is behind McIntyre. Praps Landis did see jfk's head blow up.

The question where was the wound is not a good question. 1stly, it tells Landis that there was only one wound (ie by saying THE wound). 2ndly, we know that there was more than one wound (ie the small inshoot at back of head is a wound). 

I wonder whether Landis got to see the big hole when helping with jfk at Parkland? Or praps Landis might mention 2 big holes (in addition to at least one small inshoot).

An exhumation/scan of jfk would be interesting.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not actually a trail as much as it's a splat of fragments by the large defect created when the bullet erupted on the skull. These fragments are presumably in the torn scalp, but some may even be in the hair. They most certainly are not within the brain, as that part of the brain was missing. As the largest fragment found within the skull is actually behind the right eye, the frequent argument the largest fragments were all on the back, and that this designates this splat as a trail from front to back, is nonsense. (Note that due to magnification the face on the A-P x-ray was roughly 20% larger in comparison to the back of the head, and that this places the fragments above the ear at the top of the head, where now-missing skull would normally slope up to the middle, and not an inch or more within the skull itself.)

Any fragments in the hair (ie on the outside of the skull) ...............

................. Probly came from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signals (at say pseudo Z105).

................  Possibly came from Hickey's shot which dented the chrome trim (at Z310).

................  Probly did not come from Hickey's headshot at Z313.

I have not seen any expert opinions re Dr David O Davis' comment that some xray fragments were probly on the outside.

On 12/14/2023 at 8:10 AM, Tony Krome said:

 

Hickey's last shot (the headshot)(say his shot-4) was at Z312.

His shot-3 dented the chrome trim.

His shot-2 might have hit tarmac (on a line halfway between the red-X & the south curb of Elm). Or it hit the concrete south curb of Elm. Or it hit the concrete paving between Elm & Main. In any case it passed say 12ft north of the manhole.

His shot-1 probly hit the tarmac of Main & then the south curb of Main near Tague.

I doubt that Ms Rachley (Baker) was in a position to see any of Hickey's ricochets, she was i think  standing directly on his line of fire, but behind.

She might have seen Oswald's shot-1 which ricocheted off the overhead signals, the remnant slug went throo the floor of the jfklimo & probly hit the driveshaft & tarmac. She did say that the sparks were behind the jfklimo, & that they were from the first of 3 shots.

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Note to anybody:

I have an e-mail into Ben Wecht, who is Cyril Wecht's son, asking Ben to ask Cyril if bullet paths can usually be probed successfully. 

It may be be that it does happen that a bullet path through a body is blocked to probes, due to internal muscles or organs shifting. I have never been able to get a forensic pathologist to answer this question. 

It may be also that the Bethesda autopsists were not skilled at probing bullet paths. 

All that said, as of now I am leaning to the explanation that the wound in JFK's back was shallow, and the CE 399 slug popped out due to shock waves from subsequent strikes. Then Landis found the slug. The FBI memo, perhaps based on scuttlebutt, or an fff-the-record statement, reflects that. 

The back to front path was probed from back to front.

The probe stuck say halfway, showing that the path was not straight, ie the path was bent.

But i don not know whether the path was probed from front to back.

The bent path helps the SBT too.

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Here is an image from Warren Commission Exhibit 895, showing the view from the sniper's nest at Z-225. It's obvious Connally's armpit is to the right of JFK from this angle, even if Connally was a few inches to his left. Jenner, who was not involved in the re-enactment, and knew nothing of the trajectories, was thereby blowing smoke when he claimed the WC's re-enactments proved any bullet hitting Connally must have gone through JFK. 

 

Yes i agree that Connally's rhs is showing in that pix.

But less so if jfk is moved hard right (say one head right), & Connally is moved a little left (say half a head)(& is turned to right)(& leans to left), & if Connally is lowered (say half a head).

Plus we know that jfk had his right arm held high waving to his right, & as jfk goes behind the sign he is now looking to his left but his right arm is still held high but not as high, & we can assume that he is still holding his rt arm highish waving (to the african american dad&mum&son) at Z218 (shot-2).

So, in the end, in the pix, we should have the inshoot on jfk's lower neck in line with the inshoot on Connally's shoulder blade.

In which case Connally could be hit without hitting jfk, but only hi up on Connally's right shoulder, & hi up on left shoulder i suppose.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The photos taken from the SN on 5-24-64 prove Connally could be hit by a bullet fired from behind that did not hit JFK. 

