Possible / Unlikely / Probable

[Bill Fite]

I've been interested in the experimental evidence for a while.  I recently watched a video on YouTube where the presenter (who debunks conspiracy theories) started off saying the JFK assassination was weird then in going over the evidence presented he used the word unlikely several times before arriving at no real conclusion.

When some argue the LN side experimental evidence is used to show that their favorite LN could possibly have committed the murder all by himself. There are many anecdotal accounts on the internet stating how easy the shot would  be and claims of having recreated it easily.  On the other hand there are frequent quotes from some attributed to Carlos Hathcock (IIRC) that the shot would have been extremely difficult if not impossible, highly unlikely.

As an example  For Illustration:

Restricting ourselves to the experimental evidence Dan Rather and CBS supplied an experiment by setting up a track, tower and target and then having 11 test shooters simulate the shots.

link to CBS recreation

Experimental Setup:

• 11 volunteers familiar with bolt action rifles but unfamiliar with MC
• given time to practice with MC similar to one found in TSB
• results - assuming Dan Rather only reported successes
  • 2 of the test shooters had 2 or more hits in < 6 seconds
  • 1 had 1 hit + 2 'near misses'

Assumptions include: 

• setup accurate
• the experience of the rifleman doesn't bias the experiment
• Rather reported only the most successful tests

Probability:

So, given the small sample size, we could model the probability of success using a Bayesian approach where we update the probability of some Lone Nut being able to pull off the shot from the rear.

Starting with an agnostic prior probability of 1 success, 1 failure the results of the experiment are added to the counts to get 4 successes, 9 failures.

This results in a probability of a LN success of 4/13  or 0.308.   (note: the agnostic prior increases this probability)

an aside:

If you watch the C-Span video linked above to the end - you miss some information - here's the rest of the info Dan R gave at the end of this one.

link to extended experiment

More Data:

* 37 attempts in total by the 11 marksmen

* 17 failed due to MC rifle problems 

* so, assuming Dan R reported successes as above

p(LN successful shots) = (1 + 3) / (20 + 2) = 0.189

At this point, if we assume the rifle tested was representative of the MC population (like we assumed the marksmen were representative of a LN shooter)

p(MC rifle functions) = (1+20) / (2+39)     -- again using the agnostic 1 success, 1 failure prior probability

p(MC rifle functions) = 21 / 41 = 0.512

For the LN hypothesis to be true - events tested by both experiments would have to be successful. This can be estimated by multiplying the 2 probabilities together - assuming the rifle tested by CBS was representative & the marksmen were of similar skill to the LN shooter in the rear.

 p(LN success) = p(LN successful shots) * p(MC rifle functions) =  0.189 * 0.512 = 0.093

Experiment 2:   Don Thomas presentation of acoustic evidence

Setup:

• Experts identified 5 sound impulses on the dicta belt recording as indicating shots
• 32 microphones were set up along the parade route 
• 5 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza
• the test recorded impulses were then matched to the microphone w the best match

Results:

• No matter which microphone picked up the first shot - there are only 120 different ways the sequence can occur.  examples ABCDE, BDCAE etc.
• Only 1 way for the matches to occur in sequence along the parade route where the mic sequence is always increasing from the first mic to the last
• so 1 in 120 chance that the matches would be in a sequence matching the motorcycles path over time along the parade route - ABCDE.
• The sequence matched the 1 in 120.
• note:  mic sequence diagram and explanation @20 minute mark or so
• note2: Thomas misspeaks in presentation and says 1 in 125.  I'm pretty sure that's wrong. 5*4*3*2*1 = 120

For LN 3-shot success  we would need a random match here with probability of 0.0083 assuming the impulses are from shots.  Here we are trying to reject the 5-shot acoustic evidence and would by chance have a (1- 0.0083) chance of doing so.  The expectation is that the 5 impulses will be randomly ordered across time but they show up in the sequence matching the motorcycles progress along the route.  Given that a lone nut was responsible the sequence is most probably one of the other 119 out of 120 sequences.  

So far then the p(LN ) =  0.189 * 0.512 *  0.0083 = 0.00077 or approximately 1 in 1288.  -- based on the experiments and assumptions used in this example.   Other experiments or more results from experiments that were run could be included easily.

So.... as illustrated above it's interesting to think about the experimental evidece in terms of probabilities.  It's easy to state what assumptions are made and count the results then compute the probabilities.

