Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226.
In the drawing at right, do you realize that if that was the way the two men were lined up, and the bullet entered JFK where shown, that bullet could not make it to Connally's right armpit without going through JFK's cervical vertebrae?
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound
of that shot startled him. A shot at Z-223 would require a second gunman as you well know the
alleged murder weapon couldn't be physically fired quickly enough to be responsible for both.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound
of that shot startled him. . . .
Thanks, Bob the Forensic Pathologist. And I was under the false impression the spinal column was at the body's midline.
__________
That's nice. But Willis specified the time of the first shot as being between his No.4 slide (Z133) and No.5 slide (Z202). He based this on the sound of the shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from Willis' side of the street to the opposite side.
I'm sure Willis figured he could sell more slides if he could get people believing the No.5 slide was taken "simultaneously" with the first shot and that the shot struck the President.
quote author=Martin Hinrichs
"What we see here is in my eyes clearly the impact-moment of the shot which hits Kennedy in his back."
(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)
(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/Z229-235.gif)
"Credit Giuseppe Sabatino"
Martin
Phil Willis took his photograph when the first shot was fired. That photograph was taken at z190. Which time stamps the first shot at z190.
When are CTers going to learn not to accept the memory of witnesses as the Truth of God?
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.
(Cheap n' easy experiment. Use 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and do the experiment on yourself, if you dare. When the low laser strikes your throat, where does the high laser strike your back? Then prove to us all that the SBT is viable. Good luck!)
WOW, you just gotta talk to Weidmann, he did this exact same experiment with lasers in Dealey Plaza, maybe the both of you geniuses can solve case this with your laser beams. Hahaha!
Btw Einstein why are you running from your comments in the "How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?" thread because you really blew it this time!
JohnM
In frame 228 his hand was at his throat in response to being shot there, and not by the MB. The sequence from 228 to 235 shows his response to being shot in the back. Who knows where that bullet ended up, but it certainly wasn't the bullet planted on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition, if it even exited his body.
CE-399 is the smoking gun. Its journey to the gurney and its impossible trajectory thru JFK's back, zig-zagging around T1
and out of JFK's throat at C6 make it the smoking bullet of this conspiracy. Supposedly, it followed a straight path thru JFK without touching bone which is why it didn't tumble and create a much wider exit wound.
This is also why a first responder doctor at Bethesda immediately "opened" the tiny bullet hole to make it look like an exit wound.
The following GIF shows the possible orientations of JFK's body as he sat in the backseat of the limo when the MB struck him. Adding a 17 degree trajectory from the TSBD and the limo, which includes a 5 degree grade on Elm, we can estimate how bent over JFK must have been to make the MB work.
(http://www.readclip.com/images/SBT_9d.gif)
(Cheap n' easy experiment. Use 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and do the experiment on yourself, if you dare. When the low laser strikes your throat, where does the high laser strike your back? Then prove to us all that the SBT is viable. Good luck!)
Why the hell isn't the exact relative location of the back wound on medical record? Example, 2.4 inches right of T1, 4.6 inches deep. Instead we got lame drawings with chicken scratch and a wandering wound..and Humes BURNING HIS NOTES!
Based on the autopsy photo, which has extremely poor provenance, JFK's back wound was just right of vertebrae T1. Supposedly, JFK had a fracture next to T1. However, there is no clean path from T1 to C6 even if JFK was bent over enough to make the MB work.
Weidmann did not duplicate this exp and maybe you should take another look at your "100 frames" thread dufus. BURN! ;D
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.
Only if you actually believe that the bullet that hit him in the back exited through his throat.
Only if you actually believe that the bullet that hit him in the back exited through his throat.
From the Clark Panel Report:
The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage in part, because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report.
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound
of that shot startled him. A shot at Z-223 would require a second gunman as you well know the
alleged murder weapon couldn't be physically fired quickly enough to be responsible for both.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)
Thanks, Bob the Forensic Pathologist. And I was under the false impression the spinal column was at the body's midline.
fromThanks for providing this interesting analysis from 1966. I agree that there is a great deal of evidence against the SBT.
"The Bastard Bullet"
by Raymond Marcus
1966
Thanks for providing this interesting analysis from 1966. I agree that there is a great deal of evidence against the SBT.
