The Magic Bullet:A Legal-Scientific analysis of the

Warren Commission’s Single Bullet TheoryAndrew M. Mason1

Since its publication in 1964, the Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of PresidentJohn F. Kennedy 2 has been mired in controversy. In reaching its conclusion that President Kennedywas the victim of a lone assassin, the Warren Commission adopted the “single bullet theory” to explainthe sequence of three shots directed at the President’s limousine. Three of the seven Commissionmembers apparently disagreed with the theory on the grounds that the evidence did not support it. Thelack of clear evidence for the theory and its inconsistency with key eyewitness testimony has providedfertile ground for conspiracy theorists who allege that the explanation was concocted to support theCommission’s conclusion that all shots were fired from Oswald’s rifle.3

According to the single bullet theory, a one-inch long, copper jacketed, lead core 6.5 millimeter riflebullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’sneck, Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. In doing so,the bullet traversed 19 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck atie knot, removed 4 inches of rib and shattered a radius bone. Despite leaving several small particles oflead behind in the Governor’s wounds, the missile emerged from its tortuous journey remarkablyunscathed.

The bullet that is supposed to have done all this damage was found on Governor Connally’s stretcher inthe corridor at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas. It became a key Commission exhibit, identified asCE399. It resembled a pristine bullet with its copper jacket completely intact. The bullet’s nose appearednormal but the tail was compressed laterally on one side. It weighed 158.6 grains, or about 2.2 grainsless than the average weight of an unfired bullet.4

Despite much criticism of the single bullet theory, no one has been able to offer another explanationthat is consistent with the Commission’s conclusion that all shots were fired from the same gun. It isnot surprising, therefore, that the single bullet theory has been staunchly defended by those who believethe Warren Commission’s finding was correct and roundly criticized by those who disagree.5

In this paper a comprehensive review and analysis of the evidence relating to the single bullet theory isundertaken. Evidence that has become available since 1964 is included in this review.

As a first step in this analysis, fact and opinion are separated to see what conclusions flow from theevidence. When the expert opinion is put to the side, a consistent picture emerges from the photographicevidence, eyewitness testimony, and the physical and medical evidence. This picture is not consistentwith the Commission’s single bullet theory.

In reviewing the expert evidence, it becomes apparent that much of the opinion relating to the trajectoryof the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the neck is based on a badly flawed re-enactment of theassassination in which the wrong vehicle was used. By examining the photographs and scale drawingsof the President’s car, the trajectory for the first bullet can be determined by geometry, based on thesimple and probable assumption that the first bullet did not change direction in passing through thePresident’s neck.

Given the magnitude of the task and the relatively short time to work, it is not surprising that theCommission made mistakes.6 This paper is not intended as a criticism of the Commission. The purpose

2

of this paper is merely to demonstrate that the single bullet theory is incompatible with the facts and toshow that a simpler explanation flows naturally from the evidence.

The Reasons For and Against the Single Bullet Theory

The single bullet theory was created to explain how both Governor Connally and President Kennedycould have been wounded by frame 240 of the Zapruder film if, as the Commission found, neither hadbeen hit before frame 210.7 There was not sufficient time for Oswald to have fired two shots from hisbolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within this time interval. The Commission concluded it was likelythat one bullet caused the President’s neck wound and all of the Governor’s wounds.

The Report of the Warren Commission provides two reasons the majority of Commission membersfound the single bullet theory compelling:

1. The bullet that passed through President Kennedy’s neck did not directly hit any bone and made aclean exit wound. Simulation tests showed that the bullet likely exited the President’s neck atmore than three-quarters of its original speed. Its trajectory indicated that it must have continuedon to hit something or someone inside the car. It should have made a noticeable mark if it struckthe interior of the car traveling at this speed and no such mark was found. The absence of a bulletmark in the interior of the President’s limousine meant that the bullet that exited the President’sneck must have struck Governor Connally. The Commission accepted that Governor Connally’sthree wounds were made by the same bullet.

2. Although the trajectory of the first bullet seems to go to the left, it was thought that the Governorcould have been seated sufficiently far to the left for his right armpit to align with the bullettrajectory.

Since the Warren Commission Report was published, a third reason has been advanced to support thesingle bullet theory:

3. The FBI arranged for physical analyses of bullet CE399 and the various bullet fragments found inthe Governor’s wrist wounds and on the car floor. Pieces of the metal fragments and whole bulletwere subjected to Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) which is a very accurate method ofdetermining relative proportions of trace elements in material. The Warren Commission apparentlyfound that this evidence was inconclusive and did not refer to it in its report. However, in 1978 theHouse Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) revisited these tests and heard from an expertwho was of the opinion that the data supported the single bullet theory.

There are three main arguments against the single bullet hypothesis:

1. Governor Connally was adamant that he was hit by the second shot. He said that after he heard thefirst shot and after he had turned to his right to see the President he felt the bullet hit him frombehind. He said that he reacted immediately and collapsed into his wife’s lap. Mrs. Connallyrecalled that she heard the first shot, saw the President clutch his throat and then heard the secondshot and saw her husband hit by it. Other witnesses said they saw much the same thing.

2. For the single bullet theory to work, the bullet path from President Kennedy’s throat to GovernorConnally’s right armpit had to align with a path moving from right to left through both men. Thisrequired Governor Connally to be seated with his right shoulder to the left of the President’s neck.It is not apparent that the bullet paths are ever aligned or even close.

3. If the single bullet theory is correct, one of the three bullets must have missed the President’slimousine entirely. An FBI reconstruction of the shooting showed that this was unlikely.

3

A critical examination of these reasons requires a careful review and analysis of the evidence.

1. The Eyewitnesses

The Time of the First Shot

The Warren Commission acknowledged that it was difficult to pinpoint the time of the first shot butconcluded that it likely occurred between frames Z210 and Z225 of the Zapruder film.8

The President showed no clear sign of reacting to a bullet when he all but disappeared from AbrahamZapruder’s view at frame Z204 as the car passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. He was visiblyreacting to his neck wound when he began to emerge from behind the sign about a second later at Z225and his hands appear to be at the same position in the previous frame, Z224 (see infra, page 12). If thePresident was reacting to his neck wound at Z224, the first shot must have occurred before Z224.Allowing for some time for the human brain to realize that something happened and for the muscles torespond, the latest time for the first shot would have to be a few frames before Z224.

According to the evidence, there were two photographs taken very close to the moment of the first shot.The first is Hugh Betzner’s #3 photograph which, as Mr. Betzner testified in an affidavit sworn on theday of the assassination, was taken just before the first shot. He said that he took this photograph andhad just started winding his camera to take another when he heard the first shot.9

Hugh Betzner’s #3 photo said to be taken less than a second before the first shot at Z186Enlarged detail, right: President Kennedy between Secret Service agents and man on left.

The second is Phillip Willis’ #5 photograph. Willis testified that this photograph was taken at the veryinstant the first shot was heard. Mr. Willis stated that he was poised to take the picture at that time andhe thought the noise of the shot may have triggered a reflex response prompting him to press the shutterbutton at that moment.10 If the photo was taken at the moment the sound of the first shot reached Willis,the first bullet struck the President about one frame earlier, at Z201.11

Both photographs capture Abraham Zapruder holding his camera and the Zapruder film shows bothphotographers taking their pictures. Consequently, the exact Zapruder frame at which the photos weretaken can be found by comparing the alignment of persons in the film with that in the photographs.

4

From this it can be determined that the Betzner photograph was taken between frame Z185 and Z186and the Willis #5 photograph at frame Z202.12

Phillip Willis’ #5 photograph purportedly taken at the instant of the first shot. Abraham Zapruderis standing on the white block just above and to the right of the Stemmons sign

Phillip Willis’ 14 year old daughter, Linda Willis, stated that the first shot occurred when the President’scar was directly between her and the Stemmons Freeway sign.13 She can be seen in the Zapruder film,behind and to the left of Phillip Willis in frame Z202. The passenger portion of the car appears to bedirectly between her and the Stemmons sign in frame Z202.

An honest and clear recollection by Mr. Willis that he pressed the shutter at the moment he heard theshot is a recollection of a single non-complex event that should be fairly reliable. It also fits with theevidence of Hugh Betzner and Linda Willis. It conflicts with none of the other evidence.

The motorcade position at the time of the shot

Abraham Zapruder stated that the first shot occurred when the President was about half way down ElmStreet.14 But what does his film show? Since the shots occurred as cars in the motorcade were turningthe corner at Elm and Houston Streets, the evidence of persons in the motorcade as to the location anddirection of their car at the moment they heard the first shot provides an independent means of determiningwhen the first shot occurred. The positions of these cars can be seen in parts of the Zapruder film.

The Secret Service follow-up car was followed by a blue convertible carrying the Vice President’sparty. Following the Vice-President’s car was a yellow sedan carrying Secret Service agents and behindthat a white convertible carrying Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell and Mrs. Cabell.

The occupants of the Vice-President’s car indicate that their car had already turned the corner and wasproceeding along Elm Street when the first shot was heard:

5

Zapruder frame 202 showing Phillip Willis taking his photograph #5. Note that the alignment of Mr. Willis and theSecret Service agent on the left front side of the follow-up car (just below Willis’ camera) matches the alignment seen in thephotograph (opposite). The Warren Commission stated that the Willis #5 photograph was taken at approximately frame210, which is not correct.

