Objections and answers
    1. How can we use the X-rays and photos from the autopsy as evidence for anything (for example, points 3 and 4 from "Both bullets from the rear" above) when Rex Bradford told the class that John Stringer had disavowed "his one" photos of JFK's brain, claiming that the official photos were not the ones he took, and the woman who developed the X-rays or photos said the same of them? Doesn't this prove that they had been forged? 
    No. There are at least three reasons for not accepting these two disavowals: (a) they are testimonial in nature, and would have to be accompanied by some physical proof; (b) the physical evidence must all be genuine (the basic point of this whole essay); and (c) in light of all the other physical proof that JFK's head was hit from the rear, the exit wound must be in front of the entrance wound (the second point for which the photos were used). Note that points (b) and (c) can be considered related.

    2. Why do you say the gun in question belonged to Oswald? Prove it.
    The handwriting on the order slip, the envelope it was mailed in, and the postal money order were all Oswald's. The P.O. Box it was sent to was also his. Marina recognized the rifle. His and only his fingerprints and palmprints were found on it.

    3. "It [the interlocking physical evidence] also allows much of the confusion in the medical evidence to be sidestepped." Given the massive trouble with the medical evidence I find this quite convenient.
    How you find it is  irrelevant. What it does is the only thing that counts.

    4. "But is the physical evidence genuine? This question has always been subject to doubts by critics who refuse to trust agencies such as the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, and the Secret Service, who handled the evidence at one time or another." Take the FBI for example. Who could possibly trust them? Their own labs have admitted to forging and mishandling evidence many times. Look at the LA Police. Can anyone doubt that cops and their morally equivalent counterparts lie and lie and lie?
    (a) We must judge each new set of evidence on its merits. (b) Given the chains of custody for the evidence, positive proof of forgery is required before any evidence may be considered forged

    5. "These doubts are easy to raise and difficult to answer to everyone's satisfaction. But the interlocking, redundant nature of the physical evidence, one of its aspects whose importance has yet not been fully appreciated, requires that it be accepted or rejected in toto." Even if this is true, it proves only that the false evidence was falsified so as to implicate the patsy.
    Your response is ill-posed—the unanimity of the physical evidence proves that none of it has been falsified.

    6.  "Given the practical impossibility of falsifying the entire suite of physical evidence, especially in the few brief hours after the assassination as would have been required, the evidence is all genuine and Oswald's rifle did all the damage." Who says it had to be falsified so quickly? The bullets were certainly faked well before the assassination. Planting them was quite simple. We shall see, step by step, how simple it would have been to implicate Oswald.
    The original sentence means that at least some of the evidence created by the assassination, such as the wounds, the fragments, and the damage to the clothing, could not have been falsified in the hours available. While bullets could have been falsified beforehand, most of the physical evidence could not have been.

    7. "What is the minimum suite of physical evidence? It is that which establishes these three high-level pieces of evidence: (1) Only two bullets hit. (2) Both came from the rear. (3) Both came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. The following outline proceeds downward from these three propositions to the most basic physical evidence:
    1) Only two bullets hit.
        a) Only two wounds to Kennedy.
            i) Four wounds. (Autopsy)
            ii) One pair in body, one in head. (Autopsy)
            iii) No bullets found in body. (Autopsy)
            iv) Therefore must be two entrances and two exits."
    Your argument here begs the question, that is, it assumes in the premise what you seek to prove. You assume the autopsy was on the level. If it was not on the level how can we know how many wounds, and what type of wounds, were present at autopsy?
    You are wrong. The argument for the soundness of all the physical evidence considers them simultaneously, not in sequence. It is really very simple: (a) All the physical evidence points in the same direction. (b) Some of it cannot have been falsified. (c) Therefore none of it was falsified.

    8. "b) Connally wounded by one of the same bullets (SBT).
             i) Men aligned at the right time. (FBI)"
    How do you know what "the right time" is? I can look at the Z-film and see JFK hit before JBC anyways. So where's the beef?
    (a) The right time is a series of frames in the general neighborhood of 210 to 235. Given the uncertainties of angles in the FBI's reconstruction, the bodies may have been properly aligned during this period. You cannot say that they were not. (b) The differences of opinion among the authorities about delayed reactions to major wounds also allows the possibility of Connally's reacting up to a second or so after he was hit. (c) Most importantly, Failing to accept (a) or (b) leads to an impossibly complex scenario that is not a reasonable alternative to the SBT and is not supported by physical evidence.

