Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Nut arguments without the Single Bullet Theory being true?


Recommended Posts

Is it possible to argue in favor of the official story without the Single Bullet Theory being true? We must be prepared for what happens if and when the SBT is debunked in a way that be scientifically proven, reproducible way. Such news might be underreported if the news reporters fail to realize how this proves a conspiracy. Journalists and the public will ask the question "Does this for sure mean a conspiracy, or is a lone gunman still theoretically possible?". It's a fair question, and there has been no all-encompassing study proving otherwise, explaining everything. I have wondered if a Lone Nutter could try arguing that a low-moving, undercharged 6.5 round struck JFK's back, deflected and barely exited the throat, followed by a separate shot to Connally. Has anybody thought of any other theories with one gunman firing the Carcano on the Sixth Floor?

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is it possible to argue in favor of the official story without the Single Bullet Theory being true? We must be prepared for what happens if and when the SBT is debunked in a way that be scientifically proven, reproducible way. Such news might be underreported if the news reporters fail to realize how this proves a conspiracy. Journalists and the public will ask the question "Does this for sure mean a conspiracy, or is a lone gunman still theoretically possible?". It's a fair question, and there has been no all-encompassing study proving otherwise, explaining everything. I have wondered if a Lone Nutter could try arguing that a low-moving, undercharged 6.5 round struck JFK's back, deflected and barely exited the throat, followed by a separate shot to Connally. Has anybody thought of any other theories with one gunman firing the Carcano on the Sixth Floor?

Well, yes, some people try to say the span of time between the first and third shots was 6+ seconds. Ergo, a lone gunman, even armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle, has 3+ seconds between shots, and thus could get off three shots in six seconds. In other other words, the middle shot is sandwiched evenly in a six-second interval.

I always go back to "look at Connally." 

After JFK is struck in the throat, JBC looks over his right shoulder, effecting nearly a 180-degree turn in his seat. He then tries to look over his left shoulder, but is interrupted by a bullet strike. Obviously, not the same bullet that passed through JFK. 

In addition, JBC remembers his wound this way: 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

OK, so JBC is knocked over ~Z295. That is when JBC is struck by a bullet. 

Z295 is about one second before Z313, when JFK is indisputably struck. Ergo, that has to be (at least) a second gunman on Nov. 22.

I wish this very simple, uncontroversial explanation was always at the forefront of JFKA  analysis.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, yes, some people try to say the span of time between the first and third shots was 6+ seconds. Ergo, a lone gunman, even armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle, has 3+ seconds between shots, and thus could get off three shots in six seconds. In other other words, the middle shot is sandwiched evenly in a six-second interval.

I always go back to "look at Connally." 

After JFK is struck in the throat, JBC looks over his right shoulder, effecting nearly a 180-degree turn in his seat. He then tries to look over his left shoulder, but is interrupted by a bullet strike. Obviously, not the same bullet that passed through JFK. 

In addition, JBC remembers his wound this way: 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

OK, so JBC is knocked over ~Z295. That is when JBC is struck by a bullet. 

Z295 is about one second before Z313, when JFK is indisputably struck. Ergo, that has to be (at least) a second gunman on Nov. 22.

I wish this very simple, uncontroversial explanation was always at the forefront of JFKA  analysis.  

 

 

Going by that new 3D model, a straight-moving bullet going into Kennedy's upper back would end up hitting Connally. All of the 3d models show that. So I do not see the lone nut argument for separate shots unless one of the 6.5 rounds were undercharged for some reason. Maybe somebody could even try saying that a single assassin tried tampering with his ammunition in an unprofessional attempt at suppressing the noise of the shot(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Going by that new 3D model, a straight-moving bullet going into Kennedy's upper back would end up hitting Connally. All of the 3d models show that. So I do not see the lone nut argument for separate shots unless one of the 6.5 rounds were undercharged for some reason. Maybe somebody could even try saying that a single assassin tried tampering with his ammunition in an unprofessional attempt at suppressing the noise of the shot(s).

What do you mean "unprofessional"? The CIA Manual on Assassination specifies that one should fire reduced-charge bullets. A reduced-charge bullet is thereby evidence the assassin was familiar with CIA tactics, and strongly suggests the shooter was not Oswald. 

