Single Bullet Theory

[grunion]

Like many self-proclaimed "skeptics," I've long believed that the Warren Commission Report was preposterous and a combination of lazy thinking by some members and a conscious effort to undermine the truth as to what happened to JFK by others.

I think that feeling derives from the credo that one should look at the simplest, most obvious explanation for something and scrutinize it. If it holds water, fine, uphold it as the "correct" explanation until new evidence indicates otherwise. Then go for the next simplest explanation and afford it the exact same treatment.

And in the case of the JFK assassination, the simplest explanation is the lone gunman one. Under scrutiny, though, it faces a lot of challenges as to its simplicity, the most compelling in my opinion being the "Single Bullet" issue. Unfortunately the Warren Commission's entire case seems to rest on the apparent supposition that a single bullet passed in and out of Kennedy's neck, in and out of Connally's chest, in and out of Connally's wrist, and into Connally's thigh, causing considerable damage throughout, all while the two victims were sitting in a position to make the bullet have had to perform acrobatics in mid-air.

We look at the challenges that that one bullet could have cause so much havoc and deem it impossible and declare that case closed, and move on to the conspiracy theory.

And then we go down that path for awhile and find equally improbable assertions or uncritical acceptance of certain disconnected bits of evidence as a "compelling case" strung together more by paranoia than by a critical review of the evidence. So we seek other explanations.

And then we're off in the realm of aliens and Ley Lines and Nessie and we're back with the Warren Commission, implausable as it may be.

Normally an exercise in critical thinking when examining two equally improbable versions of an event is to go to the question of motive of those relaying the facts in the case. On one hand we have a government commission whose interests were to calm down the public that there was not a larger conspiracy at play and that the real assassins were not somewhere still in our midst. On the other hand we have theorists that either want to sell books or somehow prove that our government cannot be trusted to provide us with the truth.

I tend to agree with that point of the conspiracy theorists, actually. But they are just so quick to jump into the most outlandish conspiracies that I am very hesitant indeed to cast my lot with them.

What's a skeptic to do? I know I need to constantly challenge my initial assertions as apparently contradictory evidence arrives to refute it. It is indeed a refreshing and fun thing to do, especially with those notions I thought to be irrefutable.

 

[Phil]

First, welcome to the board, grunion.

I'll tell you that I never put a lot of faith in the Warren Comission either, but I have seen some physical evidence in the form of recreations that are in line with the single bullet theory.

The one in particular that sticks in my mind was done on a program on the History Channel I believe. The investigators recreated the car, using detailed design specifications of the automobile, and the most likely position of the bodies (JFK and Connally) based on the structural limitations of the vehicle and the available visual images of the paasengers at the time of the shot.

They also constructed a JFK torso and a Connally wrist and thigh from substances of similar density to human flesh and bone that have been shown to react closely to the way human tissue reacts to a gunshot. They then constructed a "book depository" tower the exact distance and angle from the car and the exact height of the floor of the book depository where Oswald's gun was found.

They then fired the exact shell and load from the exact model of gun from the tower in conditions as similar to the day of the assassination as they could get. And it was quite amazing how closely the recreation single bullet shot was to what the Warren Comission reported. The only real failing of the experiment was that the bullet didn't do any damage to the mock wrist because the slug tumbled away, but super slow motion showed that it only missed the wrist by a little bit, that it was indeed very close.

One other thing to add: I had a conversation with a friend who said she had seen a similar recreation of the head shot that showed it, too, could have come from the book depository.

 

[grunion]

Thanks for the comments and the welcome, Phil.

I never truly thought the Single Bullet Theory to be "impossible," only "dubious." Combined with a number of other well-publicized dubious claims of the Warren Commission report, it whittles away at the simplicity of the argument, and thus the ease with which I can accept it.

But then a determined sophist can deride pretty much any claim, no matter how borne out it may be by the evidence. And I fear that sophistry is what my natural affinity for skepticism has caused me to place more than suitable confidence in, in this case.

 

[WonderfulWorld]

And in the case of the JFK assassination, the simplest explanation is the lone gunman one. Under scrutiny, though, it faces a lot of challenges as to its simplicity, the most compelling in my opinion being the "Single Bullet" issue. Unfortunately the Warren Commission's entire case seems to rest on the apparent supposition that a single bullet passed in and out of Kennedy's neck, in and out of Connally's chest, in and out of Connally's wrist, and into Connally's thigh, causing considerable damage throughout, all while the two victims were sitting in a position to make the bullet have had to perform acrobatics in mid-air.