    9.  "Downward trajectory of body shot would take it into Connally or car." What downward trajectory? The HSCA forensic panel concluded the trajectory was slightly upward. But we don't even know for sure that JFK was hit in the back. The Z-film shows me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that JFK was hit in the throat.
    (a) The HSCA placed the back wound inches too low. The correct placement, based on measurements recorded on the face sheet, gives an obvious downward trajectory. An upward trajectory would give the nonsensical result of a shooter in the street or a manhole. (b) We know that JFK was hit in the back by the nature of the wound and the markings on the bullet, among other things. (c) The Zapruder film shows JFK grasping at his throat or raising this hands to protect himself. It shows nothing about the directionality of that hit.

    10. "(1) No damage found to rear of car. (FBI, SS)" So what?
    Had the bullet from the rear not passed through Connally, it would have hit the back of his seat or somewhere else in the rear section of the car,and there was no such damage.

    11. "(2) Trajectory through Connally similar to that through Kennedy. (Autopsy)" May is "similar" to June but they are different months.
    They are both downward at roughly 20 degrees, and both to the left of center relative to the car.

    12. " iii) Connally's damage too weak to be from a pristine bullet. (Autopsy, FBI)" Who in the FBI said the damage was too weak from a pristine bullet? What does the autopsy have to do with Connally's wounds?
    Sorry—incorrect references. Should be Parkland doctors, not autopsy or FBI. My only mistake in this document! :)

    13. "c) Only two bullets found." Only two they admitted to, you mean.
    Propositions require positive evidence to be accepted. If you are proposing that someone is hiding bullets, you must provide strong evidence for it beyond simple distrust. Doubts and distrust are not enough.

    14. "i) One whole bullet and two large fragments found. (FBI, SS)
            (1) From two or three bullets.
            (2) Required starting point is two."
    Why is two the "required" starting point?
    Because it represents the simplest interpretation consistent with all the strong evidence. The two large fragments could have come from one or two bullets. Until we have positive strong evidence for two bullets, our working hypothesis must be one bullet (Principle of Parsimony).

    15. "ii) Chemically, all fragments make two groups. (FBI, AEC, Prof. Guinn)" Not according to Wallace Milam and Art Snyder. And we all know that Guinn was a liar.
    (a) We do not know that Guinn was a liar. He was occasionally casual in characterizing the degree of heterogeneity of antimony in WCC/MC bullets, but that is not the same as lying.
    (b) Wallace Milam is not an expert in NAA. Most of his beliefs on the subject are flawed. His reasoning about the number of groups is simplistic, and unscientific, and must be disregarded. Art Snyder, while very skilled in probability and statistics, has not yet provided a clear argument that the fragments group in any way other than what they seem to—two groups that also make perfect physical sense.

    16. "2) Both from the rear.
                a) Back wound
                    i) Fibers in jacket and shirt bent forward. (FBI)
                    ii) Back wound has characteristics of entrance. (Autopsy)
                    iii) Line of internal damage between back and throat. (Autopsy)"
     The permanent wound track was not dissected. We therefore cannot know the trajectory of the wound.
    It was not dissected in the sense of sticking a single probe all the way through from back to throat. Once the autopsy doctors opened up JFK's chest, they knew they didn't have to, because they found a series of internal wounds that formed a line between the back wound and the exit point in the throat. The bullet in effect had provided the probe.

    17. " iv) Nick in tie. (FBI)" Made by the nurses when they were cutting off JFK's shirt.
    This is an example of the important redundancy of the physical evidence. Deleting this disputed point does not affect the strength of the argument because of the other evidence available.

    18. " v) Fibers in shirt near collar bent forward. (FBI)" So what? Baden himself said the direction of the fibers in the front of the shirt prove nothing with respect to bullet directionality. How very convenient you overlook this embarrassing fact!
    While we can respect Dr. Baden's remark because of his experience and authority, it is weakened by the fact that the fibers in both the shirt and the jacket are bent in the same direction.

    19.  " vi) No bullet found in body. (Autopsy)" Again, you assume the autopsy was not a phony.
    We have strong positive evidence that the autopsy was genuine, from the character of the three doctors to the agreement between their records and the X-rays and photographs. Anyone who claims the autopsy was a phony must provide stronger positive evidence for it, which in 36 years has not been provided.