I hope I haven't made a numerical error - if someone finds one I'll correct the above.

It might be very interesting for the 60th year since JFK's murder to see someone do a documentary recreating past experiments.

Other experiments might include:

* suspending watermelons from above by string or rope or below by spring then shooting them to test which way they move

* having test witnesses sit across the street from the TSBD then have people of different sizes appear at the partially closed window for 5 or 10 seconds and seeing how many of the test witnesses could correctly (with some bounds for error) describe their sex, hair color, weight, height, etc.

I do know that lots of people who have explored the murder have evidence that proves a conspiracy - at least to themselves and others - and yet others will reject any evidence conflicting with their beliefs.  

But it could be more interesting if people would state a probability and list the assumptions experiments are based on rather than relying on possibilities.   Well at least for me.

Hope this was interesting example of how this could be done (maybe by an expert in designing experiments and modelling experimental probabilities) and an interesting read.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I've been interested in the experimental evidence for a while.  I recently watched a video on YouTube where the presenter (who debunks conspiracy theories) started off saying the JFK assassination was weird then in going over the evidence presented he used the word unlikely several times before arriving at no real conclusion.

When some argue the LN side experimental evidence is used to show that their favorite LN could possibly have committed the murder all by himself. There are many anecdotal accounts on the internet stating how easy the shot would  be and claims of having recreated it easily.  On the other hand there are frequent quotes from some attributed to Carlos Hathcock (IIRC) that the shot would have been extremely difficult if not impossible, highly unlikely.

As an example  For Illustration:

Restricting ourselves to the experimental evidence Dan Rather and CBS supplied an experiment by setting up a track, tower and target and then having 11 test shooters simulate the shots.

link to CBS recreation

Experimental Setup:

• 11 volunteers familiar with bolt action rifles but unfamiliar with MC
• given time to practice with MC similar to one found in TSB
• results - assuming Dan Rather only reported successes
  • 2 of the test shooters had 2 or more hits in < 6 seconds
  • 1 had 1 hit + 2 'near misses'

Assumptions include: 

• setup accurate
• the experience of the rifleman doesn't bias the experiment
• Rather reported only the most successful tests

Probability:

So, given the small sample size, we could model the probability of success using a Bayesian approach where we update the probability of some Lone Nut being able to pull off the shot from the rear.

Starting with an agnostic prior probability of 1 success, 1 failure the results of the experiment are added to the counts to get 4 successes, 9 failures.

This results in a probability of a LN success of 4/13  or 0.308.   (note: the agnostic prior increases this probability)

an aside:

If you watch the C-Span video linked above to the end - you miss some information - here's the rest of the info Dan R gave at the end of this one.

link to extended experiment

More Data:

* 37 attempts in total by the 11 marksmen

* 17 failed due to MC rifle problems 

* so, assuming Dan R reported successes as above

p(LN successful shots) = (1 + 3) / (20 + 2) = 0.189

At this point, if we assume the rifle tested was representative of the MC population (like we assumed the marksmen were representative of a LN shooter)

p(MC rifle functions) = (1+20) / (2+39)     -- again using the agnostic 1 success, 1 failure prior probability

p(MC rifle functions) = 21 / 41 = 0.512

For the LN hypothesis to be true - events tested by both experiments would have to be successful. This can be estimated by multiplying the 2 probabilities together - assuming the rifle tested by CBS was representative & the marksmen were of similar skill to the LN shooter in the rear.

 p(LN success) = p(LN successful shots) * p(MC rifle functions) =  0.189 * 0.512 = 0.093

A few other facts to keep in mind about the CBS rifle test:

-- All the participants were experienced riflemen. One of them was Howard Donahue, who, not surprisingly, shot the best score.

-- The riflemen were given the chance to fire practice shots before the test began, a luxury that Oswald would not have had.

-- A shot was counted as a "hit" if it landed anywhere in the target silhouette. Many of those "hits" would have caused only minor wounds.  

-- The CBS riflemen did not fire in the cramped conditions in which the alleged lone gunman fired. They didn't even fire through a half-opened window. 

-- Several of the experienced riflemen failed to score two hits on any of their attempts. 

Any truly realistic rifle test would include only military vets who never scored higher than the level of Sharpshooter and who had engaged in minimal target practice over the preceding few years. It would also simulate the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. The "hits" in a realistic test would only be shots that landed in approximately the same locations that Oswald's two alleged hits supposedly landed.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

A few other facts to keep in mind about the CBS rifle test:

-- All the participants were experienced riflemen. One of them was Howard Donahue, who, not surprisingly, shot the best score.