A military-style "full metal jacket" bullet can go a lot of places without significant damage, especially if it has travelled far enough to have slowed down significantly.

A second issue is the "acrobatics" you describe. That is a myth, based on the assumption that both Kennedy and Connelly were sitting bolt upright in their seats, facing straight forward with their arms at their sides. But look at the film: Kennedy was turned to his right to wave to the crowd, and Gov. Connelly was facing slightly to his left. If you set up the scene to match the film, you can draw an (almost) straight line from Connelly's wrist back through all the wounds and then extrapolate the line all the way back to the School Book Depository. No magic is required.

A third issue (which you didn't mention) is the assertion that Oswald couldn't possibly have made three shots in the time he had (what, eight seconds? I think that's right.). I will be happy to take you out to a gun range sometime, if you can somehow come up with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and demonstrate my ability to smack a watermelon at 75 yards with two shots out of three, in under ten seconds. The feat is not really that difficult, and Oswald was a very good shot. Better than I am, if his Marine Corps "range scores" are any indicator.

And finally, one brought up by a friend who visited the "museum" at the School Book Depository: Why did Oswald choose to shoot at a car that was travelling away from him and at some distance, rather than at the car as it was approaching, or when it was close in. Again, you only have to think it through to realize that reality is not nearly so neat as we sometimes imagine. When the car was approaching, and when it was below, Oswald would have had to lean out the window to make the shot, making himself both less stable and more vulnerable. Instead, he stayed down in a position where he had both concealment and a good resting position for his gun. In other words, he took the best shot he had. It wasn't ideal, but it was good enough to produce two hits out of three.

Mike.

 

[Bikewer]

As WonderfulWorld noted, these FMJ military slugs can exhibit amazing penetration, and often take truly bizzare routes through tissue as they slow.

I recall a training film from my days as a medic, a particularly gruesome one called "Massive Tissue Wounds".

GI (WWII) had been struck by a Japanese sniper, using the 6.5mm round. Entry was horizontal at the left hip, and the bullet exited the bottom of his foot! Leg had to be amputated.

 

[FreeChile]

I wonder how many trials the recreation reported by the History Channel needed to recreate such an event and how often they can recreate it. What I am asking is, if there is any probabilistic evidence here or if the results were conveniently constructed by the researchers performing these experiments? In other words, they were really trying to recreate a rickochet bullet scenario and may have been successful in doing so.

 

[FreeChile]

I wonder how many trials the recreation reported by the History Channel needed to recreate such an event and how often they can recreate it. What I am asking is, if there is any probabilistic evidence here or if the results were conveniently constructed by the researchers performing these experiments? In other words, they were really trying to recreate a rickochet bullet scenario and we should not be suprised if they managed to do it.

 

[Phil]

I wonder how many trials the recreation reported by the History Channel needed to recreate such an event and how often they can recreate it. What I am asking is, if there is any probabilistic evidence here or if the results were conveniently constructed by the researchers performing these experiments? In other words, they were really trying to recreate a rickochet bullet scenario and may have been successful in doing so.

The show I saw had just one go at it. There were several lead up attempts shot into pig bones, and various flesh-like material that were meant to establish certain behaviors of the slug, both in flight and after contacting a target.

And even with the single attempt at the JKF/Connelly mock ups, I felt the experiment showed clearly that a bullet need be anything but magical to do what the Warren Commission reported.

 

[Bikewer]

Misunderstanding of ballistics gave rise to a number of conspiracy-theory ideas.

The "his head jerked backwards, so he must have been shot from the front", for instance.

High-velocity bullets do not transmit energy to the target in a linear manner. If the target it essentially fluid (like tissue), it tends to act like a hydraulic system, hence the term hydrostatic shock.
Humans struck by such bullets tend to jerk violently, as energy is transmitted in all directions at once. Shoot a can of soda pop with a .22 LR, and watch as it explodes, often rising a couple of feet into the air.

I once watched a film clip of a WWI vintange firing squad. In one case, the condemned man's hat flies up into the air as he's hit.

 

[FreeChile]

Phil responded:

The show I saw had just one go at it. There were several lead up attempts shot into pig bones, and various flesh-like material that were meant to establish certain behaviors of the slug, both in flight and after contacting a target.