I think that Queen Mary was sitting at Z190. Should have been at Z218, ie about 2 limo lengths further down Elm, where jfk would be moreso in the way of a shot at Connally.

And i think that that pix (taken from the SN) shows that Connally is sitting way too high, judging by the 3 heads in that 1964 pix (taken from the SN)(jfk head, Connally head, Kellerman head). Connally's head should be a  lot lower than it is (in the pix from the SN). Even tho jfk in the back seat of Queen Mary is they say 10" too high (in every pix of Queen Mary) compared to his height in the jfklimo in 1963, all the same Connally is too high in Queen Mary (in the pix from the SN), by a lot.

4 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I've seen that photo before, but the red lines illustrate exactly how much you have to fudge the evidence to make it work.

The bottom line also confirms the 'Way Beyond the Magic Bullet' simulated shot by the Australian team on the Discovery channel that exited the JFK torso dummy's chest.

Did they place the jfklimo at Z160 (wrong) or Z190 (wrong) or Z218 (correct, that is where shot-2 hit) or Z224 (wrong)?

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

There is an alternative variation related to 8°

Yes the SB might have gone straight.

But the failed back to front probe test at autopsy demands that a scientific analysis include at least some veer inside jfk (did they try a front to back probe?).

For example 4 deg of veer also probly helps the SBT laser etc analysis, koz 4 deg gives 2.5" of dogleg per 36" between jfk & Connally.

And 4 deg of veer is not a big ask based on my memory of Carcano veer in gelatin on youtube etc. Alltho it has been shown that a Carcano usually goes fairly straight for a long distance in gelatin in most tests.

Anyhow a Carcano might veer say 4  deg in 8" in jfk's lower neck

(especially if the veer & consequent tumble is upwards)

(due to impacting the skin on an angle, ie not squarely)

(tests using an angled front face on gelatin with skin on the face would confirm this).

Likewise that already slightly tumbling Carcano SB might have veered say 5 deg in 10" (upwards i suppose) while passing throo Connally. This upwards should also help a laser analysis i think (or would it hurt)(in which case i would have to play my a tumbling Carcano duznt veer card)(dunno).

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

https://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html

• "At that angle, no matter WHERE it came from [the bullet that struck Governor Connally], it had to pass through the President's body first!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr. (Warren Commission Assistant Counsel); February 11, 1967

Yes, the anti-SBTers have to replace a simple clearly correct SBT with 3 magic bullets. How silly.

Re the SB hitting at Z224. U are wrong. Lattimer's tests show us that the SB hit at Z218-219.

We see a slight  jacket bulge in Z222 (it looks like a mini lapel flip)(but is actually mainly bulge), which deflates in Z223, & then we see a full lapel flip in Z224 (plus some bulge), all of which is in full accord with Lattimer's tests.

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The SBT is a hoax. The powers that be have tried to claim from 1964 on that a bullet striking JFK in the location of his back wound would go through JFK, exit his throat at the location of his throat wound, and strike JBC in the location of his armpit wound. In reality, of course, they couldn't honestly have claimed this, as there are too many variables, even if the men were actually in alignment. But it's worse than that. They weren't in alignment, and the presentations showing them to be in alignment are just echoes of the original hoax. 

I have read your SBT wordage, & Dale Myers'. 

If the slug veered say 4  deg inside jfk then that changes the impact on Connally by 2.5" in 36" after exiting jfk. But apparently jelly tests show that a Carcano slug seldom veers much (in a short distance).

If the slug veered 4 deg then that explains why the autopsy probe stuck (halfway along jfk). Put another way, the sticking probe proves there was veer.

I dont remember which inshoots & outshoots were difficult to align, nor do i remember whether the difficulty involved too much or too little vertical angle (& horizontal angle). But a few deg of veer helps fix things for the SBT.

i dont know whether this needed veer haztabe up or down or left or right. Up i think. In which case the slug yawed (tumbled) upwards.

For sure the jfk & Connally positions & alignments can make a giant difference. But we dont really know what was what behind the sign. And the slug hit at Z218 (or Z219 at latest), when Jfk was "at" center of sign. Not Z169, not Z190, not Z224.

Anyhow, Lattimer proved that the lapel flip could not happen unless the slug firstly passed throo jfk & had a large tumbling action when it exited Connally. But i know that u dont agree with this.