-- The riflemen were given the chance to fire practice shots before the test began, a luxury that Oswald would not have had.

-- A shot was counted as a "hit" if it landed anywhere in the target silhouette. Many of those "hits" would have caused only minor wounds.  

-- The CBS riflemen did not fire in the cramped conditions in which the alleged lone gunman fired. They didn't even fire through a half-opened window. 

-- Several of the experienced riflemen failed to score two hits on any of their attempts. 

Any truly realistic rifle test would include only military vets who never scored higher than the level of Sharpshooter and who had engaged in minimal target practice over the preceding few years. It would also simulate the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. The "hits" in a realistic test would only be shots that landed in approximately the same locations that Oswald's two alleged hits supposedly landed.

 

 

One real life condition dynamic ( an important one ) that can never be adequately "simulated" in shooting reenactments:

The life and death risk at any second threat fear that Oswald or any shooter must have felt while shooting at the President of the United States...in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses and scores of armed security just feet below.

Oswald or whoever had to know that his rifle's super loud shots would immediately draw attention to his easily seen open window perch location.

Every person in Dealey Plaza could see the bright direct noontime sunlight illuminated face of the Texas School Book Depository building. It was right there in front of everybody like a giant theater movie screen.

And with one complete loud shot miss and a second loud shot hit that was survivable the pressure to make that 3rd bullseye kill shot must have been body tensing desperate.

That head shot was taken at the absolute last possible doable second.

JFK's limo would have kept going down and away, Clint Hill might have been able to get on the trunk and block JFK and Jackie and another shot would have made the shooters location even more easy to locate.

The last possible chance for an accurate JFK head shot was in that last 1 to 3 second time frame.

Logic suggests that real life and death threat desperate time frame pressure would most certainly increase the difficulty of replicating the JFK bullseye head shot even more by reenactors ... imo anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

I discuss the shooting re-enactments and what they demonstrate here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

[Joe Bauer]

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I discuss the shooting re-enactments and what they demonstrate here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

Wow Pat.

Lots of well researched info.

A few quick thought questions:

If Oswald practiced shooting his rifle several times around Dallas while he lived in Oak Cliff, how did he get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage each time which is where the rifle was stored since Marina moved in months previous?

And then back again?

Where else may Oswald have stored the rifle besides Ruth Paine's garage?

Shaneyfelt with his mechanical rifle simulator machine in the photo. He could not get close enough to even look through the scope.

Frazier said they made bullseye hits 3 times in the "space of a dime"  when the scope was properly aligned?

At a target 264 feet away? GEEMINY CHRISTMAS!

And was that target also moving at the time?

3 different ways...away and at a downward declining angle and JFK's head and upper body also moving two feet to his left after he is hit in the back? All that target movement between the 2nd and 3rd shot?

Ear witness describe the last two shots as being very close together. Not enough time to lower your rifle, do the bolt action and realign your scope sight.

Oswald's co-worker Harold Norman reenacted the rifle shots he heard above him including their time frame sequence.

He depicted them all as being equally spaced out with no longer or shorter pauses between them.

"BOOM click click, BOOM click click, BOOM click click."

Which if he is to be believed could suggest that the short time frame between the 2nd and 3rd shots as described by farther away ear witnesses could have been an echo effect of the 2nd shot?

And echo that Harold Norman could not hear due to his location inside a building?

And he was just ten feet below the rifle shots!

 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Wow Pat.

Lots of well researched info.

A few quick thought questions:

If Oswald practiced shooting his rifle several times around Dallas while he lived in Oak Cliff, how did he get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage each time which is where the rifle was stored since Marina moved in months previous?

And then back again?

Where else may Oswald have stored the rifle besides Ruth Paine's garage?

Shaneyfelt with his mechanical rifle simulator machine in the photo. He could not get close enough to even look through the scope.

Frazier said they made bullseye hits 3 times in the "space of a dime"  when the scope was properly aligned?

At a target 264 feet away? GEEMINY CHRISTMAS!

And was that target also moving at the time?

3 different ways...away and at a downward declining angle and JFK's head and upper body also moving two feet to his left after he is hit in the back? All that target movement between the 2nd and 3rd shot?