As far as your original question, Specter and others have long said the SBT was unnecessary to the single-assassin solution. Mark Fuhrman, for example, wrote a best-seller in which he both dismantled the SBT and insisted Oswald acted alone. They say simply that Oswald fired three shots: one that struck Kennedy in the back, one that struck Connally, and one that struck Kennedy in the head. This is why the fact of two headshots is so dangerous to the lone nut solution. They don't have an answer for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What do you mean "unprofessional"? The CIA Manual on Assassination specifies that one should fire reduced-charge bullets. A reduced-charge bullet is thereby evidence the assassin was familiar with CIA tactics, and strongly suggests the shooter was not Oswald. 

As far as your original question, Specter and others have long said the SBT was unnecessary to the single-assassin solution. Mark Fuhrman, for example, wrote a best-seller in which he both dismantled the SBT and insisted Oswald acted alone. They say simply that Oswald fired three shots: one that struck Kennedy in the back, one that struck Connally, and one that struck Kennedy in the head. This is why the fact of two headshots is so dangerous to the lone nut solution. They don't have an answer for it. 

Pat S. --

I am entirely open to two nearly simultaneous shots to the rear of JFK's head.

But, jeez, my argument is so much simpler and presentable.

When is JBC struck? Sure looks like Z295, and that conforms to his testimony. When is JFK struck? Indisputably Z313. About one second between shots. 

I do not arrive at my position as a "courtroom tactic," or simple as it is an easy story to relate.  But if I was a lawyer in a courtroom trying to prove two shooters....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a shooter had two rifles with bullets loaded for firing before shooting? If the rifles were well positioned it might be possible to get off two shots in two seconds ,then reload the second rifle for a three second gap. Reversing the process - 3 second gap, 2 second gap (bang bang-bang) It sounds somehow ridiculous, but I think it shortens the time between 2 shots.

Edited by Eddy Bainbridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

What if a shooter had two rifles with bullets loaded for firing before shooting? If the rifles were well positioned it might be possible to get off two shots in two seconds ,then reload the second rifle for a three second gap. Reversing the process - 3 second gap, 2 second gap (bang bang-bang) It sounds somehow ridiculous, but I think it shortens the time between 2 shots.

Wait. Are you musing that someone could put down a rifle, pick up another, and re-gain his target, in less than the time it would take him to re-load? That seems unlikely. On a single-shot rifle, yes, but on the presumed assassination rifle, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this question gentlemen......what do you make of the assertion that Buddy Walthers found a 45 slug when following a bullet trail in the grass? There are pictures of him and someone who claimed to be an FBI man. He bends down and picks up something. Hands it to the other guy who puts it into his pocket. That have been other reports and tales of a handgun been fired at some point in the shooting. Do any of you think a handgun was used? If so, do you think it was just fired once and missed? Do you think any of Kennedy or Connelly's wounds could have been from a 45? Or do you just dismiss this story entirely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Let me ask you this question gentlemen......what do you make of the assertion that Buddy Walthers found a 45 slug when following a bullet trail in the grass? There are pictures of him and someone who claimed to be an FBI man. He bends down and picks up something. Hands it to the other guy who puts it into his pocket. That have been other reports and tales of a handgun been fired at some point in the shooting. Do any of you think a handgun was used? If so, do you think it was just fired once and missed? Do you think any of Kennedy or Connelly's wounds could have been from a 45? Or do you just dismiss this story entirely? 

Has that bullet been identified as coming from a 45? I didn't know it was ever officially found. From my understanding it has always been characterized only as a possible bullet and not as a bullet of a particular caliber.