9 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I had a thought concerning the idea of moving Connally & possibly JFK.

Originally, it seemed a good approach to use a 3D model would be to go from the wound path back.

Maybe it should go the other way - start at a location then see what has to be moved in the limo for it to work.

Now, if it was me and I had those animation skills I would test the SBT by testing possible locations, TSBD, DalTex, County Records.

For each possible location

1. The height and approximate distance to the limo is known
2. The slope of the street is known
3. The approximate position of the limo is know from the film
4. The horizontal and vertical angles could then be calculated

So then the idea would be to 

* move the virtual JFK & Connally torsos until the horizontal angles matched up

* then move the torso postures up / down & rotated left / right until the wounds matched

I'd guess that they would have to be in some strange, even impossible, positions for some shot sources.  

This could then be used to reject SBT locations and possibly the SBT in demonstrations to interested parties if the torsos have to be moved to improbable locations.

btw:  I don't personally believe the SBT.

I dont remember anyone ever stating what should be obvious ie that slugs almost always veer inside a body/jelly/wax.

I reckon that the SBT can invoke say 8 deg of veer (i think upwards) in say 8" while in jfk's neck/back. Why hasnt veer been mentioned/invoked?

8 deg of veer would also explain why the (stainless steel i suppose) thin probe at autopsy would not go all the way throo to the throat.

I see zero explanation of the critical assumptions re the position/angle of jfk & Connally.

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Tonight I was speaking with John Barbour who informed me that his third JFK film, “John Barbour's and William Shakespeare's Final Words on the Murder of JFK”

will be debuting in Encino, California on November 22, 2023.

So, if you want to go to the movies on November 22-which apparently is not an uncommon thing to do in the middle of the day-perhaps you can drive to Encino and watch it. 

Cliff, you can ride down in an Uber.   

Shooting. (Yes)(or shootings actually).

Killing. (Yes)(Plus one attempted killing actually).

Murder. (No)(An attempted murder actually).

Assassination. (No)(An attempted assassination actually).

Accidental Homicide. (Yes).

So, we had an attempted murder, best described as an attempted assassination, plus an accidental homicide. And no murder. Is it too late to change the name of the film?

7 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

But only 1 hypothesis that fits the evidence is the simplest explanation, the one with the least assumptions.

wrt the JFKA many people make the mistake of saying that LHO as the lone assassin satisfies Occam's razor.  But it doesn't satisfy the second part - agrees with all the evidence.

I said....Yes, but, re  any science, there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence.

....................................But, re the jfka, there are zero hypotheses that fit the (so called) evidence.

But, re jfka, there are many contradictions re any & all hypotheses.

No hypothesis fits the evidence.

And, there is only one correct hypothesis, & that is mine, that Hickey fired at Z312 (i say mine, but it came firstly from Donahue, then supported by McLaren)(but only i have explained that Hickey fired at least 4 shots).

And, i doubt that my hypothesis has the least assumptions.

6 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

iirc - that's the opposite of the way I learned the scientific method
 

1. gather all the evidence available
2. make a falsifiable hypothesis that fits all the evidence. if more than 1 pick the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence - the one with the least assumptions
3. use (2) until proven false with new evidence - then reject hypothesis and go to (1)

Yes, but, re  any science, there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence.

But, re the jfka, there are zero hypotheses that fit the (so called) evidence.

10 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

In this interview with ABC's "Nightline" in 1988, former Texas Gov. John Connally finally reveals a shooting sequence that destroys the Single Bullet Theory.

The first shot hit the President

The second shot hit Connally

The third shot hit the President

Hear it from the Governor's own lips:

 

Corroborated by the Zapruder film

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Z230.mp4

Witnessed by a bystander

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Concluded by the FBI

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
 

Connally has changed his story over the years. But, that there story duznt destroy the SBT.

The problem is your logic or lack of it.

First shot hits JFK ....... this is correct ...... Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted off the signal support arm...... shrapnel hitting JFK in the top back of head.

Second shot hits Connally ...... correct........... Oswald's shot-2, the magic bullet, hit Connally & also hit JFK.

Third shot hits JFK ................. correct ............ this was actually an accidental auto-burst of at least 4 shots from Hickey's AR15.

So, Connally is correct, & duznt destroy the SBT.

That SSA Hickey shot jfk might be released after SSA Hill & SSA Landis have died.