Ear witness describe the last two shots as being very close together. Not enough time to lower your rifle, do the bolt action and realign your scope sight.

Oswald's co-worker Harold Norman reenacted the rifle shots he heard above him including their time frame sequence.

He depicted them all as being equally spaced out with no longer or shorter pauses between them.

"BOOM click click, BOOM click click, BOOM click click."

Which if he is to be believed could suggest that the short time frame between the 2nd and 3rd shots as described by farther away ear witnesses could have been an echo effect of the 2nd shot?

And echo that Harold Norman could not hear due to his location inside a building?

And he was just ten feet below the rifle shots!

 

It's safe to say we've reached the same conclusion. That the single-assassin solution is highly unlikely, and that the WC and subsequent panels twisted the evidence to make it seem reasonable to assume Oswald fired all the shots, when this was--by their own test results--demonstrated to have been highly unlikely. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

You might find the following exchange between David Belin and Bella Abzug that took place on 11-11-75 before her committee of interest. it reveals why the shooting recreation was designed the way it was.

Belin When you say we did not reconstruct, we reconstructed what hap­pened to the bullet passing through President Kennedy's neck. What we did not do, and what I believe we should have done, was, when we had marksman tests run, we should have run them with a moving vehicle rather than with the.se stationary targets. We also should have done one other thin . At the time the tests were run it was assumed that all the shots 􀀙fired took place in about  5½ or 6 seconds. But, if ou assume that the first shot struck Presi­dent Kennedy's neck, yexited, and hit Governor Coru1ally, then the  second shot struck Kennedy in the head 5½ seconds later, and the third shot missed-which was certainly a plausible theory-then that also should have been investigated. The argument against reproducing the exact shots was that we did not have to show that it was necessarily probable; all we had to show was that it was reasonably possible to do what was <lonl', an<l that is the way the tests were run. 

Ms. ABzug. In other words, the specific shot was not attempted; that is, one bullet penetrating the neck of one individual, and passing through the back and wnst of a second individual t 

Mr. BELIN. That was not attempted, except they were able to deter­mine the fact that Governor Connal1y's jacket showed a bullet enter­ing in somewhere at a slant and indicative of the fact that the bullet was probably tumbling when it hit Governor (',onnally, and probably hit something else in the meantime, coupled with the other tests that were done.

We did reconstruct tests on his wrist to see what would happen if a wrist were hit with a pristine bullet, and that was evidence o f the fact that one shot did all of the damage to Governor Connally. 

Ms. ABZug. Was there a specific decision not to try to duplicate that shot? Give me a yes or a no so we can get off this subject, and on to some other questions. 

Mr. BEUN. There was a specific decision·not to try and have a moving target made. I do not know exactly how you could duplicate a shot going through the neck and then striking a human body, but to the best of my recollection that specific thing was not done.

[Matt Allison]

The disconnect between the results of the first 2 shots and the supposed 3rd shot that hit the skull is a giant red flag. The shot that hit the head had to be precisely located on the right side of the head in order to not hit Mrs. Kennedy, who was leaning in to her husband's face at that moment. Extremely difficult to believe that particular shot was taken by Oswald from that window with that toy gun of his. Not at all a believable scenario, IMO.

[Chris Davidson]

What's the probability of two red shirted people on the steps as the limo passes by, while the red shirted sniper is up in the 6th floor SE window?

The "dog/pony" show put on by the WC will keep you chasing your tail for eternity, or, at least approaching 60 years.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

What's the probability of two red shirted people on the steps as the limo passes by, while the red shirted sniper is up in the 6th floor SE window?

The "dog/pony" show put on by the WC will keep you chasing your tail for eternity, or, at least approaching 60 years.

I don't recall anyone saying the sniper was wearing a red shirt.

[Michael Griffith]

On 5/22/2023 at 11:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

I discuss the shooting re-enactments and what they demonstrate here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

Pat, this is a great article. I have added a link to it on the Articles and Videos page of my JFK website (LINK). 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 5/21/2023 at 6:59 AM, Bill Fite said:

I've been interested in the experimental evidence for a while.  I recently watched a video on YouTube where the presenter (who debunks conspiracy theories) started off saying the JFK assassination was weird then in going over the evidence presented he used the word unlikely several times before arriving at no real conclusion.