“We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--ashot.” 15 Lady Bird Johnson, seated in the rear of the Vice-President’s convertible.

“My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at thePresident's car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come fromthe right rear of the Vice President's car.” Hurchel Jacks, driver of the VP car.16

Witnesses in the Vice-President’s follow-up car stated that they had just completed the turn when thefirst shot rang out.

"I was instructed by the Secret Service man to stay as close to the Vice President's car aspossible and so that actually about the only thing I was watching was the car ahead of me. Iwas staying right on his bumper . We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and thatwas when I heard the first shot.” Joe Rich, driver of the VP follow-up car.17

"our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when Iheard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker--the sound coming from myright rear." SA Warren W. Taylor - left rear seat of the VP follow-up car.18

"At approximately 12:30 p.m., our car had just made the lefthand turn off Houston onto ElmStreet and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard anoise which sounded like a firecracker. Clifton Carter - front middle seat of the VP follow-up car.19

The occupants of the Cabell car, immediately behind the Vice-President’s follow-up car, indicate thattheir car had just begun to turn but they were facing the Book Depository at the time of the first shot:

Mrs. CABELL. ... The position of our car was such that when that first shot rang out, myposition was such that I did not have to turn to look at the building. I was directly facing it.

6

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, your car was still really on Houston?

Mrs. CABELL. No. We were making the turn.

Mr. HUBERT. Just on the turn?

Mrs. CABELL. Just on the turn, which put us at the top of the hill, you see.

....I heard the shot, and without having to turn my head, I jerked my head up.

Mr. HUBERT. Why did you do that?

Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and I just jerked myhead up.20

Frame 160 - full frame version of the Zapruder film. The Vice President’s car is part wayaround the corner. The VP follow-up car (sedan) behind it is just beginning the turn. According totheir occupants, both cars had completed the turn before the first shot was heard. The Cabell caris behind the VP follow-up car and is not visible as it has not yet reached the corner. Based onthis evidence, frame 160 was exposed full seconds before the first shot was heard.

Frame 190: All cars have advanced about one car length from their positions in frame 160. TheVP follow-up car has not completed the turn and the Cabell car is still not visible, indicating thatframe 190 was taken before the first shot.

7

It is apparent from an inspection of the full Zapruder frames that the Vice-President’s car is in themiddle of its turn at frame Z160 and the follow-up car is just beginning the turn. This must be wellbefore the first shot, unless all these witnesses in the motorcade were seriously mistaken. At Z186-191the follow-up car is still turning. It is evidently pointing toward the depository building. The Cabell caris not visible as it has not yet reached the corner. The evidence of the motorcade witnesses is consistentwith Hugh Betzner’s statement that his photograph was taken before the first shot was heard.

The Warren Commission’s finding

In determining the time of the first shot, the Warren Commission used a line of reasoning based on there-enactment of the assassination made by the FBI in May of 1964. In this re-enactment the positions ofthe limousine as it moved down Elm Street were captured by a camera attached to Oswald’s riflepointing down from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Part of CE893 showing the re-enacted position of the President’s car andoccupants at Zapruder frame 210 as seen from the sniper’s window.

The tree in front of the Texas School Book Depository as it appeared from thesixth floor sniper’s window on December 5, 1963, (from CE875).

The President’s car passed beneath the thin outer branches of an oak tree between frames Z161 andZ207. The branches of the oak tree never seem to completely obscure the car or its occupants. This isapparent in the photographs taken of the tree on December 5, 1963, two weeks after the assassination(see above). The Commission found it unlikely that the sniper would have fired the first shot beforeframe Z210 when the car and its occupants were clear of the tree.

In frames Z207 and Z210, the back of the trunk and bumper of the re-enactment vehicle are quitevisible through the leaves and forward of that point is practically clear. The back of the trunk representsa position 9½ feet behind President Kennedy and 12 feet behind Governor Connally. This means thata sniper at the window would have had a good view of the President’s head by frame Z198 and ofGovernor Connally by frame Z195.21

The Commission’s conclusion - that the sniper would not shoot as soon as the President or Governorbecame visible but would wait until the car was completely beyond all branches of the tree - is somewhatspeculative. No one really knows what was going through the assassin’s mind.22

The Commission did not reject Phillip Willis’evidence that he took his #5 photograph at the moment ofthe first shot. Rather, it believed - incorrectly - that the Willis picture was taken at around frame 210.23

Since there is no objective basis for rejecting Mr. Willis testimony, the possibility that the first shotoccurred just before Z202 cannot be excluded.

What did the first shot hit?

Despite suggestions by the Commission that it was not clear whether the first bullet struck the President,there is abundant evidence that it did. Many witnesses stated that the President reacted by moving hishands to his neck immediately after the first shot was heard. Nellie Connally, Jacqueline Kennedy,Secret Service Agents Clint Hill and George Hickey, bystanders Gayle Newman, Linda Willis, andothers recalled this.24 Presidential aide David Powers described the shots this way:

Shortly thereafter the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. Inoticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme righthand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connallydisappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of thePresident’s head and had the sickening sound of a grape fruit splattering against the side of awall. The total time between the first and third shots was about 5 or 6 seconds. 25

Abraham Zapruder also saw the President react after the first shot and before the second shot washeard:

And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making histurn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this[Zapruder leans over to his left]. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn’t say it was one ortwo, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.

Gerald Posner, in his book Case Closed, suggests that the first shot missed.26 He theorizes that the firstshot occurred very early, about frame 160 of the Zapruder film, just as the President passed beneath thebranches of an oak tree in front of the Texas School Book Depository, and that the bullet was deflectedby a tree branch. He maintains that the second shot occurred at Z223 and the third shot at Z313.

Posner’s theory is fraught with problems, however. In addition to the lack of any evidence indicatingthat the first shot struck the tree, it is not apparent that any part of this tree was capable of deflecting ahigh speed rifle bullet at all, let alone the 20 degrees suggested by Posner (see comments on bulletdeflection at page 13). The evidence of Hugh Betzner, Phillip Willis, Linda Willis, and the occupantsof the cars in the motorcade would have to be completely wrong if the first shot occurred before Z191.

8

The many eyewitnesses who had clear recollections that the President reacted immediately to the firstshot would have to be mistaken.27 Mr. Posner fails to address any of these evidentiary short-comings.The overwhelming weight of the evidence appears to be against his theory.

From the evidence the following conclusions may be drawn:

• the first shot did not occur until after Z191

• the first shot likely occurred at about Z202 or a few frames earlier;

• it is possible that the first shot occurred later than Z202 if Phillip Willis was wrong in his recollectionthat his photograph #5 was taken at the moment he heard the first shot;

• the first shot could not have occurred later than Z223.

The time of the first shot is not absolutely critical in the determination of the essential facts. However,it is important. Placing the first shot later makes the single bullet theory more plausible as it reducesthe amount of delay in the reaction of Governor Connally.

The evidence that Governor Connally was hit by a second shot

No eye-witness suggested that Governor Connally was hit by the first bullet. More problematic, however,is the fact that unimpeachable witnesses testified that the Governor was not hit by the first bullet.

Nellie Connally, who was seated in the limousine to the left of her husband, said that she heard the firstshot and looked back and saw the President with his hands at his neck. She recalled that her husbandturned right and said “oh, no, no, no” after the first shot. She said that she then saw her husband hit bya second shot:

Mrs. CONNALLY. …Then I don’t know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that Iheard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was justa frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and lookedback, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over grippingyour own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was—he made no utterance, no cry. I sawno blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sortof 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, justcrumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.” 28

Mrs. Connally remains adamant that the Governor’s chest wound was not caused by the same bulletthat hit President Kennedy in the neck.29

Jacqueline Kennedy recalled hearing the Governor yelling “oh, no, no, no” after the first shot:Mrs. Kennedy. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motor-cycles beside us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was anoise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motor-cycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.” 30

It must be pointed out that Governor Connally testified that he thought he had said “Oh, no, no, no”immediately upon being hit:

I immediately, when I was hit, I said, “Oh, no, no, no.” And then I said, “My God, they aregoing to kill us all.” 31

9

10

But in a 1966 interview published in Life Magazine, the Governor stated that he said “oh, no, no, no”before he was hit:

Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hitme, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanceddown and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood. 32

It is apparent from his later HSCA testimony in 1978 that he was not sure:When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit—no, I guess it was after I was hit—I said first, justalmost in despair, I said, “no, no, no”, just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone throughthis 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President hadbeen so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment this great tragedy. I just said,“no, no, no, no”. Then I said right after I was hit, I said, “My God, they are going to kill usall.”33

This latter testimony suggests that Governor Connally did not say “no, no, no, no” in response to beingshot. He recalled that the words “no, no, no, no” were prompted by a sudden realization that anassassination attempt was unfolding spoiling a wonderful visit by the President. His statement “myGod, they are going to kill us all.” was a response to the realization of being shot himself. This tends tosupport his wife’s recollection that the “Oh, no, no, no” utterance occurred before he was shot in thechest.

