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
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.
On what basis can Bugliosi defend not telling his readers about James
Chaney?
Now, however, we get to the interesting part... Here's what Bugliosi
has to say on page 464:
"Each of the above five reasons, alone and by themselves, proves the single-bullet theory *independent* of the Zapruder film. (I would defy
any conspiracy theorist to come up with even one - much less five -
logical arguments that are independent of the Zapruder film and
support the proposition that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets.)"
My oh my!! I almost can't *believe* that Bugliosi actually made such a challenge. Perhaps, not being on the Internet, he doesn't understand
the level of knowledge that some have of the evidence. Now,
understanding that the SBT was never a particular specialty of mine (I
much prefer the medical evidence), I'll see what I can come up with.
(By the way, I'm amused that Bugliosi wants to restrict the use of the
Z-film ... which is perhaps the strongest evidence of all that the SBT
is wrong.)
Here it goes:
1. The closest police *eyewitness* asserted that separate bullets
struck JFK and Connally - and despite Bugliosi's wishes, the Zapruder
film *corroborates* this. (Actually, there's *NO* eyewitness to my
knowledge that testifies in a manner that would corroborate the SBT)
2. The SBT *requires* that there was a transit of the bullet through
JFK - although this was *never* demonstrated. Indeed, efforts were
made at the autopsy to *PREVENT* this determination. I can only
presume that there was a reason - and the logical one is to leave
facts uncovered.
3. Governor Connally was there, and *HE* asserts that it didn't happen
this way.
4. The downward angles through the President and Connally don't match
up. In fact, once you discard the mythical forward lean of JFK, *if*
you presumed transit, the bullet trajectory was either flat, or moving *UPWARD*. Connally's angle was *measured* at, as I recall, 25 degrees.
The SBT *requires* JFK to be leaning quite a bit forward, something
that the Zapruder film (yes, despite Bugliosi's desire, evidence is
evidence) does not show.
5. The doctors involved, particularly after seeing the alleged bullet,
CE399 - testified that they didn't believe this scenario. Dr. Shaw,
Dr. Gregory, Dr. Finck, Dr. Humes... all stated that CE399 either
couldn't have done what it was alleged to have done, or it was highly improbable. So too did one of the ballistics experts, who was simply
excised from history by the WCR.
6. Both the FBI and Secret Service believed that all three shots hit
targets... that is, JFK was hit by two bullets, and Connally was hit
by a different bullet. Interestingly, this information was hidden by
the WCR - and you won't find it in the 26 volumes either. (Nor, I
believe, does Bugliosi reveal this little tidbit. I could be mistaken,
however, as I've not made it all the way through his book... but at
the *logical* place to deal with it, when Bugliosi was discussing the
SBT, it never appears)
Example:
"Preliminary Special Dallas Report No. 1, Assassination of the
President
At the foot of Elm Street, at a point approximately 200 feet east of
the Houston Street Triple Underpass, on the approach to the Stemmons
Freeway, President Kennedy, who was seated on the right rear seat, was
shot. Immediately thereafter Governor Connally, seated in the right
jump seat, was shot once. The President was then shot the second
time." (Archives, CD 87, Dated Nov. 28)
7. Many other eyewitnesses believed that Connally was hit by a
separate bullet. As SSID points out on page 63, "The witnesses'
unanimity on this point was expressed both in newspaper accounts and
official reports. On November 24 The New York Times reported that
after President Kennedy was hit by the first bullet, 'the Governor
turned to see what had happened when he was struck in the back by
another bullet.' This remained the orthodox account in the press right
up to the time the Warren Report with it's controversial
'single-bullet theory' made its debut."
8. There would have been no need for Ford to verbally "move" the
location of the back wound, if the facts were all correct and the SBT
wasn't the desperate theory that it is.