And even with the single attempt at the JKF/Connelly mock ups, I felt the experiment showed clearly that a bullet need be anything but magical to do what the Warren Commission reported.

This to me proves that it is possible not that it is probable. Also, add to it that it is possible within the parameters established by the researchers and the TV program.

I am not suggesting the existence of a conspiracy theory by what I am saying. But simply that we could be in pseudo-science land here.

 

[joesixpack]

This to me proves that it is possible not that it is probable.

Well, I'd say that proving the one bullet theory is possible is pretty important. After all, the conspiracy crowd has been telling us this "magic bullet" was impossilbe for years now. This is the second time I've seen it demonstrated (though the first time I've heard of it done with live ammo). Nova on PBS also showed that there was no need to resort to magic to explain the multiple wounds.

I am not suggesting the existence of a conspiracy theory by what I am saying. But simply that we could be in pseudo-science land here.

Actually, we'd be in "pseudoscience land" if we were to dismiss the one-bullet-theory based on the fact that it may be improbable (which, frankly, I don't agree with. I think it very probable that one bullet could do this). Improbable things happen every day, and it only had to happen once.

 

[grunion]

Actually, we'd be in "pseudoscience land" if we were to dismiss the one-bullet-theory based on the fact that it may be improbable (which, frankly, I don't agree with. I think it very probable that one bullet could do this). Improbable things happen every day, and it only had to happen once.

So what the question, I think, then becomes is which is the more "probable" scenario, the Single Bullet or the Multiple Gunman. If we could really call it "common" or "expected" that a bullet fired under those conditions would behave the way the Warren Commission purports, I think we could call the case closed. (Actually I am not very well-versed in all the other reasonable objections raised to the WC report but in my mind this was the most challenging one, YMMV.)

If, however, we describe the behavior of the bullet as "within the realm of possibility," critical thinking would dictate we at least provide a cursory examination of arguments to the contrary. Besides the fact that it includes a large woo contingency among its adherents, why are we so quick to dismiss the concept that there were in fact multiple gunmen?

I'm not saying that there were, but it seems to me a conclusion to that effect would survive Occam's Razor.

 

[Phil]

So the question, I think, then becomes is which is the more "probable" scenario, the Single Bullet or the Multiple Gunman. If we could really call it "common" or "expected" that a bullet fired under those conditions would behave the way the Warren Commission purports, I think we could call the case closed. (Actually I am not very well-versed in all the other reasonable objections raised to the WC report but in my mind this was the most challenging one, YMMV.)

If, however, we describe the behavior of the bullet as "within the realm of possibility," critical thinking would dictate we at least provide a cursory examination of arguments to the contrary. Besides the fact that it includes a large woo contingency among its adherents, why are we so quick to dismiss the concept that there were in fact multiple gunmen?

I'm not saying that there were, but it seems to me a conclusion to that effect would survive Occam's Razor.

No it wouldn't. A conclusion to that effect would be the first thing to go.

The contention of the conspiracy theorists for multiple gunmen stem from the magic bullet scenario and the motion of the head after the kill shot. The experiments show that there was nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the path of the single bullet, and the further experiments show that the head shot probably likewise came from the book depository.

The magic bullet and the extra gunmen are fat easily trimmed by the Razor based on those experiment results.

And remember, the WC never said anything about a magic bullet. The WC simple said three shots were fired from the book despository from the same rifle. One missed. One was the kill shot to the head. The other was the bullet that struck JFK and Connelly. So the most probable scenario is that which the Warren Commission reported.

Which leaves us back at the beginning anyway. Let's not forget: The conspiracy theorists are the ones making the claims. It's up to them to provide the evidence to support those claims. And so far they haven't.

 

[grunion]

Which leaves us back at the beginning anyway. Let's not forget: The conspiracy theorists are the ones making the claims. It's up to them to provide the evidence to support those claims. And so far they haven't.

I think it is the Warren Commission making the claims and, in light of the challenges associated with the Single Bullet proposition, shirked their responsibility to provide solid evidence to support them. It seems from the above that the History Channel and Nova provided them with some good evidence forty years later. One can forgive the skepticism that arose in the long absence of this evidence.

Would the simplest explanation of a scientific, objective review of the evidence at the scene of the crime and interviews with material witnesses lead to Single Bullet or Multiple Gunman? This is the critical question. Logical people can disagree on their answer, depending upon a number of factors, including their motives.