Governor Connally’s evidence relating to the actual shots is critical. He said he felt the impact of theshot that went through his chest and reacted immediately. He was sure it was the second shot thatcaused his chest wound:

Governor CONNALLY. …We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was ashot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to myright because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to lookback over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but Idid not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once Iheard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately—the onlythought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing tosee him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never gotthat far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to theleft of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.…

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 firstone because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don’t know anything about thevelocity 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 ithad reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start toturn 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 blowfrom something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I neverheard the second shot, didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shotand the third shot.34

The Governor had a very clear recollection of the moment of impact of the second bullet:Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when youfelt that you had been hit by a bullet?

11

Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is asif someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit youright in the back right below the shoulder blade.

Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifle shot?

Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifle shot. There was no pain connectedwith it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I thinkyou would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just,with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.35

One of the Governor’s doctors, Dr. Shaw, agreed that he must have felt the hit and reacted promptly.The doctor acknowledged that a person can be shot and not feel it right away, but not if the bullet hitsbone as occurred here.36

Gayle Newman was standing with her husband and their two small children on the sidewalk ahead ofthe President’s limousine when the first shot was heard. For some reason she was not called to testifyin person before the Warren Commission but she did provide an affidavit. Mrs. Newman stated in heraffidavit that she saw the President react immediately after the first shot by putting his hands to hishead. She stated that she then heard the second shot and saw the Governor react:

After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed hischest and lay back on the seat of the car.37

If Governor Connally was hit through the chest by the first bullet after it passed through the President,it is difficult to understand how all these witnesses could have had the same false recollection of theGovernor being hit by the second bullet. No basis is offered for rejecting this evidence other than itsinconsistency with the single bullet theory.

When does Governor Connally first react to his chest wound?

The photographic evidence, with the notable exception of Zapruder frame 313, does not provide clearvisual evidence of the shots themselves. An opinion that the Governor is hit at a certain point is necessarilyan interpretation of what is seen on the film. Whether the opinion is correct depends on its agreementwith the evidence.

The Governor is not visibly reacting to a shot by frame Z225. The President is holding his neck,evidently reacting to his neck wound at this point. The Governor prepares to turn to his right at aboutZ229. This is consistent with the evidence of Governor and Mrs. Connally who stated that he turned tohis right to see the President after the first shot and before he (the Governor) was hit in the back.

From the finding that the first shot occurred very close to frame Z202, one can conclude that theGovernor waited almost two seconds to react to his chest wound if the single bullet theory is correct.Given the nature of the Governor’s chest wound and his evidence that he felt the moment of impact andreacted immediately, a delay of this magnitude could not have occurred.38

12

Frames 224 to 228: These frames show the reaction of President Kennedy to the first bullet -and the lack of reaction of Governor Connally.

Frames Z231 - Z235: the right hand holding the stetson moves suddenly and Governor Connallyturns to his right. Frames Z 238-242: Is the Governor reacting to his chest wound?

13

If the first shot occurred later than Z202, the amount of delay that has to be explained is less but he stilltakes significantly longer to react than the President. The evidence does not disclose any reason theGovernor would have a much slower reaction than the President. The Warren Commission did notidentify any evidence to support the delayed reaction hypothesis other that a general acknowledgmentthat it has been known to occur. The evidence was that delayed reactions are not known to occur whenthe bullet strikes bone and the person recalls feeling a forceful impact at the moment it occurred.39

The ‘Lone Assassin’ conclusion

The Commission heard evidence from an FBI ballistics expert, Robert Frazier, who stated that GovernorConnally could not have been hit by a bullet to the chest after frame Z240. His view was based on theapparent trajectory of the bullet through his chest.40 The Governor and Mrs. Connally also gave theiropinions that the Governor was struck in the chest at some time between frames Z229 and 234.41

This causes a problem if Oswald was the lone assassin. FBI experts had tested Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and found that around 2.3 seconds (42 Zapruder frames) were needed to aim and fire twoshots.42 This means that the single bullet theory is essential to the Commission’s ‘lone assassin’conclusion if Governor Connally was hit in the chest before Z242 (based on a first shot occurring ataround Z200). The evidence that Connally suffered his chest wound this early consists entirely ofopinions from the Connallys, Robert Frazier and others relating to the Zapruder film.

2. The evidence relating to bullet trajectory and body positions

FBI ballistics tests provided ample evidence that the bullet that passed through the President’s neckexited at sufficient speed to cause noticeable damage to something or someone in the car. The interiorof the President’s limousine was thoroughly inspected by FBI agent Robert Frazier and no bullet markswere found.43 Since the first bullet did not hit the car, it must have hit Governor Connally. This is avery persuasive argument in favor of the single bullet theory.

A speeding bullet will travel in a straight line if no force is applied to it. Even a large force will notmove a 10 gram bullet significantly if the force is applied only for a very short time.44 The forcesapplied to a high speed bullet when it passes through an object operate only for a tiny fraction of asecond. A lateral force would have to be enormous to change the bullet’s direction appreciably in sucha short time. The force required to deflect a high speed bullet is so great that the bullet structure usuallycannot withstand it. That is why bullets become distorted and often fragment when they are deflected.

It is apparent from the autopsy evidence that the bullet passed through the President’s neck in a straightline and did not strike anything capable of deflecting it.45 The bullet, traveling at 2000 feet per second,would have passed through the President’s neck in about 1/4000th of a second. In order to deflect thebullet in such a short time, an extremely large force would be needed. It is a safe assumption that as itpassed through the soft tissue of the neck the bullet was not subjected to a lateral force sufficient todeflect it from its path: the bullet continued to travel in a straight line without any deflection.

If the bullet was fired from the ‘sniper’s nest’ on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository,the trajectory after it exited President Kennedy’s neck can be determined very accurately from thelocation and position of the President when he was hit.46 It should be a relatively simple matter torecreate the position of the car and its occupants just before frame Z202 and see what would have fallenin a straight line path from the 6th floor window through the President’s neck.

A re-enactment of the assassination was done by the FBI in May of 1964 using the 1956 Cadillacfollow-up car. The President’s Lincoln was not then available because it was being remodeled. Thiswas unfortunate as the Lincoln had a unique arrangement of seats. It had a elevated back seat. It also

14

had individual jump seats with low backs separated by a large space whereas the middle seats of theCadillac had high backs with no separation. The Lincoln’s jump seats appear to be much closer to thefloor than the equivalent seats in the Cadillac. This meant that the position of the Governor could notbe accurately reconstructed with the Cadillac.

The interior of the President’s Lincoln. Note the low position of the jump seat which causes the thighto be elevated above the waist. The rear seat in the picture on the right is shown in an elevated

position. It was about 6 inches lower during the Dallas motorcade.

CE873 and CE874 - showing the jump seats in the President’s car. Note the low seat backsand the placement of the seats directly on the floor of the car.

In the FBI re-enactment, the President’s Lincoln was replaced with the Cadillac shownabove. The relative seat heights of Gov. Connally and President Kennedy are not accuratelyrecreated in this re-enactment. Gov. Connally appears to be much too high.

15

The Alignment of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally

From the President’s entrance and exit wounds in the back and neck, it was determined that the bulletpassed through the President’s neck at an 18 degree right-to-left angle.47 The right-to-left angle of thecar to the sixth floor sniper’s window at Z190-200 was only 13 degrees.48 However, the Willis photographand the Zapruder film show the President’s head and neck turned to the right for several frames beforehe disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Zapruder frames 193 and 196 a fraction of a second before the first shot. Note both men arelooking right and Governor Connally’s shoulders are turned to the right.

If the President was turned 5 degrees to the right when hit, which is consistent with the above Zapruderframes, the trajectory of the bullet relative to the car would have been 13 degrees. In such case, a bulletoriginating at the sixth floor window and traveling in a straight-line path would have struck the Presidentin the back, exited close to the midpoint of his throat and crossed the plane of the Governor’s seat back5½ inches further to the left.49

For the Governor’s chest wound to have been caused by this bullet after it exited the President throat,his right armpit (located 7.87 inches or 20 cm inches to the right of his spine 50) had to be positioned 5½inches left of the President’s neck. The Governor appears to be directly in front of the President in theZapruder film before they disappear behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and after they emerge about asecond later. If this appearance is correct, his right armpit was well to the right of the President’s neck.

The HSCA tried to resolve this problem when it examined the evidence relating to the single bullettheory in 1978. Thomas Canning of NASA’s Ames Research Center presented an analysis of GovernorConnally’s seating position based on Hugh Betzner’s #3 photograph. He deduced that from Betzner’sline of sight to the limousine there was a separation between the President’s left shoulder and theGovernor’s right shoulder. This inference was based on the inability to see Governor Connally’s shoulderat all. Canning concluded that the Governor had to have been further to the left.51

The purported separation between the two men in Betzner’s photograph is not clear (see enlargementof photo on page 3). One cannot see Governor Connally at all in the picture. His head is blocked by theman standing in front of Betzner. But whether his right shoulder is also blocked by the man is not soclear. The Governor’s shoulders may have been below the line of sight to Betzner. Oddly enough, thesection of the HSCA report that explains Thomas Canning’s conclusions also contains the followingphotograph showing that Governor Connally’s shoulders were not visible from the rear. In light of this,one cannot conclude that there is a separation between the two men based on the inability to seeGovernor Connally’s shoulder.