9. The SBT was so persuasive that almost half of the Commissioners
didn't believe it. (Russell, Cooper, Boggs) Nor has it proven
persuasive to those experts who would normally be expected to believe
it. For example, Dr. Milton Helpern, who was at one time the Chief
Medical Examiner of New York City... and who has conducted more than
10,000 autopsies on people killed by bullets. Even Bugliosi would find
it difficult to label Dr. Helpern a "kook".
10. The argument must be made (and indeed, is) that Connally, although
bones were broken, had a delayed reaction, while JFK was reacting
quite promptly. This argument is also made by Bugliosi, citing
examples of where people were injured, but didn't realize it until
later. Such an argument is silly in the face of the damage to
Connally's body.
11. Audrey Bell, a nurse that helped in Connally's treatment,
describes bullet fragments that could not have come from CE399.
12. The HSCA's trajectory analysis, NOVA's computer simulation, and
Posner's SBT diagram all assume Connally was rotated to the right by
some 20-25 degrees in order to get the SBT's horizontal trajectory to
work, a notion that is plainly refuted by the Zapruder film. Again,
the current version of the SBT espoused by most lone-gunman theorists
says the alleged magic-bullet hit occurred at ZZ223-224. In the
Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel
to the roll bar in Z224.
The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and
thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z224
and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the
roll bar, which would not be the case if his torso were rotated 20-25
degrees to the right. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted
to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right
and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight
on with the car momentarily":
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture as the car
comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly
to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in
frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on
he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and
there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there,
at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn. (5 H
155)
Like its supposed bullet, the SBT itself seems to be magical. Even
when its defenders must admit that a previous key assumption of the
theory is invalid, the theory is still, somehow, someway, supposed to
be true. The degree of rotation of Connally's shoulders is a good
example of the theory's magical ability to adapt. As mentioned,
previous trajectory analyses assumed Connally was rotated markedly to
the right, by about 20-25 degrees, when the alleged magic bullet hit
him. Now, lone-gunman theorists like Todd Vaughan and Dale Myers
acknowledge that Connally is rotated no more than 15 degrees to the
right in Z224 (Vaughan says 10 degrees, while Myers says 15 degrees).
But, somehow, someway, the SBT still supposedly works, according to
its defenders, even though previous "expert" trajectory studies found
it essential to assume Connally was rotated markedly to the right when
the missile struck.
(A similar feat of magical adaptation can be seen in the magic
bullet's vertical trajectory. For years WC supporters, based on the
chief autopsy doctor's Rydberg diagram and on Arlen Specter's
reenactment of the SBT, assumed the bullet struck at a point that was
visibly ABOVE the throat wound, AND that the bullet's path from the
back wound to the throat wound was DOWNWARD. Then, the HSCA came along
and determined that the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than
where it appears in the Rydberg diagram, that the bullet's path
through the body actually would have been "SLIGHTLY UPWARD," and that
the tissue beneath the back wound seen in the autopsy photos is
tunneled UPWARD. But, the SBT's defenders reconsidered the new
evidence and announced that somehow, someway, the theory's vertical
trajectory still worked.)
[#12 has been taken in whole from Mike Griffith's writings - Thanks,
Mike!]
13. Dr. Mantik has demonstrated by using CAT scans that a bullet
striking JFK in the back, and exiting midline of the throat, *had* to
have gone through the spine. Didn't happen, therefore transit didn't
happen. And transit, of course, is the *FIRST* prerequisite for the
SBT.
14. CE399 had no blood, no fibers, nothing... it was clean of any
human debris. I find that rather incredible for a bullet that is
supposed to have done what Bugliosi & the WC/HSCA claims it to have
done.
15. FBI Agent James Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory
(SBT) because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be
possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997,
pp. 161-162).
Well... I think I got carried away... Bugliosi only challenged someone
to produce a *single* logical argument, sadly... I've managed only 15.
(With a little help from my library and Mike Griffith)
But I'm sure that others could add to this list. Seems that Bugliosi
is lucky not to be on the Internet - it would be mighty embarrassing
for him to know that his "challenge" was met so easily.
And by a non-lawyer...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)