I was far too young to remember all this at the time but I get the clear sense that the Warren Commission was under a great deal of pressure to put this case to bed, blame it on a crazy Communist, and declare the streets of America safe once again.

The fact of their motives alone doesn't mean anything with regard to the truthfulness of their claim, but it is legitimate cause to scrutinize their findings. You provided good evidence as to why their findings would hold up to scrutiny. Now. apart from the ad hominem arguments against conspiracy theorists, why is the multiple gunman proposition unneccesarily complex?

 

[Bikewer]

As I recall, the second inquirey into the assasination brought in trained forensic scientists to examin the evidence.

Although it was not possible to view the body, they were able to examine the photographs, X-rays, and other items from the autopsy that had been done originally. The conclusions were that the entry wound to the skull was from the rear, as the bone fragmentation (called spalling) at that point was consistent with an entry wound.

The larger pieces of bone everted from the front were consistent with an exit.

Likewise nothing remarkable was found with the wound in the upper back, and the exit from the front.

I also seem to recall that though initial attempts to duplicate the three shots within the time frame indicated by the sound and motion-picture footage were difficult, subsequent attempts by marksmen were successful.

 

[Phil]

I think it is the Warren Commission making the claims and, in light of the challenges associated with the Single Bullet proposition, shirked their responsibility to provide solid evidence to support them. It seems from the above that the History Channel and Nova provided them with some good evidence forty years later. One can forgive the skepticism that arose in the long absence of this evidence. . .

Sure, and don't think anyone participating in this thread would disagree with you. But we're not speaking specifically to the overall validity of the Warren Commission here. Or the method by which their investigation was conducted. That would be a subject for a very long thread on its own, because the Warren Commision report contains so much more than just the ballistics elements of the case. The ballistics are basically what we're talking about here.

We're merely comparing a single point of contention (which happens to be the most immediate explanation based on the physical evidence found in the depository, the limmo, and on the bodies, and oh by the way, happens to coincide with the findings of the Warren Commission) to a single point of contention on the conspiracy theorists' part.

We don't really need to bring the Warren Commission into this thread to discuss the single bullet theory. The Warren Commission is just easy to point to when referring to the single bullet/single gunman story, because for that part of the case, that is what they found.

. . . Would the simplest explanation of a scientific, objective review of the evidence at the scene of the crime and interviews with material witnesses lead to Single Bullet or Multiple Gunman? This is the critical question. Logical people can disagree on their answer, depending upon a number of factors, including their motives. . . .

I can't answer this with full confidence unless I somehow had access to all the physical evidence, but I would think, based on the evidence I've seen, an investigation of that sort would lead to the single gunman conclusion. In fact, I think the initial investigation did just that. And so did subsequent ones, including the Warren Commission.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the first mention of possible multiple gunmen was? After the Sepruder(sp?) film was released? When Oliver Stone's movie came out?

. . . I was far too young to remember all this at the time but I get the clear sense that the Warren Commission was under a great deal of pressure to put this case to bed, blame it on a crazy Communist, and declare the streets of America safe once again. . .

Maybe. But that has very little to do with whether one normal bullet ripped through both JFK and Connelly or whether it took two normal bullets or a magic bullet.

. . . The fact of their motives alone doesn't mean anything with regard to the truthfulness of their claim, but it is legitimate cause to scrutinize their findings. You provided good evidence as to why their findings would hold up to scrutiny. Now. apart from the ad hominem arguments against conspiracy theorists, why is the multiple gunman proposition unneccesarily complex? . . .

Well I would never seriously offer ad hominem arguments for anything, but the multiple gunman proposition is unneccesarily complex for the same reason that two people changing a light bulb is unneccesarily complex. One person can change a light bulb, and one person could have killed Kennedy. Based on the evidence, if you add another person, by definition you are making the scenario unnecessarily complex.

 

[grunion]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the first mention of possible multiple gunmen was? After the Sepruder(sp?) film was released? When Oliver Stone's movie came out?

The Wikipedia entry on The Warren Commission states:
Foremost among its conclusions was refutation of speculation that the assassination was part of a conspiracy, either domestic or foreign, or that any elements of the government had a hand in the event.

Thus the speculation of multiple gunmen must have been significant before the commission convened in December 1963. If Johnson intended the commission to silence this speculation, they fared rather poorly.

One person can change a light bulb, and one person could have killed Kennedy. Based on the evidence, if you add another person, by definition you are making the scenario unnecessarily complex.