16

James Altgens’ photograph of the limousine on Houston street as shown in the HSCAReport. This shows the relative positions of the two men’s shoulders. This demonstrates thatGovernor Connally’s shoulders were below the line of sight from the rear.52

Thomas Canning’s drawing prepared for the HSCA.53

Mr. Canning’s technique is quite good. He used lines of sight through the camera lens to identify pointson the car and its occupants that fall in the same vertical plane. Those planes, shown as lines superimposedon an overhead view of the limousine, provide a simple and accurate means of locating the lines alongwhich the car occupants were positioned. The problem is not with the technique but with the assumptionthat Governor Connally’s shoulder would have been visible had the man in front of Betzner not beenthere, and the correctness of that assumption is in doubt.

Betzner’s photo can be seen from a reverse angle in Zapruder’s frame 186. Sightlines are shown in thenext photograph. It is apparent that Zapruder’s line of sight from the base of the front edge of the roofsupport passes through Governor Connally’s head and well to Mrs. Kennedy’s right side whereas, onThomas Canning’s drawing, a similar line from the front edge of the roof support through GovernorConnally’s head would go through Mrs. Kennedy (see line (1) above). A line from the right rear door

(1)

(2)

17

handle to the middle edge of the hand-hold on the left rear side passes through the left side of thePresident’s head (line (2) above). In frame 186 (below) such a line passes a few inches further leftwhich suggests that President Kennedy is sitting further toward the back of his seat than Canningshows.

Zapruder frame 186 taken at the same moment as Betzner’s photograph. The sight linesfrom Zapruder’s position intersect with fixed points on the vehicle allowing accurateplacement of the President and Governor within the car.

From the sight line analysis using frame 186 (see above photograph and the scale drawing, page 18),one can conclude that Governor Connally was not in the awkward far-left position proposed by Canning.With the corrections made, the positions seen in Zapruder frame 186 match a seating arrangement thathas the Governor seated in the middle of his seat, very slightly to the left of the President but with hisright armpit to the right of the President’s neck. Such a position appears to fit the evidence. Theposition is wholly inconsistent with the single bullet theory in which the bullet must follow a right-to-left straight line path through the President’s neck but strike the far right side of the Governor’s back.

If the first bullet did not wound Gov. Connally in the chest, what did it hit?

The easiest way to answer this question would be to place a person having the same physical dimensionsas Governor Connally in the right jump seat, recreate his position at the time of the first shot (whichwas turned to the right, as seen in the previous photographs) and take a look from the rear. Apparently,this was never done.

At frame Z200, the elevation angle to the car from the 6th floor window of the Texas School BookDepository was 21 degrees and the car was on a 3 degree downward incline.54 Therefore, a shot fromthe window would have struck the President’s back at a downward angle of approximately 18 degrees.Since it did not hit any bone, it should have traveled through the President at a similar downward angle.This is consistent with the entrance and exit wounds on the President’s back and throat if he wasslumped forward slightly when hit, as he appears in the Croft, Betzner and Willis photographs. Assumingthat the President’s neck was approximately 20 inches horizontally from the back of the jump seat, the

18

Sca

le D

raw

ing

of th

e P

resi

de

nt’s

Lim

ou

sin

e fro

m 6

HS

CA

50

with

sig

ht lin

es

an

d fig

ure

s a

dd

ed

to

sh

ow

corr

ect

se

at p

lace

me

nt o

f JF

K a

nd

JB

C b

ase

d o

n Z

ap

rud

er

sig

ht lin

es

in fra

me

Z1

86

(p

revi

ou

s p

ag

e).

Po

sitio

n o

f Go

vern

or

Co

nn

ally

req

uir

ed

fo

r S

ing

le B

ulle

t T

he

ory

(Cannin

g)

Za

pru

de

r's s

igh

t lin

es

(Z1

86

) th

rou

gh

the

occ

up

an

ts c

on

ne

ctin

g p

oin

ts o

n th

e c

ar.

19

bullet would have dropped a further 6.4 inches by the time it crossed the plane of the jump seat back.This trajectory is marked on Robert Croft’s photograph taken seconds before the first shot:

The Robert Croft photograph. A bullet traveling at a downward 18° angle and 13° right toleft angle and traversing the President’s neck, would pass over the back of the jump seatto the left side of Governor Connally. Note that the top of the back of the jump seat cannotbe seen (the low seat back is seen on Mrs. Connally’s side and in photos, p. 14).

A person of Governor Connally’s dimensions (6 feet, 4 inches tall) sitting on a seat similarto the Governor’s jump seat with shoulders positioned as in frames Z190 - Z204.

The scale diagram of the car (opposite) illustrates the lateral trajectory based on an angle from the sixthfloor window which, as explained above, was 13 degrees. The Croft photo illustrates the vertical angle.As shown in the above photograph depicting a re-enactment of the Governor’s position, the top of hisleft thigh could have been directly in line with the path of the bullet exiting the President’s neck.

20

3. Medical and Ballistics Evidence and Analysis

The Governor’s wounds - one bullet or two?

Since a rifle bullet traveling at full speed striking a wrist will shatter the forearm, the Governor’sdoctors were satisfied that the wrist wound was made by a bullet that had slowed down significantly.55

A bullet that had just passed through the Governor’s chest would have been moving sufficiently slowlyto have caused this wound. In the Zapruder film, the wrist always appears to be in front of the Governorand not exposed to a direct shot from the rear until he fell back onto his wife, after frame 290 or so, justbefore the third shot. A finding that the wrist wound was caused by the bullet that exited his chestappears to be reasonable but it is not conclusive. The possibility that the third shot was caused by afragment from the third shot cannot be excluded.

The path of the bullet through the chest and wrist and then into the leg is not as reasonable. Theevidence that the Governor’s chest, wrist and leg wounds were all caused by the same bullet appears tobased on the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Dr. Shires and three Army doctors. These doctors simply agreedthat it seemed plausible due to the possible alignment of these wounds. Governor Connally said that hebelieved the chest, leg and wrist wounds had been caused by the second shot but he could not rememberbeing hit in either the leg or the wrist.56

However, Dr. Gregory, who attended to the Governor’s wrist wound, was not so sure. He had treatedhundreds of gunshot wounds in his military service. In his opinion, the wrist wound was made by anirregularly shaped object because it tore the tissue in the wrist and drew cloth fibres into the wound.Many threads had to be removed to avoid infection. He noted that the thigh wound was quite different:

Dr. GREGORY - This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missileswhich are rather grossly distorted.

Mr. SPECTER - Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the mis-siles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and CommissionExhibit 570.

Dr. GREGORY - These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, andpart of a jacket and a lead core in the other. These are missiles having the characteristicswhich I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to createirregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produced theinjury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.

Mr. DULLES - In his wrist?

Dr. GREGORY - Yes.

Mr. DULLES - And in his thigh?

Dr. GREGORY - I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably roundnature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something likethe butt end of an intact missile.57

If the bullet that caused the wrist injury was grossly distorted and the thigh wound was caused by the“butt end of an intact missile”, it is apparent that the object that caused the thigh wound did not causethe wrist wound. The bullet that passed through the President’s neck very likely emerged intact sinceit struck only soft tissue.

Thus the medical evidence alone indicates that only the Governor’s leg wound was caused by the firstbullet after it passed through the President. As seen from the scale drawing of the car, this fits with theexpected trajectory with both men in their normal seating positions.

If the thigh wound was made by the butt end of an intact missile, the bullet must have tumbled after it

21

exited the President and planted itself in the Governor’s thigh backward and at an angle. This wouldexplain why the only damage to CE399 was on the side of the bullet at its base. That was the only partof the bullet to strike a hard object, the femur - the strongest bone in the human body.

Bullet CE399 viewed from the tail end

The thigh wound was about one inch deep and somewhat elongated on the surface as if it had beenstruck obliquely. X-rays taken after surgery indicated that some bullet lead remained embedded in thefemur.58 Dr. Shires, who treated the thigh wound, thought the wound could have been made by a bullettraveling at close to full speed striking tangentially:

Mr. SPECTER. Well, is it possible that the bullet could have hit GovernorConnally with thethigh being the initial point of impact and do the damage which was done here with the highvelocity missile that I have just described for you?

Dr. SHIRES. Is it possible to get a wound like that?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.

Dr. SHIRES. Yes, as long as it’s on a tangent.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it likely to receive a wound like that from a high velocity weapon of 2,000feet per second and at about 160 to 250 feet?

Dr. SHIRES. If it’s a tangential wound, tangential wounds can be very strange. A large bulletcan cause a small hole if its on a tangent or a small bullet can rip out a fairly large hole on atangent. It just depends on the time of contact and the angle of contact with the skin. That’swhy it’s awfully hard to predict.59

If this scenario is correct, Governor Connally did not notice the thigh wound immediately. It is suffi-cient here to merely point out that he did not notice the thigh wound on the ride to the hospital or at anytime until the next day. It will be left to others to explain why this might occur.