    20. "b) Head wound.
                i) Small, beveled entrance hole in rear. (Autopsy)"
        Where's the photographic proof of this? Boswell said the wound in the back of the head was incomplete; it was completed only when the bone fragments were brought into the morgue late in the autopsy. No doubt the pathologists were confused as to the beveling.
    The autopsists were there and recorded the beveling. Anyone who claims differently must provide equally strong evidence, which they have not.

    21. "ii) Other wound is larger and forward; beveled forward. (Autopsy)" See above.
    Same response as above.

    22. "iii) Line of lead fragments between wound in back and larger hole. (Autopsy)" Even if we assume the x-rays that show this alleged line of fragments are not faked it proves nothing.
    The fragments connect the two holes causally, and the direction had to be from the smaller hole to the larger. The fragments are providing independent proof of entrance and exit.

    23. " iv) Head snaps forward when hit. (Z film)" This is either an artifact or a function of the limo movement. Everyone else in the limo moves forward at the same time at the same rate as JFK's head. Did they all get shot?
    It is neither an artifact nor anything to do with movements of the limo. For example, Mrs. Kennedy did not move forward when her husband's head snapped forward. Comparing 312 and 313 shows that JFK moved relative to his wife. You need only look and see.

    24. "3) Both from the same rifle.
                a) All three large fragments traced ballistically to Oswald's rifle." Assuming we can trust the FBI (a big assumption) how does this disprove the contention that the fragments were fired from the C2766 rifle prior to the assassination?
    The ballistic marking on the three large fragments cannot by themselves prove that those bullets were fired during the assassination. That is demonstrated by the two critical matches of the NAA—the lead fragment from Connally's wrist to CE 399 and the fragments from JFK's brain to the large fragment from the front seat. The fragments from inside the men could not have been planted in the way that the large external fragments could have.

    25. " b) Chemical composition of tiny fragments falls into same two groups as made by the two large fragments. (FBI, AEC, Prof. Guinn)
            c) That composition consistent with MC ammunition and inconsistent with nearly all other ammunitions. (Prof. Guinn)
    I don't trust the FBI, the AEC or Professor Guinn. Or anyone, for that matter, who is (a) employed by a university that has taken money from CIA and (b) pretends they believe that Oswald was a lone nut killer.
    The redundancy within the physical evidence proves that we don't have to trust any person or agency. We also don't practice guilt by association or by belief. 

    26. "The most basic pieces of basic physical evidence extracted from the above outline are:…
            This evidence falls into five basic groups: wounds, classical ballistics (markings on bullets), chemical composition of lead in bullets, clothing, and the Zapruder film.
           Problems in accepting this evidence
            To accept this suite of physical evidence, one must accept the word of the military autopsy physicians, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Zapruder film, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Prof. Vincent Guinn of the University of California. So far, no solid reasons have emerged not to believe them."
    That's your opinion. I say no solid reason has emerged to trust these agents of the government.
    (a) Doubts are not enough reason to reject evidence—positive reasons are needed. (b) The redundancy of the physical evidence, with some of it being impossible to falsify, is the positive evidence we need to accept the entire suite as genuine.

      27. "But many critics still claim that some of the physical evidence has been falsified, most notably the photographs and X-rays from the autopsy." Kindly explain Dr. David Mantik's findings with respect to the alleged large fragment on the back of the skull.
    (a) In order for a single piece of evidence such as Mantik's circular darkening of one X-ray to overthrow the large suite of validated physical evidence, it must be extremely direct, obvious, and strong. Mantik's is none of these. (b) Dr. Humes is on record that (1) there was no such fragment at that place on the skull, and (2) that is was most likely something used to support the head for that particular X-ray. (c) No way could the three physicians have missed such an object in their detailed examination of the body.

    28. "Other critics refuse to trust the FBI, the Secret Service, or even the Warren Commission, and dismiss the physical evidence out of hand. It is easy to raise such doubts and very difficult to refute them to everyone's satisfaction. Many critics quite casually accuse individuals and agencies of lying and falsifying, and remain unmoved by the usual arguments in their defense. I believe there is a conclusive argument—a proof of lack of falsification that has not yet been exploited. Its simplest version consists of these three steps: (1) the minimum physical evidence is so interlocking and self-consistent that it all stands or falls together; (2) most of the physical evidence must be genuine (cannot have been falsified); (3) therefore all of it is genuine. The next sections elaborate these steps.
    All or nothing."
    On the contrary, falsifying the evidence would have been much less difficult than traveling to the moon. Do you believe we sent men to the moon?
    The wounds were impossible to falsify. That is all you need in order to validate the entire suite of physical evidence. Arguments about the moon are irrelevant because they do not relate directly to wounds.