When some argue the LN side experimental evidence is used to show that their favorite LN could possibly have committed the murder all by himself. There are many anecdotal accounts on the internet stating how easy the shot would  be and claims of having recreated it easily.  On the other hand there are frequent quotes from some attributed to Carlos Hathcock (IIRC) that the shot would have been extremely difficult if not impossible, highly unlikely.

As an example  For Illustration:

Restricting ourselves to the experimental evidence Dan Rather and CBS supplied an experiment by setting up a track, tower and target and then having 11 test shooters simulate the shots.

link to CBS recreation

Experimental Setup:

• 11 volunteers familiar with bolt action rifles but unfamiliar with MC
• given time to practice with MC similar to one found in TSB
• results - assuming Dan Rather only reported successes
  • 2 of the test shooters had 2 or more hits in < 6 seconds
  • 1 had 1 hit + 2 'near misses'

Assumptions include: 

• setup accurate
• the experience of the rifleman doesn't bias the experiment
• Rather reported only the most successful tests

Probability:

So, given the small sample size, we could model the probability of success using a Bayesian approach where we update the probability of some Lone Nut being able to pull off the shot from the rear.

Starting with an agnostic prior probability of 1 success, 1 failure the results of the experiment are added to the counts to get 4 successes, 9 failures.

This results in a probability of a LN success of 4/13  or 0.308.   (note: the agnostic prior increases this probability)

an aside:

If you watch the C-Span video linked above to the end - you miss some information - here's the rest of the info Dan R gave at the end of this one.

link to extended experiment

More Data:

* 37 attempts in total by the 11 marksmen

* 17 failed due to MC rifle problems 

* so, assuming Dan R reported successes as above

p(LN successful shots) = (1 + 3) / (20 + 2) = 0.189

At this point, if we assume the rifle tested was representative of the MC population (like we assumed the marksmen were representative of a LN shooter)

p(MC rifle functions) = (1+20) / (2+39)     -- again using the agnostic 1 success, 1 failure prior probability

p(MC rifle functions) = 21 / 41 = 0.512

For the LN hypothesis to be true - events tested by both experiments would have to be successful. This can be estimated by multiplying the 2 probabilities together - assuming the rifle tested by CBS was representative & the marksmen were of similar skill to the LN shooter in the rear.

 p(LN success) = p(LN successful shots) * p(MC rifle functions) =  0.189 * 0.512 = 0.093

Experiment 2:   Don Thomas presentation of acoustic evidence

Setup:

• Experts identified 5 sound impulses on the dicta belt recording as indicating shots
• 32 microphones were set up along the parade route 
• 5 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza
• the test recorded impulses were then matched to the microphone w the best match

Results:

• No matter which microphone picked up the first shot - there are only 120 different ways the sequence can occur.  examples ABCDE, BDCAE etc.
• Only 1 way for the matches to occur in sequence along the parade route where the mic sequence is always increasing from the first mic to the last
• so 1 in 120 chance that the matches would be in a sequence matching the motorcycles path over time along the parade route - ABCDE.
• The sequence matched the 1 in 120.
• note:  mic sequence diagram and explanation @20 minute mark or so
• note2: Thomas misspeaks in presentation and says 1 in 125.  I'm pretty sure that's wrong. 5*4*3*2*1 = 120

For LN 3-shot success  we would need a random match here with probability of 0.0083 assuming the impulses are from shots.  Here we are trying to reject the 5-shot acoustic evidence and would by chance have a (1- 0.0083) chance of doing so.  The expectation is that the 5 impulses will be randomly ordered across time but they show up in the sequence matching the motorcycles progress along the route.  Given that a lone nut was responsible the sequence is most probably one of the other 119 out of 120 sequences.  

So far then the p(LN ) =  0.189 * 0.512 *  0.0083 = 0.00077 or approximately 1 in 1288.  -- based on the experiments and assumptions used in this example.   Other experiments or more results from experiments that were run could be included easily.

So.... as illustrated above it's interesting to think about the experimental evidece in terms of probabilities.  It's easy to state what assumptions are made and count the results then compute the probabilities.

I hope I haven't made a numerical error - if someone finds one I'll correct the above.

It might be very interesting for the 60th year since JFK's murder to see someone do a documentary recreating past experiments.

Other experiments might include:

* suspending watermelons from above by string or rope or below by spring then shooting them to test which way they move

* having test witnesses sit across the street from the TSBD then have people of different sizes appear at the partially closed window for 5 or 10 seconds and seeing how many of the test witnesses could correctly (with some bounds for error) describe their sex, hair color, weight, height, etc.