The ballistics experiments

The plausibility of the single bullet theory was supported by the evidence of the three Army doctors,Drs. Olivier, Dziemian and Light.60 The testimony of these doctors was almost entirely based on theirtests involving the shooting of goats and bags of meat and gelatin. This evidence permited theCommission to find that a single bullet could have had sufficient energy to traverse the President’sneck, the Governor’s chest and wrist and finally puncture his leg.

CE399 - the whole bullet found on Governor Connally’s stretcher

22

The Army doctors were unable to produce a bullet looking anything like CE399 in recreating a shotthat caused damage comparable to the President’s neck and the Governor’s chest and wrist wounds(through goat flesh, bone and gelatin). Moreover, their experiments did not rule out the possibility thata separate bullet hit the Governor. Dr. Light thought it “barely possible” that one bullet passed throughboth men but conceded that it probably did only because there seemed to be no other way to explainwhere the first bullet went after it passed through the President.61

Did one bullet miss the entire car?

The corollary to the single bullet theory is that one of the shots must have missed the President’slimousine and its occupants. The Warren Commission’s Report contains a whole section entitled “TheShot that Missed”.62 There was evidence that, at the time the shots were heard, bystander James Taguewas hit on the cheek with a piece of material. He was standing a few feet from the triple underpasslocated about 250 to 350 feet from the assassination scene and sustained a slight scratch on the cheekthat drew a trace of blood. An inspection of the curb about 15 feet east of Mr. Tague’s position revealeda fresh scratch in the concrete. There appeared to be no concrete missing from this scratch mark.63

It is not necessary for one of the bullets to have missed the car in order to account for the ricochetexperienced by Mr. Tague. The Warren Commission conceded that a fragment traveling from the carjust above the windshield could have gone on to strike the curb near Mr. Tague.64 We do know that thebullet that struck the President in the head fragmented in the skull. A least two pieces hit high on thefront windshield, one on the top metal frame. The two pieces recovered from the front of the carweighed about 65 grains, so a large portion of the original 160 grain bullet remained unaccounted for.65

It is not difficult to imagine another fragment going slightly higher, above the windshield in a forwarddirection. Mr. Tague was standing directly in line with the trajectory of such a fragment.66

CE349. The windshield of the President’s limousine showing a dent in the metal frame above theglass. Another fragment struck the windshield just below this dent and cracked the glass.

It is apparent that the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague had hit something first as therewere traces of lead and antimony on the curb but no copper, indicating that the copper jacket hadseparated from the lead core.67 It can be demonstrated that a bullet striking the road would have todeflect at a small fraction of its incident speed if it subsequently dropped to the level of the curb in frontof Mr. Tague.68 One would expect such energy loss in striking the road to leave a significant mark inthe pavement. No such mark was observed. From this analysis it can be reasonably concluded that theobject that struck Tague had not struck the ground before it hit the curb. It must have hit somethingabove ground level, slowed down and then dropped to curb level near Tague. The only such objects

23

were the President and Governor Connally.

It is particularly difficult to explain how a sniper could have missed the entire car. According to Armyfirearms expert, Ronald Simmons, the occupants of the presidential limousine were easy targets. Insimulations performed by three FBI marksmen using Oswald’s rifle and three targets spaced from 175to 270 feet, a nine inch target was hit on all 21 of their shots.69 From this evidence, one can concludethat the probability of the sniper unintentionally missing a wide target like the car was virtually nil.

For all of these reasons, it is improbable and inexplicable that a shot missed the entire car.

4. Neutron Activation Analysis of the bullet fragments

Warren Commission documents released after the publication of its report revealed that the FBI hadarranged for bullet CE399 and the various fragments found in the car and in Governor Connally’swounds to be examined using a method known as neutron activation analysis (NAA). NAA is a veryaccurate method of determining the relative concentrations of trace elements in material. It is potentiallya valuable forensic tool, since NAA testing does not consume or damage the test material.

The data from the tests performed for the FBI was inconclusive as to the origins of the fragments.70 In1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations asked physicist, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn to reviewthe data and conduct new tests. Dr. Guinn stated that initially he agreed with the earlier conclusion.However, after examining the data further, he concluded from the NAA that the bullet fragments fitinto two distinct groups rather than three and that the fragments from Governor Connally’s wrist likelycame from the whole bullet, CE399, but possibly not.

WC Exhibit No.Silver(ppm)

Antimony(ppm)

399 Whole bullet 7.9 ± 1.4 833 ± 9

567 Limousine fragment 8.1 ± 0.6 602 ± 4

843 Limousine fragment 7.9 ± 0.3 621 ± 4

842 Wrist fragment 9.8 ± 0.5 797 ± 7

840 Limousine fragment 8.6 ± 0.3 638 ± 4

- second 7.9 ± 0.5, 647 ± 4

573 fragment from bullet fired at Gen. Walker 's residence 20.6 ± 0.6 17 ± 2

141 unfired bullet recovered from Oswald's rifle - 15 ± 1

- second 22.4 ±1.0 -

The NAA data obtained from the various bullet samples 71

Dr. Guinn had difficulty in stating the precision with which he could make this statement:Dr. GUINN. I wish that I could put a number on it, as we often can do, that is, calculate aprobability, but we really don’t have the background information to make a numerical calcula-tion in this case. One can only show what information we do have, and that is that you simplydo not find a wide variation in composition within individual WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets,but you do find wide composition differences from bullet to bullet for this kind of bullet lead.Thus, when you find two specimens that agree this closely, you can say it looks indeed likethey are pieces from the same bullet .

Mr. WOLF. Would you state that your conclusion is more probable than not, highly probable,or what is the degree of certainty of your conclusion?

24

Dr. GUINN. I would say highly probable, yes. I would not want to say how high, whether it was99 percent or 90 percent or 99 .9 percent. I can’t make a calculation like that.72

The NAA data and the conclusions of Dr. Guinn have been extensively reviewed by Dr. Arthur Snyderof the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University.73 He agrees with Dr. Guinn that thedata is consistent with a “two bullet” scenario, but he is less certain about being able to draw a conclu-sion that the data is inconsistent with a “three bullet” conclusion.

The underlying assumption in Dr. Guinn’s analysis was that silver and antimony concentrations in thebullet lead varied significantly between bullets but not within individual bullets. Significant differ-ences in concentrations between samples, therefore, meant that the samples originated with differentbullets. Dr. Guinn acknowledged that with most ammunition, bullets from the same box are indistin-guishable. However, he believed that this was not so with Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition from WesternCartridge Co. He based his belief on sample data that he had obtained earlier.74

It is apparent, however, that the data derived from the testing of sample bullets does not consistentlysupport that assumption. Concentrations of antimony, for example, varied within a sample bullet by asmuch as 275 per cent.75 The lack of homogeneity within individual bullets was acknowledged by Dr.Guinn:

The results are shown in Table II-C . As can be seen, of the three bullets sampled,one (6001 C) is fairly homogeneous in all three elements ; one (6002 A) is fairlyhomogeneous in Ag and Cu, but not so homogeneous in Sb ; and one (6003 A) isfairly homogeneous in Cu, but not homogeneous in Sb or Ag . However, comparisonof Table II-C with Table II-A indicates that, in general, the heterogeneity within anindividual Mannlicher-Carcano bullet is much less than the heterogeneity from onebullet to another. One of the primary conclusions, therefore, of the results of the UCIbackground study of MC bullet lead indicates a wide range of Sb values, from bulletto bullet, but reasonable homogeneity within an individual bullet.76

With respect to the heterogeneity between bullets, it must be noted that there are only a limited numberof discrete partitions of ± 40 ppm that can fit between 0 and 1200 ppm (as in samples CE842 andCE399 which differed in antimony concentrations by 36 ppm or about 4.5 per cent). If the difference inantimony concentration is significant, a good case can be made that the fragments are not from thesame bullet. But the converse is not necessarily true. That is why Dr. Guinn stated that it is easier toexclude than to prove a common origin hypothesis.77 Dr. Guinn’s evidence does not determine conclu-sively whether the differences between CE399 and CE842 (which also had a 20% difference in silverconcentrations) are due to the heterogeneity among bullets or the heterogeneity within an individualbullet. This uncertainty was admitted by Dr. Guinn:

“However, the earlier data and these more recent data do show some Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that cannot be distinguished from one another via only their anti-mony and silver concentrations. From these data, it appears that if 2 cartridges areremoved at random from a box of Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges, although it ishighly probable that they would differ significantly in their antimony and silver con-centrations, it is at least possible that they might not.” 78

Dr. Guinn was quite correct in stating that the NAA data does not provide evidence that three bulletssupplied these fragments. But that in itself does not exclude such a possibility. The following analogyillustrates the problem: A target is struck by discretely coloured paint balls. The balls are selected atrandom from a box of 100 paint balls, each containing one of 15 different colours. We do not knowhow many of the balls have the same colour. The paint splatters all over the target when the paint ballhits. Other evidence indicates that either two or three paint balls struck. Several paint samples are taken

25

from the target. Two are red and the rest are green. We can say that at least two paint balls struck. Butwe cannot rule out the possibility that the target was struck with three paint balls, two of which werered and one green.79 One has to look at other evidence. The “colors” of the fragments from the President’slimousine and Governor Connally’s wrist are their ranges of antimony. So, while there is evidence inthe samples taken from the limousine and from the wounds that at least two bullets were involved, thepossibility that three bullets struck cannot be excluded.

