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

 I've delved into many aspects of the JFK assassination, but this issue of what hit JFK in the back has risen to the top for me. And that's because it goes to the core of the BIG LIE. And what is at the core of the BIG LIE? It's the Single Bullet Theory; the ridiculous and preposterous Single Bullet Theory. 

If JFK had been shot in the back of the neck with a bullet that traversed his neck, he would not have gone on sitting there. And no, the back brace wasn't holding him up. He surely would have been instantly paralyzed on one side, because even if the bullet miraculously avoided the spinal cord, there are nerves coming out on each side of spinal cord, and considering the supposed path of the bullet, it surely would have bored through those nerves. 

And remember that inflammation sets in immediately, and the only way they were able to save Christopher Reeves was to give him massive doses of steroids. It's just ridiculous to think that JFK sustained such a trauma prior to the fatal headshot. 

And of course, people objected to it right away. They made fun of it by calling it the Magic Bullet theory. But, what did they propose happened instead? That's where they dropped the ball. 

Think about it intuitively. A man is riding in a convertible, and he gets shot in the back. Is he going to have any trouble knowing that he's been shot? Is there going to be any doubt in his mind? Isn't he going to act like a man who's been shot? And once he knows that he is being shot at, he also knows that they are going to keep shooting until he's dead. So, he's going to get down, right? And he's going to get his wife to get down. And the people in front of him, he's going to want them to get down too. But, he didn't do any of that. so, WHY WASN'T HIS MIND WORKING? How did he get so instantly lobotomized? 

But, it's not just his strange behavior. His wife was sitting next to him. So ladies, if you were riding in a convertible, and your husband sitting right next to you, was shot in the back, don't you think you would know it? We know from watching the Zapruder film that Jackie knew that something was wrong with Jack, but she didn't know what. If she knew he had been shot, don't you think she would have gotten down? And we also know from her own testimony that she did not know that he had been shot. And I'm not just talking about the sound of the gunshot. She, like others, said she thought it was the sound of the motorcycles backfiring. But, when she looked at him and realized that something was wrong, the first thing she noticed was that he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Who responds that way to getting shot with a bullet in the back? "Hmmm, I think I felt something. What was that? That's weird." That is not what is going through your mind when you have been shot in the back with a bullet, let alone for the bullet to tunnel through your neck from back to front.   

And, I hope I have convinced you that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill. We have three photographs of him riding down the hill NOT WAVING. You know he was a very engaging and very personable President. Look at the Croft photo with the enthusiastic, "Croft Ladies." Look how adoring they are. Why isn't he responding to them? It's because he was shot in the back. This whole photo is so goofy. Jackie could not have had her head turned that much. That is way too much rotation. And why does she look so glum? Look: either she thinks that all is well, or she knows he's been shot. She did not that he was shot. Therefore, why is she looking like that? She is a politician's wife, and she has a job to do. It's to wave at the people and be nice. Why isn't she does it? It's because that is a manipulated image, and the objective was to obscure JFK's face. Notice that we can't see his eyes, or it looks like his eyes were closed. He probably had a startled look on his face. Why? Because was just shot! It was just a little before this that he was shot in the back.  

But again, if it were a bullet, he would have felt it and known it. They all would have known it. But, whatever it was was so slight, that it was hard to tell that anything major had happened. 

Do you know how they like to say which frame of the Zapruder film corresponds to the Altgens photo? I'm sure the famed JFK researcher John Costella would say that it is a complete waste of time to do that, and I agree. But, they do it anyway, and it's usually frame 255 that they settle on, which is ridiculous. 

But, what frame of the Zapruder film corresponds to the Croft photo? NOBODY EVEN ASKS! It isn't even on the radar. That's because there is nothing remotely close to what we see in the Croft photo in the Zapruder film. Why isn't it there? It's because they cut out that whole swath of him riding down the hill having been shot in the back! They took out a big, huge section of the film. Of all the alterations they made, and they made a ton of them, that's the biggest one. 

But, JFK did get shot in the back. and it was well below his neck. You can see the bullet hole in his jacket.

Now, look at this image because you are looking at it correctly for the first time in your life. It's one of many images from the JFK assassination that is shown left-to-right flipped. I unflipped it. He was shot on the right side of his back. That is not in dispute. So, this is how the picture should look.

Look how close to the center that is. Stop thinking that a full met jacket bullet bored into his back there. And stop thinking that a bullet hit him at flight speed there and came to zero velocity in one inch. That is an impossible degree of deceleration. And anything that did decelerate that fast would do a colossal amount of damage and destruction. That's because the energy has to go somewhere. Energy can't be created or destroyed. The bullet can't just stop. It has to take its energy out on something, including itself. But, he wasn't hit with a bullet. It was a dart. An ice dart, loaded with a drug. It never happened before, but it happened then.