I like this. I suppose I need to deep dive into the evidence presented by all sides on this case to satisfy my thirst here.

I never intended to argue the Conspiracy point of view here. I guess the real reason I brought it up here was as an exercise in critical thinking for "skeptics" - I was skeptical of the Warren Commission as many others are, but want to challenge my skepticism as potentially the result of being duped by people with other agendas. With all the agendas in this case it is hard to know where to hang one's hat.

Sure would be nice to believe in God as a source for truth rather than having to grapple with all this. Well, not exactly "nice", but let's say "simple."

 

[joesixpack]

Foremost among its conclusions was refutation of speculation that the assassination was part of a conspiracy, either domestic or foreign, or that any elements of the government had a hand in the event.

Thus the speculation of multiple gunmen must have been significant before the commission convened in December 1963. If Johnson intended the commission to silence this speculation, they fared rather poorly.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but that quote mentions nothing about "multiple gunmen", only conspiracy. They are not the same.

The "Multiple Gunman" theory came about as a result of the very confusing nature of eyewitnes accounts. There was very little agreement as to the number of shots fired and where they came from. I can tell you from personal experience how different witneses to the same crime can have VERY different memories of the event.

On one hand we have a government commission whose interests were to calm down the public that there was not a larger conspiracy at play and that the real assassins were not somewhere still in our midst. On the other hand we have theorists that either want to sell books or somehow prove that our government cannot be trusted to provide us with the truth.

I agree 100% on the second half of that statement, but I have to take issue with the first half. Do you have it on good authority what the government commission's motives were?

 

[Brown]

Don't get me started on this topic. I'll just point out at this time that Occam's Razor cuts very strongly in favor of a single shooter whose bullet struck Kennedy, exited, then struck Connelly.

There is no ballistic evidence of another shooter. No bullets, no fragments, nothing. According to some conspiracy nuts (the word "theorists" gives them more status than they deserve), the government secretly acquired and covered up the ballistic evidence. In order to pull off this feat, however, the government would have had to know in advance where to look, meaning that the government would have had to know where the shots would and would not hit. And since (according to various scenarios) there were anywhere from two to seven shooters, it would be impossible to know in advance whether such a cover-up could be pulled off.

Also, every now and then someone trots out the old idea that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the upper back did not exit. To have a high-powered rifle bullet strike a human body at a speed faster than the speed of sound, and to hit only soft tissue but penetrate only an inch or two, is nearly a physical impossibility. If the bullet was jacketed, then the chances of soft tissue stopping it are virtually zero.

Further, the position of the men at the time of first reaction is consistent with a single shot from Oswald's position. Not only that, the position of the men a half second afterward is inconsistent with a second shot, even if that second shot were to hit only Connally.

Moreover, earwitnesses--especially those closest to the source of the shot--did not report hearing any shots from any other building or direction.

Given this evidence, the single-bullet scenario is the most likely. Multiple-shooter scenarios do not make the explanation simpler; on the contrary, they make the problem much more complex.

 

[CFLarsen]

Given this evidence, the single-bullet scenario is the most likely. Multiple-shooter scenarios do not make the explanation simpler; on the contrary, they make the problem much more complex.

But this is exactly why the conspiracy theoretics are so relatively successful. They emulate what we see in e.g. parapsychology and astrology: An increase in complexity.

In parapsychology, we have seen a move from simple Zener-card type experiments (which showed no effect whatsoever) to highly complex RNG-based experiments, yielding a huge output of data. This data can be interpreted any which way you like, ensuring that you will reach at least some of those who Want To Believe.

Same thing with astrology. Historically, astrology was nuts-and-bolts predictions: A son of a King was destined for glory, or you would win the lottery. Today, it is fluffy pseudo-psychological Barnum-statements, meant to point out possibilities rather than those ol' time hardcore predictions that - unfortunately - are so easy to verify. And prove wrong. Can't have that, if you want to reach at least some of those who Want To Believe.

It makes sense to increase complexity, if the simplicity of Occam's Razor shows that you are wrong. It's not about clarifying, it's not about working your way to a clearer understanding of reality.

It's about obscuring issues, it's about obfuscating. There's a reason why it is called the "occult", you know: The hidden, the secret, only for those in-the-know. If you confuse people, you have power over them, because you determine what truth is, and they will lap it up. Because they Want To Believe.

Obscurity is power.