Dr. Snyder points out that the likelihood that parts of two different bullets could have silver and anti-mony concentrations within the observed range of difference between CE399 and CE842 must beaccurately determined in order to ascribe reliable meaning to the data. Detailed repeated measurementof the base of CE399 would be especially useful to determine how homogeneous it is. If the silver andantimony concentrations in the lead contained in the base of CE399 were very uniform, the data mightactually exclude the possibility that the fragments from the wrist (CE842) originated from CE399. Hesuggests that further NAA testing is likely to be inconclusive.80

SUMMARY

The following is a summary of findings that can be drawn from the evidence, all of which lead to theconclusion that the single bullet theory is not correct:

1. The first shot likely occurred at or a few frames before Z202 based on the evidence of PhillipWillis, Hugh Betzner and Linda Willis, all of which appears to be independent of each other andotherwise reliable. From the evidence from the re-enactment of the assassination, after Z198 theoccupants of the President’s car were completely visible to a sniper on the sixth floor of the TexasSchool Book Depository. The first shot could have occurred later if Phillip Willis was wrong in hisrecollection that his photograph #5 was taken at the moment of the first shot but not as late as Z224.

2. The Zapruder film shows the President reacting to his neck wound at Z224. Governor Connallywas showing no signs of reacting at this point. If the first shot occurred at around Z202, such adelay in reaction lacks any explanation. It is inconsistent with the recollections of Governor Connallywho said that he felt the impact, knew that he had been hit and reacted immediately.

3. For the single bullet theory to work, Governor Connally’s right armpit had to be positioned about5.5 inches to the left of the President’s neck. It appears that he was directly in front of the Presidentat the time of the first shot. An analysis of Zapruder frame 186 shows that the two men were in theirnormal seating positions, the President being almost directly behind the Governor with his rightarmpit about 7 inches right of the President’s neck. This is over 12 inches right of where it wouldhave to be for the single bullet theory to work.

4. The FBI re-enactment of the assassination was badly flawed. The failure to recreate the seats in thePresident’s Lincoln was particularly unfortunate.

Upon close examination of the first-hand medical testimony and of the physical evidence, and byapplying principles of geometry, one finds support for a conclusion that only the leg wound wascaused by the missile that passed through the President. A re-creation of the Governor’s seatingposition shows that the exposed left thigh could have fallen within the path of the first bullet.

5. The FBI shooting tests provide compelling evidence that none of the three shots missed the limousine.There is no evidence that would explain how or why a shot could have missed the limousineentirely. The object that struck James Tague had hit something before striking the curb near where

26

he was standing. It could not have deflected from the road surface. It had hit something aboveground level and was moving much more slowly than a full speed bullet. It very likely was afragment from the third shot.

6. The NAA data presented to the House Select Committee on Assassinations by Dr. Vincent Guinn isconsistent with a two bullet scenario, so it does not rule out the single bullet theory. But it does notexclude the possiblility that three separate bullets struck the occupants of the President’s limousine.

CONCLUSION

There are no absolute rules for interpreting and weighing evidence. One cannot say, as some havesuggested, that scientific evidence is (or is not) more reliable than the testimony of eyewitnesses.81 Thefact-finding body must examine all the evidence on its merits. Some general rules, however, are useful:

• An expert witness must be given the full picture before he or she is asked to provide an opinion.In this case, it was not clear that the expert witnesses who supported the single bullet scenariowere aware of critical medical and eyewitness evidence, particularly the details recalled by theConnallys.

• Re-enactment evidence must be meticulously accurate in all essential detail. The root of theproblem in this case may have been the admission of the evidence of the FBI re-enactment inwhich the wrong car was used. Expert opinion based on such a re-construction is necessarilyweakened or rendered worthless by such inaccuracies.

• A fact theory that purports to explain evidence may start out as a postulation of possible fact but,if it is to form the basis of a conclusion, it must be consistent with all found facts.

• Evidence may only be rejected due to some characteristic that makes it unreliable, such as incon-sistency with evidence that is reasonably considered more reliable. It appears that these principleswere not always followed by the Commission. Key evidence that was inconsistent with the singlebullet theory, particularly the testimony of Governor John Connally and Nellie Connally, wasignored or rejected for no apparent reason other than its disagreement with the single bullettheory.

The analysis carried out in this paper is based on the photographic evidence, the geometry of DealeyPlaza, the scale drawings of the President’s limousine and the medical and autopsy evidence. It shouldbe accurate, provided the information on which it is based is correct. A meticulous re-enactment of theassassination in Dealey Plaza using an accurate model of the Lincoln limousine would provide the bestevidence. To date, no such reconstruction has been performed.

The single bullet theory was a device created to explain the unexplainable. The apparent need for theSBT (i.e. there appeared to be no other explanation where the bullet went after it left JFK’s neck) wascreated, in large part, to the use of the wrong vehicle in the FBI “re-enactment”. The single bullettheory appears to have been an honest attempt by the Warren Commission to reconcile the evidenceplaced before it, but it likely does not explain what really happened. To be fair, the theory was notentirely wrong. The alternate explanation offered here is that the first bullet likely did strike GovernorConnally after it passed through President Kennedy’s neck - but in the left thigh, not his back.

The demise of the single bullet theory naturally could raise questions about the Warren Commission’smain conclusion that Oswald acted alone. The conclusion would be in doubt only if Governor Connallyreceived his chest wound prior to frame 242 of the Zapruder film as this would leave insufficient time

27

for Oswald to fire two shots with his bolt action rifle. This was the finding of the Commission and hasa great deal of support from many experts. It has never been seriously questioned.

The demise of the SBT does not imply a second shooter if Governor Connally was struck in the chestafter frame 242. There is substantial witness evidence and several indications in the Zapruder film thatmay lead one to conclude that Governor Connally was not hit in the chest until after frame 270. It isperhaps time to re-examine this aspect of this case.

Notes

1 Andrew M. Mason, B.A., LL.B. of the Saskatchewan Bar practices law in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Hehas an undergraduate background in mathematics and physics.

2 Report of The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, U.S. Gov. Pub.Off., 1964, hereinafter cited as WCR.

3 In its conclusion (WCR 18), the Commission found that a single bullet likely caused all the wounds in both thePresident and the Governor but stated that this was not essential to its conclusions. It is apparent from areading of Chapter III of the Report, however, that the single bullet theory forms an integral part of theCommission’s findings.

There was no formal dissent from the members of the Commission contained in the Report. However, Sen.Richard Russell, Rep. Hale Boggs and Sen. John Cooper have since admitted that they did not agree withthe single bullet theory. Chief Justice Earl Warren, Rep. Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles and John McCloy agreedwith the theory.

4 Some small pieces of lead were located in Governor Connally’s wounds in the Governor’s thigh and in theGovernor’s wrist that were never removed. The largest piece removed from the wrist wound weighed .5 grain(Commission Exhibit CE842, WC 17 H 841) and the two others pieces were smaller. Consequently, bulletCE399 (158.6 grains) together with all of the pieces extracted from Governor Connally’s wounds would haveweighed no more than about 159.6 grains. Doctors who had examined the x-rays of Governor Connally’schest and wrist estimated that the pieces of metal left behind in the Governor’s wounds weighed, in total, lessthan a grain. This would put the total weight of the bullet at about 160.6 grains. A grain is about 1/16th part ofa gram.

From an analysis of 100 unfired bullets of the type used in the assassination (manufactured by WesternCartridge Co.) by Dr. John Lattimer (Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN, Medical & Ballistic Compari-sons of Their Assassinations, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980., p. 285-288), it was found thatthe weight of a single unfired bullet ranged from 159.8 to 161.5 grains with an average weight of 160.844grains. On this evidence, it is not possible to ascertain the original mass of bullet CE399 to the precisionrequired to determine whether these pieces of lead exceeded the amount lost from the original bullet.

5 Much criticism has been leveled at the single bullet theory by conspiracy writers such as Mark Lane, (RushTo Judgement, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), and Robert Groden (The Killing of a Presi-dent, New York: Penguin Group, 1993). The theory drew stinging rebuke from Jim Garrison, the New Or-leans District Attorney who prosecuted Clay Shaw on a charge of conspiring to murder President Kennedy.

Supporters of the Commission’s conclusions all endorse the theory although some, such as Gerald Posner,Case Closed, (New York: Doubleday, 1993) have come up with different scenarios in which a single bulletcaused the President’s neck wound and all of Governor Connally’s wounds.

6 Warren Commission assistant counsel, David Belin, identified some key mistakes in his book Final Disclo-sure (New York: Scribners, 1988), chapter 7.

