Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I've been involved in a group discussion with some prominent JFK assassination researchers. I won't mention any names, but some of them are of historic importance to the case. I have been presenting my argument and evidence that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill- long before he reached the Stemmons freeway sign. I've been telling them that the "story" of the Zapruder film, that JFK was fine and dandy until he reached the freeway sign, and that everything that happened to him, happened behind the sign- everything, that is, except the fatal head shot- that that story is a lie. JFK was hit before he reached the freeway. He was hit in the back high on the hill, and before the Crofts photo was taken because he was already hit in the Crofts photo.

But, here is how I ended it:

Let's leave it like this: If you accept now that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, then ask yourself: how could it have been a regular bullet? If it was a regular bullet, he would have known that he was shot. And since a regular bullet that only penetrated an inch or so through skin, muscle and fascia amounts to no harm at all, then he would have been unimpaired, but aware that he was under attack, and quick to take evasive action. But none of that happened. Instead, he was shot with something that left him wondering what just happened. And Jackie said in her testimony that when she first looked over at him, he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Quizzical. That is the word she chose to use.  A regular bullet would not have had that effect. Thank you.  Ralph