I do know that lots of people who have explored the murder have evidence that proves a conspiracy - at least to themselves and others - and yet others will reject any evidence conflicting with their beliefs.  

But it could be more interesting if people would state a probability and list the assumptions experiments are based on rather than relying on possibilities.   Well at least for me.

Hope this was interesting example of how this could be done (maybe by an expert in designing experiments and modelling experimental probabilities) and an interesting read.

Where in any of this gibberish is the actual physical evidence taken into account?

At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, the bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes prove the shot is impossible.

I hate to be a killjoy but this tripe is absurd.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 5/22/2023 at 8:58 AM, Pat Speer said:

It's safe to say we've reached the same conclusion. That the single-assassin solution is highly unlikely, 

Pure unadulterated bullshed.  The single assassin scenario is flat out impossible.

According to Pat Speer 15 T3 back wound witnesses got it wrong, a dozen throat entrance wound witnesses got it wrong, and JFK’s clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality.

Pat thinks it’s impossible for the perpetrators of the cover-up to make up contradictory “evidence” even though they were flying blind.

Absurd in the extreme.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Joe Bauer]

How long was Oswald's rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage?

From what date until 11,22,1963? 

Months wasn't it?

If Oswald never came and took the rifle out except for the early morning of Friday, 11,22,1963 isn't that proof he couldn't have taken any target practice with it in all that time?

And yet, he then makes a cold run 3 shot feat of two target hits out of three shots, with a bullseye hit on a 10 inch by 10 inch wide target at 265 feet that is moving in 3 different ways with a crap rifle and scope and under life and death risk fear stress ...???

And then shuffles down some stairs, stopping to buy and drink a Dr. Pepper soda pop in the 2nd floor lunch room, and after refreshing himself he walks down to the Houston Street entrance lobby, directs newsman Robert McNeil to a near bye phone booth, walks out and to a city bus stop, boards, gets off when the bus stalls in heavy traffic then hails a cab to take him to his home in Oak Cliff ( giving the cabbie a 5 cent tip on a 95 cent fare ) and well ... we all know the rest of the story.

All amongst the "greatest security precautions in Dallas Police Department history" according to Chief Jesse Curry.

Not exactly a John Le Carre novel scene.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pure unadulterated bullshed.  The single assassin scenario is flat out impossible.

According to Pat Speer 15 T3 back wound witnesses got it wrong, a dozen throat entrance wound witnesses got it wrong, and JFK’s clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality.

Pat thinks it’s impossible for the perpetrators of the cover-up to make up contradictory “evidence” even though they were flying blind.

Absurd in the extreme.

I state an obvious fact we agree upon and you try to turn it into a bone of contention. I wrote that the single-assassin solution was "highly unlikely." You insist, like a belligerent blind man, that there is nothing you haven't seen that you could ever accept as possibly existing. And you claim a mass amount of eyewitness support that doesn't actually exist. Very few if any of the witnesses to the back wound and throat wound insisted the back wound was at T-3 and the autopsy photos were fake, and/or that the throat wound was absolutely positively an entrance wound and could not be an exit wound under any circumstances. So why pretend? 

I mean, think about it. These people attended a movie premiere with Frank Sinatra and Ava Gardner. They later said Ava was wearing a red dress. When they were shown photos of the wedding, however, they said "Huh, I guess she wasn't wearing a red dress, she was wearing a green dress." But then Cliff jumps in and says "No, she was wearing a red dress, and all the photos are fake, and it's all a part of a mass conspiracy." A voice of reason then says "But why change the dress, when the point was that the photos show Frank with Ava, at a time when he was married to someone else. That's the key. That's the problem. The color of the dress is a minor problem. Why go to such lengths to disguise it when the "faked" photos remain a major problem?

To refresh, the SBT led the WC and doctors to push that  the back wound was at the base of the neck. The back wound photos prove that to be a lie. If the back wound photos were faked, well, why in heck weren't they faked to show what they were supposed to show, namely that the back wound was in line with the throat wound? And yes, I know. The SBT was developed months later. So, assuming the back wound photos were "faked" within a day or two of the assassination, the question becomes why, why, why, would they do such a thing? If they really thought there were three shots, three hits, and that the bullet creating the back wound fell out, how would having this wound at T-1 be preferable to having this wound an inch or two lower? It makes no sense. No sense at all.