7 WCR 106. In his book, Final Disclosure, loc. cit, Belin stated that the single bullet theory was developed inresponse to his attempt to prove that the President and Governor received their wounds so close together intime that one sniper could not have done it alone. The theory emerged after he located expert evidence(apparently from Robert Frazier) suggesting that the Governor was wounded prior to frame 240. See RobertFrazier’s evidence, WC 5 H 169-170. Citing the thorough review of the theory by the House Select Commit-tee on Assassinations in 1978, Belin maintained that the single bullet theory has now been proven as fact.

28

8 WCR 105

9 WC 19 H 467 (part of Decker Exhibit No. 5323). The House Select Committee on Assassinations photo-graphic panel concluded that it corresponded to Zapruder frame 186: House Select Committee on Assassi-nations, 95th Cong., 2d sess., Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, vol. 7, p. 51, here-after abbreviated: 7 HSCA 51.

10 WC 7 H 493. Willis’ photograph #5 was marked as Hudson Exhibit No. 1, WC 20 H 183

11 Sound travels at approximately 1100 feet per second or a little more than half the speed of the bullet. ThePresident was about 160 feet from the sniper’s window at frame Z202. Willis was about 50 feet from thePresident and about 135 feet from the window at frame Z202. From this, one can determine that the timedelay between Willis hearing the shot and the bullet striking the President is very small, about 50 millisec-onds (about the time between two Zapruder frames). If he heard the shot precisely at Z202, the bullet wouldhave struck one frame before, at Z201.

12 The HSCA photographic panel used the alignment of the photographers, Abraham Zapruder and Clint Hill,the secret service agent on the left running board of the President’s follow-up car, to determine whichZapruder frames were taken concurrently with the Betzner and Willis photographs. 1 HSCA 44 and 51.

13 WC 7 H 498

14 ABC television interview of Abraham Zapruder, broadcast live November 22, 1963 an hour after the assassi-nation, Jay Watson interviewer. The complete transcript of the interview is available at: http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Transcript.htm. The video of the interview is available at

15 WC 5 H 564. Statement of Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, dictated in early Dec. 1963, signed July 16, 1964.

16 CE1024, WC 18 H 801 - statement dated November 28, 1963

17 CE1024, WC 18 H 800 - statement dated November 28, 1963

18 CE1024, WC 18 H 782 - statement dated November 29, 1963

19 Affidavit of Clifton Carter sworn May 20, 1964. WC 7 H 474

20 WC 7 H 485; See the scale drawing of the 1956 Cadillac limousine, CE 871, WC 17 H 86. The rear portionof the Cadillac is over a foot longer than that of the President’s Lincoln.

21 Since the President’s car was traveling at slightly less than 18 feet per second, the car moved slightly lessthan one foot per frame (film speed: 18.3 frames per second). The President’s head was at least a foothigher than the level of the trunk so his body from the shoulders up would have been in clear view by Z198.

22 The Commission assumed that the sniper’s first target was President Kennedy and not Governor Connally.The FBI found that due to the motion of the car, the sniper would have to aim slightly ahead of the target to hitit. The FBI also found that the imperfect alignment of the telescopic sight actually partly compensated for themotion of the car. In order to hit the President the sniper needed to aim six inches above and to the right ofthe President (Frazier WC 3 H 409). This meant he had to aim toward Gov. Connally to hit the President inthe head. The first shot hitting the President is consistent with the sniper aiming at Gov. Connally and notallowing any lead or aiming at the President with the correct lead. Governor Connally would have emergedfrom any obscuring foliage about three frames before the President.

23 WCR 112. The HSCA subsequently determined that the correct frame is Z202: 6 HSCA 44.

24 See: statement of SA Clinton Hill, CE 1024, WC 18 742; statement of Gayle Newman, WC 19 H 488,(Decker); testimony of Nellie Connally WC 4 H 147; testimony of Jacqueline Kennedy WC 5 H 180; testi-mony of Linda Willis, WC 7 H 498.

Others who saw the President react to the first shot include SA George Hickey, David Powers, John Chism,Marvin Faye Chism, S.M. Holland, Jean Newman and Malcolm Summers: statement of SA George Hickey,CE 1024, WC 18 762 and 765; affidavit of David Powers WC 7 H 472; statement of John Arthur Chism, WC19 H 471, (Decker Exhibit 5323); statement of Marvin Faye Chism WC 19 H 472, (Decker); statement of S.M. Holland, WC 19 H 480, (Decker ); statement of Jean Newman, WC 19 H 489, (Decker); statement ofMalcolm Summers, WC 19 H 500, (Decker);

2925 Affidavit of David Powers dated May 18, 1964, WC 7 H 472

26 Posner, Gerald, ibid, note 5.

27 At least sixteen such witnesses have been identified:

T.E. Moore (24 H 534, "President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a shot was fired andMr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in the Presidential car.")

Nellie Connally (4 H 147. "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he hadboth hands at his neck.")

David Powers (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from theextreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disap-peared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President's head")

Gayle Newman (19 H 488: "President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head withhis hands and then raised up. After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor grabbed hischest and lay back on the seat of the car")

William Newman (19 H 490 "The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was afirecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it.")

John Chism (19 H 472 "When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and wavingto the crowd . And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of thestreet, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit backin his seat and lean his head to his left side."

Faye Chism (19 H 471 "As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell tohis left.")

James Altgens (7 H 520. He said his z255 shot was after first shot and before any other. It shows JFKreacting.)

Abraham Zapruder (TV interview at 2:00 pm Nov. 22/63: http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Transcript.htm- " I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it wasone or two)

Clint Hill (2 H 138, Recalled only two shots. After the first: "I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurchforward and to the left". CE1024, 18 H 742: "I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left.").

Linda Willis (7 H 498. " Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fastbullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbedhis throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.)

George Hickey (CE1024, 18 H 731. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear andthen looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almosterect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reportswhich I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report andwere in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.")

Sam Kinney (CE1024, 18 H 731. "As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot. Atthis time I glanced from the tailights of the President's car that I use for gaging distances for driving. I saw thePresident lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with right hand. There was a secondof pause and then two more shots were heard").

Paul Landis (CE1024, 18 H 758. Saw JFK move in response to first shot but thought he was just turning in thedirection of the sound. Landis began to scan crowd, buildings and car before second shot was heard. Herecalled only two shots.)

Cecil Ault (24 H 534. Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported to have seen JFK rise up in his seatafter first shot.)

Harold Norman (3 H 191. "but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as thoughthe President, you know, slumped or something,")

30

Although one witness, SA Glen Bennett, signed a statement (CE 1024, WC 18 760) saying that the Presidentwas hit in the shoulder by the second shot, it is not clear what he saw that caused him to draw this conclusion.Bennett was not called to testify before the Warren Commission, so we have only his statement and notes.Bennett’s notes are not clear and suggest that it may have been the first shot that struck JFK.

28 WC 4 H 147

29 Nellie Connally recently repeated her firm conviction that the single bullet theory is wrong: “Nellie Connallyagain disputes finding in death of JFK”, Associated Press, Dallas, Nov. 15, 1998.

30 WC 5 H 180

31 WC 4 H 139 (Dr. Shaw testifying with Gov. Connally).

32 WC 4 H 133

33 Testimony of John B. Connally, Sept. 6, 1978, 1 HSCA 43.

34 WC 4 H 135-6

35 WC 4 H 144-5

36 WC 4 H 116

37 WC 19 H 488, contained in the Decker Exhibit 5323

38 WC 4 H 136 A bullet may not be felt so quickly if it passes through a body without losing significant speed.The momentum transferred to the target body is proportional to the change in speed of the bullet betweenentry and exit from the body. This evidence indicates that there was a forceful impact. The medical evidence(see section 3.) indicated that the bullet was travelling at much less than full speed when it went through thewrist. This means that a significant part of the bullet’s momentum was imparted to the Governor’s torso.

39 See Dr. Shaw’s testimony, ibid. Note 47. An interesting anecdote was provided by Commission memberJohn McCloy during the House Select Committee hearings in 1978. He testified that after World War II hehad occasion to be standing beside a friend in Berlin when the friend was shot (oddly enough, they wererehearsing a ceremony at the time for the arrival of the President of the United States and the friend wasplaying the part of the President). The friend simply stood there and said: “I think I am shot” and then fell over(he survived). McCloy said that this incident convinced him that a person could have a delayed reaction tobeing shot. This experience may have been related to other Commission members and may have been afactor in their acceptance that Governor Connally had a delayed reaction. See: 3 HSCA 204

40 Testimony of Robert Frazier: WC 5 H 170 - discussed at WR 106

41 Testimony of John Connally: WC 4 H 145; Testimony of Nellie Connally: WC 4 H 149

42 Testimony of Robert Frazier: WC 3 H 407 - discussed by the Commission at WR 106. Much has been readinto this figure as an absolute minimum but what Frazier said, in relation to the time required to aim and firethree shots, was: “I would say from 4.8 to 6 seconds, in that area - 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the boltcan be operated, I think.” This was taken to mean that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between two shots.FBI expert, Ronald Simmons conceded that the FBI marksmen had practiced with Oswald’s rifle for only 2 or3 minutes and that the times could be reduced with practice. See testimony of Ronald Simmons: WC 3 H447 and 449.

