[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:"It's been established JFK's throat wound was an entrance, and this is beyond dispute."

No it has not. It is a theory based on conjecture.

While I agree that it's not "beyond dispute," (obviously, believers dispute it), neither is it based on conjecture.

Only by the wildest of imagination can the opinions of medical doctors on a medical issue be labeled "conjecture".

Patrick C Wrote:This is a great example of making stuff up.....what is the point of addressing this subject in all seriousness if you make that kind of blatantly erroneous statement?

Indeed! Why would anyone make up the fact that the earliest opinion based totally and only on what the doctors saw was mere "conjecture?"

Patrick C Wrote:Tony Summers would not agree with you, nor would Henry Hurt and nor would Mary Ferrell to name but three heavy weight researchers.

Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck would not agree with you on the location of the large head wound. So what?

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I did not see the comment below -

Ben Holmes Wrote:"Not the Triple Overpass...

Not under the Triple Overpass...

But to the right of it (as you're looking toward the TSBD from ahead of the limo)

Now, were there eyewitnesses to such a shooter? Nope... none that I'm aware of. But I think that the ballistics evidence quite firmly places a shooter there."

Was he hiding in a culvert? Who knows... I'm just putting the shooter in the general area that the ballistics shows he must have been. The fact that no-one saw the shooter is, in my opinion, quite meaningless.

This is my opinion - and until or unless more evidence comes up - I think it's the best explanation for the frontal shot.

IF there was a frontal shot I would agree it is a location worth considering, however it is not one from which an assassin could make an easy exit and neither does it afford a good view.

What better exit could their be than to get in a car located right there, and drive away?

As for the view, it's the same as the alleged assassin in the 6th floor, and it's level rather than 60 feet up. How you can define this as not a good view is quite amazing:

Patrick C Wrote:Assuming the seating arrangements were known to this alleged "assassin" it would seem an odd choice of location.

On what basis are you making such an argument? Being in a location that is hidden, has vehicle parking for a fast getaway, and has an excellent view with the victim coming virtually straight at you... tell us Patrick ... WHY is it an odd choice?

It's apparently a brilliantly obvious choice... Far better than the TSBD, where an assassin could be trapped.

Patrick C Wrote:Another major issue is that you now introduce three locations left front, right front and rear high up.....this is not a sound pattern reflected at all in the witness testimony.

You complain that the earwitness evidence is unreliable, then you desperately wish to hold on to it when you think it supports your view. How strange!?

Two of the three locations you mentioned are reflected in the witness testimony - why do you deny this?

[Patrick C]

IMO the location is such that the view could be blocked or somewhat blocked by bystanders - the assassin would have had no way of knowing how many people would turn up. You are also looking at shooting past the 2 SS guys and the Connallys not to mention the glass partition (I am not sure how extensive this was or if it was fully deployed). Above and high is a better location IMO.

That said I accept that one could be trapped inside a building with only one set of stairs....unless one worked there in the first place......

[Patrick C]

"Two of the three locations you mentioned are reflected in the witness testimony - why do you deny this?"

I don't deny it at all - stop making stuff up! There was an approx even split between all shots from TSBD and all shots from the front or behind Zapruder....that is NOT the same as people stating there were multiple sources of shots.

Depending on your source of data, the number of people who thought shots came from more than one direction is in single figures.....

And your comment about my interpretation of witness reliability is illogical. I am not being inconsistent - there is a pattern to the testimony in the JFK assassination and that is that almost everyone there said the shots came from the same location - not two. This is significant. You are talking about well over 100 people who expressed their views that day or over the weekend.

Now I accept that does not mean they are correct, but the weight of the opinions is strongly persuasive that audible shots had one source only no matter where you the sound originated - they sounded like they came from the same place.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:IMO the location is such that the view could be blocked or somewhat blocked by bystanders - the assassin would have had no way of knowing how many people would turn up.

Here it is again:



This photo is worth a thousand denials.

Patrick C Wrote:You are also looking at shooting past the 2 SS guys and the Connallys not to mention the glass partition (I am not sure how extensive this was or if it was fully deployed). Above and high is a better location IMO.

That said I accept that one could be trapped inside a building with only one set of stairs....unless one worked there in the first place......

And yet, those pesky facts just keep slapping you in the face...

The Parkland doctors, the only ones to have seen the wound, unanimous in their first opinions of that throat wound; the impressive array of evidence for a back wound too low to exit the throat; the failure of the autopsy to track any such transit through the body; the absolute refusal of any medical personnel, and most of the ballistic experts as well, to agree that CE399 did what you claim.

What explanation fits these facts the best?

