Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)

"5. Finally, there's another reason, almost too embarrassingly simple
to mention, why, independent of all the conclusive reasons set forth
above, we can almost be certain that the shot that hit Kennedy also
hit Connally: *no separate bullet was available to hit Connally* ..."

Considering that one bullet that was fired that day (as even Bugliosi
will admit) WAS NEVER RECOVERED AT ALL, Bugliosi seems rather silly at
this point. We know, from the record, that at least one bullet was
never found, yet, on *that* basis, Bugliosi should be arguing that
there were only two shots fired... Yet he won't make such a silly
statement.

Yet he expects people to follow his fifth "reason", despite the facts.

Again, we see omission, since you'll search in vain to find anything
of substance that Chaney related concerning the assassination. We
*know* that James Chaney was the closest non-limo eyewitness to the
shooting, and we *know* that he even had a better viewpoint than
Jackie - who was sitting on the *OTHER* side. What did James Chaney
say? Unfortunately, the Warren Commission didn't bother to interview
the closest police eyewitness to the crime, but we do have secondary
evidence to what Chaney saw:

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say
that you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the
two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

But you won't find this in Bugliosi's book - it contradicts the theory
he's attempting to defend. Were Bugliosi attempting to actually be
honest and thorough, he certainly should have dealt with this problem.

But remember (especially Toddy and Mark - who chastised me for this
prediction) that I predicted that Bugliosi tome would omit evidence
and misrepresent evidence.

I turned out to be right... didn't I?

On what basis can Bugliosi argue that there's no bullet available to
strike Conally - WHEN HE CANNOT PRODUCE THE BULLETS HE ARGUES *WERE*
FIRED?

And on what basis can Bugliosi defend not telling his readers about
James Chaney?

Bugliosi has failed with #5

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:27:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)

"5. Finally, there's another reason, almost too embarrassingly simple
to mention, why, independent of all the conclusive reasons set forth above, we can almost be certain that the shot that hit Kennedy also
hit Connally: *no separate bullet was available to hit Connally* ..."

Is this all of number five, oh deceitful one?

Considering that one bullet that was fired that day (as even Bugliosi
will admit) WAS NEVER RECOVERED AT ALL, Bugliosi seems rather silly at
this point. We know, from the record, that at least one bullet was
never found, yet, on *that* basis, Bugliosi should be arguing that
there were only two shots fired... Yet he won't make such a silly
statement.

Yet he expects people to follow his fifth "reason", despite the facts.

Again, we see omission, since you'll search in vain to find anything
of substance that Chaney related concerning the assassination. We
*know* that James Chaney was the closest non-limo eyewitness to the shooting, and we *know* that he even had a better viewpoint than
Jackie - who was sitting on the *OTHER* side. What did James Chaney
say? Unfortunately, the Warren Commission didn't bother to interview
the closest police eyewitness to the crime, but we do have secondary evidence to what Chaney saw:

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say
that you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the
two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

The z-film (along with a bunch of testimony) destroys the idea that Connally was hit after Kennedy was struck in the head.

But you won't find this in Bugliosi's book - it contradicts the theory
he's attempting to defend. Were Bugliosi attempting to actually be
honest and thorough, he certainly should have dealt with this problem.

What problem? *If* Chaney said this he was clearly wrong.

But remember (especially Toddy and Mark - who chastised me for this prediction) that I predicted that Bugliosi tome would omit evidence
and misrepresent evidence.

I turned out to be right... didn't I?

On what basis can Bugliosi argue that there's no bullet available to
strike Conally - WHEN HE CANNOT PRODUCE THE BULLETS HE ARGUES *WERE*
FIRED?

And on what basis can Bugliosi defend not telling his readers about
James Chaney?

About how the shots originated from behind him?

Bugliosi has failed with #5

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)