Lets start with a few questions.
If the single-assassin theory is true, why does the evidence indicates that the autopsy doctors lied about how late they discovered Kennedy's tracheotomy was made over a small bullet hole in the throat?
It doesn't indicate that. No many how many times you repeat that falsehood, it doesn't become more true with repetition.
If the single-assassin theory is true, why would there seem to be so many autopsy photographs missing that would clear up a lot of mysteries?
Since you haven't seen these supposed missing photographs, how can you claim they would clear up anything? For that matter, you're simply begging the question, assuming there are mysteries, and then claiming photos you've never seen would clear them up.
That's a nonsensical argument.
If the single-assassin theory is true, what's your explanation for the dark air cavity between the right neck tissues on the x-ray that seem to lead from the upper neck to the lower throat?
Uhh, allow me to take a wild guess, the same explanation Dr. Lattimer and every forensic pathologist thought it showed? The bullet path from the upper back that exited JFK's throat?
Instead of asking nonsensical / meaningless questions, why not try answering the ones you've been asked, repeatedly, and avoid studiously?
Or the possible bullet fragment Cyril Wecht once reported seeing on the unpublished X-rays of Kennedy's upper neck area?
Once reported? Did anyone else report it? Did Wecht ever mention it again? If it's a 'possible' bullet fragment, doesn't that mean it's also possible it's NOT a bullet fragment? You will ignore this question.
If the single-assassin theory is true, what is your explanation for the EOP wound?
You are begging the question by inserting as a fact ("the EOP wound") the very point you need to establish is true.
Why would the HSCA feel the need to literally coerce Humes to lie under oath that he agreed with their "cowlick entry wound" theory?
You've really got this begging the question logical fallacy down pat, don't you? Why not mix it up a bit and try some other logical fallacies?
If the single-assassin theory is true, why is there testimonial evidence with corroborating photographic evidence of a loud gunshot at around Zapruder Frame 190, while 223 is the earliest time you can say Connally is reacting to a bullet, with his popped lapel and all?
The precise time of the first shot was never established, but it has been argued here and elsewhere that the first shot missed, and Connally (and Kennedy) can be seen reacting almost simultaneously to a bullet strike at Z223.
yadda yadda, why is there no strong witness evidence for a loud gunshot before Zapruder Frame 190
That's not true.
... and yet Connally always said that the bullet that struck him came only a brief moment after he heard the first loud gunshot
That's true, but entirely misleading. He defined the entire assassination shooting sequence as happening in a brief span of time, but estimated that brief span of time as 10 to 12 seconds!
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds.
That's five to six seconds between shots. Your argument is contrary to most other CTs, like Robert Harris, who claimed the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second (consult the earlier portions of this thread chain). You are arguing above for the first and second shots being bunched together.
But earlier this year you argued the last two - not the first two - were bunched together here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11757954&postcount=2434
"I really think the best option is to have the first shot at z190-224, and the last two shots bunched together."
So you are caught once again flip-flopping around like a fish on a boat deck. So which shots were closer together? The first and second or the second and third? Or are they all bunched?
...(note Connally reported not hearing the bullet that struck him at this time, leaving leeway for the idea of a silenced round)?
I'm tempted to quote what Glenn said to Rick over the radio the first time they spoke in the Walking Dead television series. The bullet travels faster than sound, so the sound would have arrived at Connally after a bullet had just transected his trunk, sliced through his wrist, and struck his thigh. I think he had more important things to worry about than listening for the sound of the gunshot at that point. As Connally himself explained:
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
And even though Connally didn't hear it, numerous other people did. For instance, Nellie Connally, who WASN'T struck by a bullet, testified that she heard the shot that struck her husband.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
... yadda yadda, what is your evidence that a rifle shot fired from the TSBD Sniper's Nest could create the acoustic illusion within Dealey Plaza that caused 40-50% of witnesses to claim that they thought the shots came from the grassy knoll?
Well, let's ask the witnesses, shall we? Here's one:
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
Mr. BALL - Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass before?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various occurrences.
Bowers was there. You were not.
In addition, the HSCA studied this question, and arrived at a far lower figure for the percentage of grassy knoll witnesses. And we dealt with this just recently. All those grassy knoll witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the knoll. But you argued above that some of the shooters were behind JFK, so they all couldn't be on the knoll. So the witnesses you hold up to the light and ask "how could they be mistaken?", were mistaken according to your own arguments. Because according to you, some of the shooters were behind JFK but the witnesses you reference thought all the shots came from the knoll only. So they were wrong, right?
All this was pointed out to you in the past when you previously raised these very same issues.
But following the CT playbook, you simply pretend they have never been answered, wait a while, and then do a fringe reset and ask the same questions all over again.
Sorry, repetition doesn't make them more true.
Hank
