THE HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD: www.JFKThe FrontShot.blogspot.com

[Gordon Gray]

Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

I don't think you understand the difference between circumstantial and conclusive. It is quite possible to have enough circumstantial evidence to reach a conclusion. But the fact that Connally's wounds had to have been caused by a FMJ bullet, and Kennedy's head wound is not consistent with a FMJ bullet, is indicative of two different types of ammunition. Add to that the location of bullet hole in the shirt, and the Tague wounding, and you have enough evidence to dismiss the SBT, and therefore have to have at least two shooters.