I personally don't think there's much evidence of a handgun being used. It's possible, but in my opinion far more likely rifles were used in all the shooting of Kennedy and Connally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it certainly was never "officially" identified nor even acknowledged. I think even Buddy always denied it, although I could be wrong. I believe it was Roger Craig maybe that said it was a 45 slug as he was in that picture with the two picking it up and looking at it. I know many people attack Craig but I find him to be an honest man and just a victim of circumstance. In the wrong place at the wrong time and saw too many things and wasn't afraid to tell anyone interested what he saw. I have no reason to doubt him. Many of the things he was ridiculed about and examples used to call him a xxxx (like seeing Oswald and identifying him as the one who ran down the slope and got into the Nash Rambler) have proven to be correct over time. People have probably even doubted his story about seeing the Rambler at all but you can see it in some pictures of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and many other witnesses have spoken of it as well. It may be nothing but I always try to take all the puzzle pieces and put them together if they fit. This one hasn't exactly fit yet but I have heard other stories of someone firing a 45 during the shooting though I didn't consider them as reliable as Craig. Seems like either Frank Sturgis said something about someone firing one or someone else said Frank Sturgis had fired one. It all can get a little foggy over the years so forgive me if I've misspoken. Other things that don't quite fit yet but are intriguing are things like the pools of blood seen by Coley at the news as he came to be known. Jean Hill, in early testimony, before her story started changing had said something about seeing the pool of red liquid as she ran up the knoll but was told that it was red soda that someone had spilled and she accepted this and dropped it. However, Coley said the camera guy with him bent down and stuck his finger in the pool and tasted it and said it was blood. I've seen pools of red soda before and what I saw could not be mistaken for blood. I just don't know what to make of this though. We do have a few people who have mentioned something about the Secret Service agents firing back at an assassin but not very many have attested to this so it's just one of the many strange things you hear about that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2022 at 11:35 PM, Pat Speer said:

... Specter and others have long said the SBT was unnecessary to the single-assassin solution. Mark Fuhrman, for example, wrote a best-seller in which he both dismantled the SBT and insisted Oswald acted alone. They say simply that Oswald fired three shots: one that struck Kennedy in the back, one that struck Connally, and one that struck Kennedy in the head.

 

But what about the bullet that hit the pavement?

Hey, wasn't the discovery of that bullet the reason they had to invent the SBT?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But what about the bullet that hit the pavement?

Hey, wasn't the discovery of that bullet the reason they had to invent the SBT?

 

IIRC) There was one bullet that supposedly hit a manhole cover or street and lodged in the grass,and then the other shot that hit the concrete curb,bounced off and hit James Tague.I'm with you on the shot that hit Tague in the cheek and is the reason they had to come up with the SBT.

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But what about the bullet that hit the pavement?

Hey, wasn't the discovery of that bullet the reason they had to invent the SBT?

 

A fragment from the headshot, like the FBI originally theorized?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

IIRC) There was one bullet that supposedly hit a manhole cover or street and lodged in the grass,and then the other shot that hit the concrete curb,bounced off and hit James Tague.I'm with you on the shot that hit Tague in the cheek and is the reason they had to come up with the SBT.

Except that's just not true, Michael. The WC staff had numerous viewings of the Z-film and realized that Connally was hit within a second or so of JFK. That was one problem. The other one was that they didn't know what happened to the bullet (they believed) exited Kennedy's throat. The thought occurred that perhaps the throat bullet hit Connally, and that was why he reacted so soon after Kennedy. The May 24, 1964 re-enactment was done for the specific purpose of determining if the SBT made sense in light of the position of the men in the limo. The SS and FBI--who had long claimed the films showed three hits, JFK, JBC, JFK--reluctantly agreed to participate. In a warehouse afterwards, moreover, Specter tried to line up the wounds, and found that JFK's back wound was too low for the.bullet to have exited his neck and hit JBC in the armpit (or at the very least that people would suspect as much if they saw the photos.). So he lied about it, and got the SS and FBI to lie about it as well. This is discussed in great detail on my website and was the subject of several of my presentations, including the sole presentation on the SBT at the 50th anniversary of the WR conference held at Bethesda. (Warren Commission attorney Burt Griffin was in the audience, but he stormed out when I presented the evidence Specter lied.) 

In any event, Tague was not considered a problem until an article came out about him on 6-5-64. He was brought in to testify on 7-23. This was just for show. Specter had finished his chapter in which the SBT was described over a month before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was going back through some of the older threads on here today and ran across something peculiar. Not saying it is of any significance though but found it strange since earlier on here we had discussed a possible 45 slug found in Dealey Plaza. Anyway, someone had posted quotes from witnesses who had said that at least one of the shots sounded like a handgun and several who said the shots sounded like they came from inside the limo. I'm not trying to push this theory so just stay calm, lol! Anyway, the last quote was one of the Parkland doctors. I can't recall which one. When asked about the damage to Kennedy's skull he said it was the equivalent of someone shooting him in the head with a 45 caliber at close range. Not saying that happened of course, but I thought I would share that after my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...