As for the TSBD, I agree that there was a shooter there too... we have his un-identified fingerprints, and we know that strangers were in the building.

And judging from your sudden silence, I'm guessing you've given up on claiming that the throat wound came from the overpass. The ballistic evidence rather conclusively demonstrates otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:"Two of the three locations you mentioned are reflected in the witness testimony - why do you deny this?"

I don't deny it at all - stop making stuff up!

So you're now denying that you said:

Patrick C Wrote:Another major issue is that you now introduce three locations left front, right front and rear high up.....this is not a sound pattern reflected at all in the witness testimony.

Who's making things up?

The fact that the "sound pattern" for two locations is "reflected" in the witness testimony. It's good to see that you refuse to state otherwise.

Patrick C Wrote:There was an approx even split between all shots from TSBD and all shots from the front or behind Zapruder....that is NOT the same as people stating there were multiple sources of shots.

Once again, this is a simple inference to the best explanation.

We have witnesses who say the Grassy Knoll area... we have witnesses who say the TSBD, we even have a few witnesses who specifically assert both locations...

What explanation best fits those facts?

Patrick C Wrote:Depending on your source of data, the number of people who thought shots came from more than one direction is in single figures.....

And completely un-explainable by your theory.

Patrick C Wrote:And your comment about my interpretation of witness reliability is illogical. I am not being inconsistent - there is a pattern to the testimony in the JFK assassination and that is that almost everyone there said the shots came from the same location - not two. This is significant. You are talking about well over 100 people who expressed their views that day or over the weekend.

You don't believe half of them. Your explanation fails to explain HALF of the evidence.

My explanation fits it perfectly... my glove fits.

Patrick C Wrote:Now I accept that does not mean they are correct, but the weight of the opinions is strongly persuasive that audible shots had one source only no matter where you the sound originated - they sounded like they came from the same place.

No, absolutely wrong.

And it's simple to prove.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there were two shooters in Dealey Plaza. And they both fired shots within a 10 second window... You presume that ALL (or most) of the witnesses would testify that they heard shots from two directions.

I call such an opinion sheer garbage, and unsupportable.

[Patrick C]

"I was told the sewer drains were too small to adequately accommodate a shooter by someone who checked them many years after the assassination. The size of those drains on Nov 22nd, is unknown, however."

Garry Mack and a TV crew did this around 2000, but you are correct that the sizes may have changed. The general consensus was that the theory was invalid for the TV doc.

I will ask around a few people who actually know their stuff on the JFK case who rely on good sources unlike your good self Lee.....was it The National Enquirer last time....?

[Patrick C]

"Who's making things up?"

Not me Benny.....

"The fact that the "sound pattern" for two locations is "reflected" in the witness testimony. It's good to see that you refuse to state otherwise."

You know full well that the witnesses fell into two distinct groups:

ALL shots Grassy Area / behind Elm....OR
ALL shots TSBD

And we all know that a shot struck Kennedy and Connally in the back......

So therefore we can deduce that the people who thought ALL the shots came from the front were wrong because they did not ALL come from the front. This infers that they were also wrong about the other shot or shots they heard being from the front.

Yes I believe it is most likely that had audible shots come from two directions a significant number of witnesses would have reflected that.

I also think it is most likely had there been more than three shots, given the echoes, the composition of a rifle shot, that we would have many more statements of 4 or 5 or even 6 shots. We do not.

This argument that so few sounds were heard is strongly supportive of Mike Majerus' TWO shot only theory.

[Garry Puffer]

Patrick wrote: "I will ask around a few people who actually know their stuff on the JFK case who rely on good sources unlike your good self Lee.....was it The National Enquirer last time....?"

Please, Patrick, we are attempting here to be civil, and so far both sides have done an admirable job. Little jibes like this one about the National Enquirer do not help your cause at all.

[Ben Holmes]

Garry Puffer Wrote:Patrick wrote: "I will ask around a few people who actually know their stuff on the JFK case who rely on good sources unlike your good self Lee.....was it The National Enquirer last time....?"

Please, Patrick, we are attempting here to be civil, and so far both sides have done an admirable job. Little jibes like this one about the National Enquirer do not help your cause at all.

Indeed. Please keep it civil.


I've previously posted the photos (here it is again) - so anyone can take a look and see that the viewpoint of someone inside the storm drain is half of what it would have been on 11/22/63. The pavement has built up - and what is no longer possible now (a good trajectory for a shot), might well have been possible in 1963.

Absent a construction crew going in and removing the asphalt down to the 1963 level - there's no way to be sure.

But anyone claiming that a Storm Drain shooter wouldn't have had a good shot - simply isn't telling the truth based on any evidence.