At the same time that Kennedy is thrown back, Jackie is thrown forward. You will have to admit, she wasn't hit. Take a look at Connelly. He's slammed into the front seat at the exact same time. He wasn't hit at that time either.
There aren't any errors in the final autopsy report. The wounds were measured right to the centimeter.
The people on the fifth floor only heard three shots. The guy in the railroad tower watched as two disinterested guys hung around the picket fence and he didn't observe them shoot anything. There also was two officers on opposite sides of the railroad bridge plus a few railroad workers. There was a total of five people watching the motorcade from the Book Depository side. There were forty one people who were asked where the shots came from. Two people on the knoll said it came from there. Ten times that number said it came from the Depository. Mrs. Connelly said the shots came from the depository. The guy who took the picture of Ruby killing Oswald, saw Oswald shoot Kennedy as he fired out of the window. He was out of film so he couldn't take a picture. Two other saw the same thing but one person thought he used a lever action.
There are no bushes or anything to hide in on the grassy knoll. There's only the small picket fence. Zapruder would have been in front of the shooter if there was one there.
All of the medical evidence indicates two shots from the back. The trajectory angle on the back shot, IE. Connelly didn't shoot Kennedy and the head shot IE. The driver didn't shoot Kennedy.
I can just reply quickly tonight. (I'm not ignoring your other points, some are well-taken.)
The HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets from the rear.
(Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. dissented and did not accept this; he was outvoted 8-1.)
The HSCA said: "Because this conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the backward motion of the President's head ...the committee consulted a wound ballistics expert...
The expert concluded that
"nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear."
That's it. Now take a look for yourself at the Zapruder film, where they zoom in on the head. Look at it at normal speed, and at slower speeds.
What you see doesn't look anything remotely possible that could be caused by "tightening back muscles". No way. It looks like something smacked him hard in the forehead.
I admit I'm not an expert.
What I find hard to understand is anyone actually *viewing* this, and actually thinking to themselves, "oh, yeah - I can see how tightening back muscles could have caused this."
What I *can* understand, is someone *reading* the explanation, and accepting it. But after *viewing*, no way.
*I'm* thinking that the HSCA should have said, "since there's no way any sane person could view this and accept the tightening-back-muscle theory, maybe Cyril Wecht (the committee's dissenting member) was right and there *was* a shot from the front."
(no slam intended at anyone who does think it looks like muscle tightening.)