29. "Only two bullets hit

1. Two pairs of wounds in Kennedy.

2. One of these bullets also hit Connally.

3. One whole bullet and two large fragments found, all from the same Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

4. All fragments fall into two groups chemically.

5. Summary: independent evidence from wounds, ballistics, and chemistry of fragments (three lines of evidence) show that only two bullets hit.

Both bullets from the rear

1. Fibers in jacket and shirt, and nature of Kennedy's back wound show that it is one of entrance.

2. Fibers near collar of front of his shirt show that his throat wound was one of exit.

3. Forward beveling in the small rear wound in Kennedy's head show that the bullet entered from the rear.

4. The exit wound in the head is forward of the entrance wound.

5. The head snaps forward when first hit.

6. All three large fragments (both bullets) are traceable ballistically to Oswald's rifle (in the rear).

7. The chemistry of the fragments is consistent with MC bullets and inconsistent with most other types.

8. Summary: independent evidence from fibers, beveling, location of head wounds, ballistics, chemistry, and the Zapruder film (five lines of evidence) show that both bullets came from the rear.

Both bullets came from Oswald's rifle

1. Ballistic markings trace all three large fragments (both bullets) to Oswald's rifle.

2. The geometry of the bullets is consistent with his rifle.

3. The chemical composition of all large and small fragments is consistent with MC ammunition and inconsistent with most other types.

4. Summary: independent evidence from ballistics and chemistry of bullets (two lines of evidence) show that the bullets came from Oswald's rifle.

    The implications of this redundancy and interlocking are profound. If the head wounds were falsified, then so were the Zapruder film, the fragments, and the spray of tissue over the car. If CE 399 is invalid (planted), then so are the other fragments, both large and small, the wounds, the clothing, and the Zapruder film. Because all the physical evidence hangs together so strongly, it forms an indivisible group that is either all genuine or all falsified.

Can't be all falsified because most of the evidence could not be.
    But the practical problems of falsifying all this evidence in the short time available are staggering. All the falsified evidence must have been substituted for the originals at various times within the first hours, maybe even minutes, after the assassination."

    What do you mean by "falsifying all this evidence in the short time available..."? Surely you don't mean something like: 'all the activities needed to falsify the evidence must have been done in a short time'?  More likely, your other meaning: "...must have been substituted..." is the guiding force here.
    Thus, the notion that there was not enough time to falsify the evidence breaks down immediately.  We do not know when the bullet fragments, and shell casings, a rifle-related paperwork (and so on) were falsified.  Planting them was not difficult.  Note that the limo sat outside Parkland Memorial Hospital with its top still down for more than enough time for some to plant evidence.
    There was plenty of time for someone to walk in and plant CE399, if that is what happened.  Let us not forget the evidence presented by Josiah Thompson in "Six Seconds in Dallas".  He maintains that the evidence points to CE399 having fallen out of JFK's back during external heart massage; someone picked it up and dropped it on a stretcher in the hall.
    And we should never forget that the chain of custody of all this evidence is shoddy at best.  We cannot trust any of this evidence.  How likely is it that any of it would even have been admitted into court?

    30. Some, such as the clothing, would also have to be created based on detailed knowledge of what exactly happened, and then substituted within minutes to hours. At least the following agencies would have been involved: the FBI, the Secret Service, and probably the Dallas Police Department. How would the conspirators have known in advance how many bullets were going to hit whom and just where they would hit? Given the uncertainties of shooting at a moving target from 50–100 yards in a strange location without the chance to practice, they could not have known. They would even have had to anticipate the single-bullet theory in advance and prepare for its possibility. Such a...

    We can't say for sure that the clothing was even falsified.  It could be the case that the clothing was not falsified and that the conclusions about JFK's wounds are incorrect, e.g., JFK was hit in the back by a bullet but the bullet did not penetrate very far and then fell out.  It could also be the case, though, that JFK's back wound is too low (as indicated by the placement of the clothing defects vs. the bullet wound in JFK's back) to accomodate the trajectory needed to caused all of JFK's and JBC's non-fatal wounds.
    If this is the case no evidence falsification is necessary.