However, he points out that the WC found that the first shot would not have been before z210. The WC also said that z210 was about the time Willis took his photo. The WC had not bothered to determine the exact frame of Phil Willis' photo (which, he said, was taken an instant AFTER the first shot), which can be conclusively identified as z202. This is done by aligning Willis in the zfilm with Zapruder and the head of the secret service agent Clint Hill as they are aligned in Willis' photo. They align only in frame z202.
The WC was also basing this finding on a seriously flawed re-enactment of the motorcade positions using the wrong car and looking at the tree in full spring foliage. The actual view as seen at the time of the assassination was captured by the Secret Service in early December 1963. The president is quite visible the entire time he passes under the uppermost branches of the oak tree and is clear of them when he was about half-way between the lamppost and Thornton Freeway sign on the north side of Elm St. That position corresponds to the position at frame z195.
In my view, the evidence is very consistent that the first shot was after z186 (Hughes, Betzner), likely after z191 (motorcade witnesses) likely before z199 (Jack Ready starts turning around, which he said he did in response to hearing the first shot) and before z202 (Willis). This is all consistent with witnesses along Elm who described the position of the president relative to where they were standing at the time of the first shot and is consistent with JFK being visible from the SN.
The WC conclusion is also based on an opinion from Robert Frazier of the FBI who gave the opinion that the Governor was turned too far to his right by z240 to have been struck by the bullet that impacted his right armpit. Frazier qualified his opinion by stating that it was based on the assumption that the bullet did not deflect in passing through the Governor. That was the basis on which the WC concluded that Connally was hit before z240.
In my view, this is also flawed. First of all, it is by no means a fair assumption that the bullet which struck Connally did not change direction. A change in direction requires the application of significant force to the bullet and, in this case, the force would have been supplied by the fifth rib which deflected significantly on impact. The WC did not mention it, but the fifth rib was broken near the spine due to the bending of the rib due to the impact. The description of the impact felt by Connally is consistent with such a force.
Second, the "not after z240 second shot" conflicts with the overwhelming body of evidence from over 40 witnesses who clearly recalled the 1........2....3 spacing of the three shots. It is also inconsistent with what Gov. Connally described - turning rearward to check on the President because he realized he had just heard a rifle shot and thought an assassination was underway. He makes no such turn in prior to z200 and it is impossible for him to have turned around to look at JFK and turned back as he was in z224 while he was behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. Rather, the turn that begins about z230 and continues to z270 fits this description much better. JFK had leaned to his left toward Jackie and JBC could not see him out of the corner of his eye.
If Connally was hit as he starts turning back just after z270, that would fit well with the last two shots being closer together and it would also fit with the description given by both Wm. Greer and Nellie Connally of the impact of the second shot. Greer said he turned back after the second shot and then forward quickly and back again just before the third (he does all this between z278 and z305). Nellie said she did not look back after the second shot (she is looking back until about z269) and said she saw her husband recoil from being hit, reached over and pulled him down. She does this in the z280s. It would also fit perfectly with what SA Hickey observed - that the hair on JFK's right side lifted at the moment of the second shot but that this shot did not do any damage to JFK. That hair can be seen lifting at z273.
Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots. The SBT was the solution to a problem that did not exist.
"Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots."That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false. I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.
I disagree.
Everybody who micro analysis the Z-film seems to come up with their own theory.
IMO there were more than 3 shots and they came from more than one direction.
LHO was the patsy and the TSBD Carcano a prop.
That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false. I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.
Your previous post talks about evidence but comes to conclusions based on your interpretation and opinion ofA conclusion based on a rational assessment of the evidence is fundamentally different than a belief in the existance of facts for which there is no evidence. While it is true that one has to carefully look at the evidence and apply some judgement to the evidence that is a process that can be rationally explained.
that evidence. That's belief based and a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false. I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.
A conclusion based on a rational assessment of the evidence is fundamentally different than a belief in the existance of facts for which there is no evidence. While it is true that one has to carefully look at the evidence and apply some judgement to the evidence that is a process that can be rationally explained.
My point was that my conclusions are based on a rational assessment of the evidence that is fully explainable. If one has a "belief" in a fact scenario but cannot point to any evidence supporting such facts, it is a matter of faith.
