From: chuckschuyler123@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 11:39:01 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my    
   > responses...)    
   >    
   > >"1. Perhaps the biggest argument the anti-single-bullet-theory    
   > > advocates make is that the alignment of Kennedy's and Connally's    
   > > bodies to each other was such that any bullet passing through Kennedy    
   > > would have had to make a right turn in midair to go on and hit John    
   > > Connally - thus, the 'magic bullet' of conspiracy lore. ..." Pg 458    
   >    
   > This might be Bugliosi's opinion... but I think the problem *first*    
   > begins with demonstrating transit - there's very little evidence that    
   > a bullet transited JFK's body. But to deal with Bugliosi's point - tis    
   > true that some CT authors have misrepresented Connally's position    
   > relative to JFK, but this is hardly the nail in the coffin that    
   > Bugliosi believes it to be. Particularly since the proponents of the    
   > SBT need Connally to be turned to his right *MORE THAN HE WAS*.    
   >    
   > > "2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the    
   > > single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the    
   > > lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has    
   > > already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's    
   > > Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book    
   > > Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a    
   > > fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second    
   > > assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated    
   > > crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second    
   > > gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?    
   > > Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into    
   > > thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence    
   > > of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence    
   > > supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463    
   >    
   > Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a    
   > 'chamber-mark'), nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only    
   > *two* shells, not three.    
   >    
   > Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then    
   > he doesn't exist. A rather silly argument, as he himself must    
   > certainly know.    
   >    
   > I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since    
   > it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.    
   >    
   > > "3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive    
   > > evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound    
   > > in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463    
   >    
   > Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!    
   > Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we    
   > clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.    
   >    
   > "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper    
   > border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."    
   >    
   > That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally    
   > sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)    
   >    
   > (Note: Chickenshit is running from this fact right now - and has been    
   > doing so for weeks...)    
   >    
   > But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But    
   > Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change    
   > *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:    
   >    
   > *****************************************************    
   > 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence    
   > proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in    
   > President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.    
   > *****************************************************    
   >    
   > Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the    
   > assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone    
   > *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...    
   >    
   > But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was    
   > tangential, and because of this - WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY    
   > WOUND. For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the    
   > entrance wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a    
   > slightly downward trajectory." But Bugliosi isn't interested in the    
   > opinion & testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.    
   >    
   > (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make    
   > arguments any better than this???)    
   >    
   > > "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet    
   > > that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough    
   > > time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano    
   > > rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,    
   > > *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission    
   > > Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the    
   > > Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't    
   > > been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.    
   > > Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not    
   > > first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired    
   > > from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any    
   > > evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after    
   > > shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman    
   > > standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot    
   > > Connally?' " Pg. 463-464    
   >    
   > Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then    
   > there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399    
   > struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such    
   > happened just isn't there. Most of the medical and some of the    
   > ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario.    
   >    
   > Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence    
   > of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the    
   > testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second    
   > assassin. Bugliosi's final statement demonstrates (in my opinion, of    
   > course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...    
   >    
   > > "5. Finally, there's another reason, almost too embarrassingly simple    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)