    31. ...scenario is clearly impossible. Furthermore, the Warren Commission would have had to be been completely fooled by the fake evidence, and none of the conspirators in any of the agencies would have talked to this day, nor would any whistleblower have emerged to accuse anyone of the largest conspiracy in history. Impossible.
    Again, this is assuming that ALL the evidence was faked.  As for conspirators coming forward to confess there have been plenty, e.g. James Files.  True, some of the confessions, if true, preclude other confessions being true.  But the claim that no whistleblowers have emerged is false.

    32. Furthermore, all the detailed decisions about exactly how to falsify the evidence would have been based solely on the visual impressions of the shooting and the reactions of the people in the car, because the Zapruder film did not become available until the next day. Then for the next 36 years, everybody in the three major governmental investigative agencies who knew that huge, terrible secret would have had to keep everyone else from it and keep themselves from having a change of heart and telling all to the world.
    They knew in advance they were going to frame Oswald as a lone gunman and they knew in advance the locations of the real gunman.  It was not difficult to plant the fake evidence incriminating Oswald.

    33. Let us now consider which of the five types of basic physical evidence could have been falsified. To be generous, we separately consider falsification in principle and in practice. We summarize the results in the table below.
    Any scenario of falsifying wounds has to deal with two exceedingly improbable, if not outright impossible, scenarios: it must have been done in the short period between Andrews Air Force Base and the Bethesda Naval Medical Hospital, and in such a sophisticated manner that the three autopsy pathologists would completely miss them. This pipe dream has been advanced only twice, first by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams in Murder From Within and a subsequent article in Skeptic Magazine, and years later by David Lifton in Best Evidence. No serious researcher considers it remotely possible. The wound-falsification scenario also requires that the medical personnel at Parkland did not photograph the wounds or examine them closely, something that could not have been guaranteed beforehand. In short, the wounds could not have been falsified in principle or in practice. It didn't happen. It then follows from the all-or-nothing nature of the collective physical evidence that none of it was falsified. In theory, this is all we need to know in order to reject any alterations to the basic physical evidence. For completeness, however, we discuss the other four types.
    I grant the point about falsifying wounds, but there is more than one way to frame a patsy.

    34. Ballistic markings on bullets can in principle be falsified in two ways, both of which require the bullet to be originally fired from the rifle to be implicated: by planting (substituting) bullets after the fact and by shooting sabots (bullets fired once from a rifle to pick up its marking, and then fired from a larger-bore rifle to make it appear that it had come from the original rifle). While CE 399 could have been planted because conspirators would have had more than an hour to find the original and replace it with the plant, it does seem quite a stretch because they would not have known where it would wind up (it could just as well have been found in the operating room or fallen into the limousine as wound up on a stretcher in the hallway).
    Why would the conspirators have to "find the original"?  Who says there was an original?  It is just as easy to speculate that the conspirators just wanted an intact bullet that matched CE139.  (Note that we have not granted that CE139 ever belonged to Oswald.)

    35. And how would the conspirators have known it would survive intact? They would have had to carry quite a collection of bullets for this task, it seems, with various states of damage and broken into fragments of various sizes.
    They knew "it" would survive intact because they planted an intact bullet.  It is that simple.  No replacement was needed.

    36. But even if we grant them considerable luck with CE 399, they would have had a much harder time duplicating the two large fragments from the head shot, whose sizes and degrees of damage (to say nothing of their very existences) would have been impossible to predict. But let us be generous and allow that CE 399 could have been planted with the right ballistic markings.
    For all we know CE567 and CE569 were not falsified, merely misinterpreted.  They might, for example, have represented the bullet that wounded JFK, a bullet that, after wounding JFK, hit the front of the limo.

    37. Could the three large fragments have been from sabots? Probably, but this kind of falsification would have been limited to a "modest" conspiracy, with a shooter in or near the Depository, because wounds pointing to a frontal shot could not have been falsified to point to the rear. Thus sabots could not have been used to hide a shooter from the knoll or any other forward position. Nevertheless, we grant that sabots might have been used, and we give a yes to falsification of ballistics in principle and a partial yes to it in practice.
    Good, although sabots are not needed.