43 Frazier: WC 5 H 169

44 The distance moved by the bullet is proportional to the square of the time interval during which the force isapplied. The distance d a body of mass m moves in time interval t when a force f is applied to it is:

d = ½ t2 f/m

45 Dr. (Captain) James Humes who attended at the autopsy of President Kennedy testified that the bullet madea straight path and struck no bone: WC 2 H 364. Although it did not strike bone directly, the tip of a boneprotruding from one of the President’s vertebrae may have been broken by pressure this bullet as it passednear it. See the testimony of Dr. Michael Braden before the House Select Committee on Assassinations:1HSCA 199.

3146 Dr. Larry Sturdivan was retained by the HSCA to provide a comprehensive ballistics analysis of the assassi-

nation. He stated that Mannlicher Carcano ammunition was among the most stable ammunition he had evertested: “So that at a target of 4 or 5 inches of soft tissue, that bullet would not deviate appreciably from itspath.” 1 HSCA 394

The ballistics evidence did indicate that the bullet may have been tumbling (rotating end over end) after itexited the President’s neck but this would not alter the bullet’s direction of travel. The center of mass of thebullet would continue traveling in the same direction unaffected by any changing orientation of the bullet.

47 The positions of the President’s entrance and exit wounds were examined by Thomas N. Canning a seniorengineer with NASA’s Ames Research Center. It was found that the entrance wound was 4.5 cm. right of themidpoint of the spine and the exit wound .5 cm left of the center of the throat. For a neck thickness of 15 cm.,the angle works out to 18 degrees. See 2 HSCA 170.

48 The proper right to left angle of the first shot has been the subject of some discussion. The HSCA panelbelieved that the proper angle should be 13 degrees on the basis that the President was turned about 5degrees to the right when hit. The panel found that a path of 13 degrees to the position and direction of travelof the car at Z190 aligned with the south east corner of the Texas School Book Depository. See: 6 HSCA 46.At Z200, the angle appears to be just slightly more than 13 degrees.

49 This distance, 5.5 inches, is the tangent of 13 degrees multiplied by 24 inches. The distance between thePresident’s throat and Gov. Connally’s back was at least 24 inches based on a scale drawing of the limousinethat was entered as exhibit CE872, WC 17 H 867. A clearer and more detailed scale drawing was used by theHSCA and is found at 6 HSCA 50. The front to back distance between the fronts of the President’s andGovernor’s seats is shown as 30.8 inches. However, the President’s seat appears to recline more than thejump seat, placing the President’s shoulders and neck further back. If the neck was 6 inches thick, and themen were seated 30 inches apart, the distance between the front of the President’s neck and the Governor’sback would be about 24 inches.

50 See the drawing of Gov. Connally’s wounds by T. Canning based on actual measurements: 2 HSCA 181.

51 2 HSCA 183-4

52 6 HSCA 53

53 2 HSCA 183 and 6 HSCA 54

54 6 HSCA 46

55 WC 6 H 102. Dr. Gregory stated that a 6.5 mm bullet striking the wrist at full speed would likely have de-stroyed the arm. He based his opinion on his experience in treating soldiers who had been shot in theforearm. He had treated over 500 bullet wounds: WC 6 H 96.

56 WC 4 H 135. The possibility that the wrist was struck by a fragment from the third shot that emerged from thePresident’s skull was not canvassed by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA.

57 WC 4 H 127-8

58 WC 6 H 106

59 Dr. Shires: WC 6 H 111. There is some controversy over whether there was a fragment in the femur. Dr.Gregory appears to refer to two different fragments in the thigh: one near the femur and one just below theskin (Gregory: WC 4 H 125). These can be seen on the x-rays. The fragment near the femur was markedwith an arrow in the pre-operative lateral view (CE696). However, the HSCA examined this and found that theitem marked with the arrow was not a fragment but was an artifact on the film. See: Dr. Baden, 1 HSCA 295:

“What was interpreted by some doctors as being within the bone is really an artifact, thatis, a marking produced by dirt or a scratch, et cetera, and does not represent injury to thebone.”

This is difficult to understand since the same mark appears in the same place on the AP view pre-operativeview (CE695). Unfortunately, the reasons for concluding this mark was an artifact are not given.

60 Dr. Olivier: WC 5 H 74; Dr. Dzieman: WC 5 H 90; Dr. Light: WC 5 H 94 .

61 WC 5 H 97

32

62 “The Shot that Missed”, WCR 111

63 A close-up photograph of the curb section taken by the FBI shows a scratch but no concrete missing: ShaneyfeltExhibit 34, WC 21 H 482

64 WCR 117

65 Evidence of Robert Frazier: WC 3 H 432 and 435.

66 A photograph showing the south curb of Main Street looking toward depository shows that the sixth floorwindow was directly in line with the position of the car at the time of the third shot: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 32, WC21 H 481.

67 FBI report on the analysis of the curb fragment, August 12, 1964: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 27, WC 21 H 475. Seealso testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt. The FBI report concludes that the mark on the curb was not caused by“the first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet”.

68 A familiar baseball analogy is useful: a wild fastball striking home plate will never hit the catcher on the toe.But if it hits the dirt in front of the batter and slows down enough, it could drop to ground level by the time itreaches the catcher. In such case, the energy of the ball would be transferred to the dirt, moving the dirt andthus leaving an impact mark.

Similary, a bullet striking the road before Tague, say 300 feet from the sniper’s rifle, and deflecting upwardwithout much loss of energy would be traveling too fast to drop to ground level 200 feet further on near whereTague was standing. For the bullet to strike the road at 1700 feet per second, deflect upward and drop to thecurb level 200 feet further on, it would have to lose nearly all of its energy in hitting the road. If the angle ofdeflection was the same as the angle of incidence (about 11 degrees at 300 feet) the bullet’s speed afterdeflection would have to be about 130 feet per second. A bullet traveling at this speed has .5 percent of theenergy of the bullet traveling at 1700 feet per second. In other words, 99.5 percent of the energy of the bulletwould have to be imparted to the road.

69 Evidence of Ronald Simmons, WC 3 H 447-448. Three FBI shooters using Oswald’s rifle fired seven sets ofthree shots as quickly as possible while aiming at three targets spaced at distances comparable to thosefrom the sixth floor Texas School Book Depository window to the President’s limousine. All 21 shots hit withinnine inches of the centre of the respective targets.

A moving target would have been slightly more difficult to hit. Frazier stated that the lead required for amoving target was six inches above and to the right. See WC 3 H 409. So, if the sniper failed to take intoaccount the distance the target would move in the time it took for the bullet to travel from the rifle to the target,the shot would hit about 6 inches behind and to the left of the actual target, which would be well within thelimousine.

70 Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Commission Counsel Lee Rankin, July 8, 1964. Exhibit F-332A, 1 HSCA 558.

71 1 HSCA 538 and 550

72 1 HSCA 505

73 Dr. Snyder’s most recent paper on this subject is available at:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/Snyder_critique.pdf.

He also summarizes his conclusions in an article co-authored with Margaret Snyder: “Case Still Open”,Skeptic, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1998, p. 61-2.

74 See HSCA Testimony of Dr. Guinn at 1 HSCA 544-6

75 Dr. Guinn’s sample data from Table IIC is set out below (1 HSCA 549):

33

Lot 1 SpecimenS ilver(ppm)

Antimony(ppm)

6001 C 8.5±0.4 1139±60

- C 1 9.5±0.4 1062±60

- C 2 10.1±0.6 1235±93

- C 3 9.2±0.5 1156±90

6002 A 9.9±0.4 358±47

- A 1 10.3±0.3 983±51

- A 2 9.9±0.3 869±47

- A 3 10.2±0.5 882±81

6003 A 15.9±0.5 667±58

- A 1 9.6±0.4 395±54

- A 2 8.3±0.3 363±39

- A 3 9.8±0.4 441±51

It is not clear how this data supports Guinn’s thesis. For example, Guinn’s analysis would suggest thatsamples 6002A and 6003A2 ‘probably’ came from the same bullet, which they clearly did not. The latter twosamples are closer in both silver and antimony than were CE842 (wrist) and CE399 (whole bullet). The basisfor a conclusion that the wrist flakes ‘probably’ came from CE399 is difficult to understand, in light of this data.

76 1 HSCA 545-6.

77 1 HSCA 492.

78 1 HSCA 533 (footnote).

79 The example is also much simpler than the analysis of Western Cartridge Co. 6.5 mm ammunition. A moreaccurate analogy would be if each of the paint balls carried an array of hues in a range of colour frequenciesspanning approximately one 15th of the visible spectrum, and the target paint samples consisted of twosimilar but different shades of red and several similar but different shades of green. The slightly differentshades of red could have come from different paint balls or from the same paint ball. Therein lies the problemof proving the two bullet hypothesis with the NAA data.

80 Dr. Snyder’s paper, ibid, note 69, p. 16

81 Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez, in his article “A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film” publishedin the American Journal of Physics, Vol. 44, No. 9, Sept. 1976, (reproduced at 1 HSCA 428) states that alleyewitness evidence is unreliable and that he prefers physical evidence to the recollections of even the bestwitnesses. The danger is that physical evidence usually requires human interpretation. We have seen thathuman interpretation can be as unreliable as human observation.