I would probably add some major points to this synopsis. The bullet was believed to have been on Connally’s stretcher. It is the “magic bullet”. The pristine bullet that was supposed to have hit JFK and Connally both. The assumption here is that it did not penetrate through JFK. That it came from the wound in his back. This would upend the investigative findings that the bullet in this back was responsible for the neck wound and the injury to the governor. It’s a rather drastic change to the record.
To add to that. The author details how this new detail subsequently alters the version of events. Namely it suggests that the bullet that hit JFK in the back and hit Connally were two different bullets and that they could not have been fired at that rate (the rate suggested by the video evidence) with the weapon used by Oswald
The stories all say that the FBI reported the minimum time to fire that rifle was 2.25 seconds. How was that determined? How can a supposedly experimental result like that have no error bars? Was it determined by repeated firings of the gun found in the sniper's nest, or by another similar gun presumed to be an exact duplicate (of a 20-year old mail order gun?) for purposes of that measurement? It is known that Oswald spent some considerable time (maybe and hour or several, I don't remember) 'dry firing' the rifle the night before. Could he perhaps have developed speed superior to that of whomever the FBI asked to do that experiment? Has the 2.25 second minimum ever been replicated? How could the person trying to fire the gun as fast as possible for the FBI ever have as much adrenaline flowing as Oswald, the man who had previously tried and failed to kill General Walker must have had.
Didn't the same thing happen to one of his relatives/descendants at a hotel in California? One guy went down for it but there were multiple firings from seperate angles and placements and witnesses reported hearing multiple shots from different orientations?
So the shooter was working with Oswald, or it was a coincidence? I'd like to know who would sign up for anything with Oswald -- probably the most unreliable and untethered person you would have been able to find in the SW USA at the time.
All of these conspiracy theories would die if those taking them seriously would just sit down and read the Warren report. If you can then find something specific in the evidence or conclusions that is wrong or illogical or seems like it was covered up in the report, please point it out.
This very article points out Arlen Specter heavily influenced people on the ground during the day of the assassination. This behavior is well-documented. Why do you take the Warren Report as gospel?
“ Arlen Specter, who had traveled to Dallas to take Tomlinson’s deposition in March 1964, was thunderstruck when Tomlinson relayed this scenario. To judge from a transcript of that conversation, Specter spent much of the remainder of his time with Tomlinson essentially trying to talk him out of his recollection, causing a distressed Tomlinson to say he just was not sure about his memory.
But the Q&A itself clearly suggests that Tomlinson, unprompted and unbadgered, had a cogent recollection that a bullet, wherever else it ultimately ended up, had come from the stretcher that had already been left in the hall in front of the men’s room.
In its final report, the Warren Commission mentioned nothing about this detail from Tomlinson’s account. Instead, the panel largely dismissed Tomlinson’s testimony, writing that even though he was “not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one,” the commission “has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor’s stretcher.”
As sibling points out, Oswald may have been a scapegoat or patsy.
One potential conclusion is Oswald as the patsy for the real assassin. So nobody was "working with him" except in the sense of wanting him to take the fall.