    38. But falsification of ballistic markings also carries the need to falsify the chemical composition of the lead fragments to make them match the appropriate cores of the planted bullets. This task would have been impossible because it appears that in 1963 no one in the world knew about the special characteristics of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, namely that their composition varied by the bullet rather than by the lot. The first report on the detailed chemical composition of bullet lead seems to have been published by H. R. Lukens and V. P. Guinn in 1967, and it did not cover MC bullets. Lukens and Guinn published their first detailed report on trace elements in bullet lead in 1971, and it still did not deal with MC bullets. Guinn reported in 1979 that he first analyzed MC bullets in 1972–1976, a decade after the assassination. Since these are the only such reports in the literature, we can state fairly that conspirators in 1963 would not have realized that they had to match antimony in lead in addition to ballistic marking when planting bullets and fragments. The chance of them randomly matching the chemistry of the five fragments found in the front and rear of the car, the hospital, Kennedy's brain, and Connally's wrist would be vanishingly small. Thus we conclude that the chemical composition of the lead fragments could not have been falsified either in principle or in practice in 1963. It also didn't happen.
    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Guinn and his government friends are honest and that we can trust them.  Let us also assume that when Guinn, in his HSCA testimony and report, referred to additional background tests on ten bullets and merely forgot to share this data with anyone.  Let us assume all this. It does not change the fact that the government had plenty of bullet-lead evidence in its possession, more than enough to take small scraps from the big pieces and swap them for the little pieces.  In other words, they could have scraped out a little lead from CE399 to make it "match" CE842, and so on.

    39. Although blood stains and holes in clothing can in principle be falsified when enough time is available, they could not have been in this case, for the simple reason that the wounds could not have been falsified. Even forgetting this limitation, conspirators would not have known where to place the holes in the back of the shirt and coat (in order to match them to the entry wound in the President's back) until they knew the location of the hole in Kennedy's back, which was not known even informally until the autopsy (remember that he was not turned over in Dallas), by which point the clothing was being sent by courier to the FBI Laboratory in Washington.
    We do not need faked bullet holes in clothing to frame Oswald.  We should not pass this by, however, without noting that that holes in the clothing and in JFK's back do NOT match!

    40. Since the autopsy report was not available until the following week and the FBI documented the locations of the holes the night of the assassination, the conspirators (a) would have had to be in the FBI; (b) could have only used informal reports to locate their fake holes; and (c) would have had essentially no time to do it because the FBI documented the clothing the same night it arrived. Furthermore, the conspirators could not have been assured that the Dallas police had not measured the holes in the clothing first (assuming of course that they were not part of the conspiracy). All these problems provide a second conclusive reason why the holes in the clothing must be real. Thus although damage to clothing can be falsified in principle, the holes in the President's shirt and jacket could not have been falsified. It also didn't happen.
    OK, the holes are real.  And they prove the SBT is impossible!

    41. Lastly, could the Zapruder film have been falsified? The answer again is a resounding no. The address by Josiah Thompson entitled "Why the Zapruder film is authentic" provides reasons every bit as strong as those why the clothing wasn't falsified. Although the film could have been falsified in principle (at least according to Thompson), it could not have been in practice. The reasons amount to lack of possession, lack of time, and the necessity to similarly falsify all other films of the assassination. Although Thompson didn't mention lack of technology, this is also a safe bet. Anyone who thinks the Zapruder film was falsified is seriously misguided.
    The summary table on falsification is given immediately below. Of the five basic types of physical evidence, only two or two and one-half could have been falsified in principle (ballistic markings, clothing (but not in this case), and possibly the Zapruder film), and only one half of one could have been falsified in practice (ballistic markings on CE 399). But since the others weren't falsified and the basic physical evidence goes all or nothing, CE 399 wasn't falsified.
    I agree the Zapruder film was not falsified.  This supports "my" argument since the Zapruder film shows the SBT is false and that JFK was shot from the front.

    42. In conclusion, we can rest easy that all of the basic physical evidence is genuine. The arguments for falsification don't even come close to meeting the necessary standard. Falsification in the JFK assassination is thus a nonissue.
    It is not true that all of the physical evidence must have been falsified or none of it could have been falsified.  Some of it - e.g. the bullet fragments - could have been falsified, and other physical evidence - e.g. the holes in the clothing - could have been genuine but misinterpreted by the government and their agents.
    <snipping the rest>
    In conclusion, Professor Rahn has made the elementary logical mistake of asserting in the premise what he would demonstrate in the conclusion.  We cannot assume the government investigators and their evidence can be trusted.  We cannot rely upon the hand-picked "experts" who state that the evidence has not been falsified.  We must rely upon our own good, common sense which shows us that more than one gunman had to have been involved.  If more than one gunman was involved it follows that at least some of the evidence was planted.