Gary didn't say evidence is false. He pointed out that different people look at the Z film and interpret what they see differently. Of course you think your interpretation is the most rational. Everybody does.I agree with your comment if you mean that one cannot determine when the shots other than the head shot occurred just by looking at the zfilm. An opinion as to when the first two shots occurred based only on the zfilm that conflicts with the other evidence is bound to be wrong. That is why the SBT is wrong.
I agree with our comment if you mean that one cannot determine when the shots other than the head shot occurred just by looking at the zfilm. An opinion as to when the first two shots occurred based only on the zfilm that conflicts with the other evidence is bound to be wrong. That is why the SBT is wrong.
However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.
For example, it is not possible to tell from the zfilm when the first shot occurred. But there is a strong convergence on the first shot being after z191. A first shot earlier than that conflicts with a great deal of consistent evidence. A first shot after z191 conflicts with no evidence. (By "evidence" I do not include interpretations of what people think they see from the zfilm). A first shot after z202 conflicts with other evidence, particularly Phil Willis whose z202 photo, he said, was taken an instant after the first shot.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis04.jpg) Willis 04 (ca. Z133) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg) Willis 05 (Z202) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis05crop.jpg) Jackie turned towards JFK (arrow) |
Jack Ready said he turned around to look behind him immediately after the first shot. He removes his right hand from the
handhold and begins turning around at z199.
Not surprisingly, a first shot between those brackets, around z195, conflicts with none of the evidence, including the view of the President from the SN on November 22, 1963. The President is quite visible when he emerges from under the oak tree leaves when he is between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite the sign at z200. This means he was completely clear of the tree at z195, not z210 as the WC found.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg)
So the first shot is bracketed by z191 and z199. That is not an interpretation of the zfilm. That what the evidence says.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis04.jpg)
Willis 04 (ca. Z133)(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
Willis 05 (Z202)(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis05crop.jpg)
Jackie turned towards JFK (arrow)
Problem is that Willis pinpoints the first shot to a moment before Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite side.
"When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving
and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling
and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was
fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more
or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which
caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively.
It did cause me to wonder."
The hand movement is just a cute way of advancing when Ready might have first reacted to hearing the first shot. However his head first begins to turn rightward in the Z160s, within the same second when the Governor and Mrs. Kennedy exhibit rightward head turns. All three said the first shot cause them to turn their heads rightward.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/rcsuh3.jpg)
Ready lower-left inset
This is stupid. Kennedy's head wasn't opposite the little sign on the lamppost. According to the Cutler map, JFK was slightly short of being opposite the base of the lamppost at Z190.
It reflects your moonbeam-crazy pet theory.
In the photo, Jackie already has her head turned to JFK. He said that the photo was an instant after the first shot. When the car passed him she was looking to her left. I don't see JFK suddenly leaning forward prior to z200.
Problem is that Willis pinpoints the first shot to a moment before Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite side.
"When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving
and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling
and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was
fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more
or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which
caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively.
It did cause me to wonder."
The hand movement is just a cute way of advancing when Ready might have first reacted to hearing the first shot. However his head first begins to turn rightward in the Z160s, within the same second when the Governor and Mrs. Kennedy exhibit rightward head turns. All three said the first shot cause them to turn their heads rightward.You are changing their evidence. Ready did not say he just turned to his right. He said he turned to look behind him. In order to do that he first had to remove his right hand from the handhold. He does not do that until z199. That is the evidence.
This is stupid. Kennedy's head wasn't opposite the little sign on the lamppost.I am not saying he was. The arrow is from the curb between the lamppost and the Thornton sign.
That is correct. I have the positions of JFK plotted here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf). On a map of Dealey Plaza a line from Zapruder to JFK when he was opposite a point midway between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign extends to the rounded end of the north reflecting pool. If you watch JFK in the zfilm this alignment occurs in frame z195. So this photo, showing JFK clear when he is past the lamppost about halfway to the Thornton sign was his position at z195. So the WC was wrong when it said he was not visible until z210.
According to the Cutler map, JFK was slightly short of being opposite the base of the lamppost at Z190.
One fact is that as soon as Kennedy appears from behind the sign in Zapruder, his hands are seen as jerking up from about chest level. He's just been hit, before coming into view.Ok. The question is: how long before? He would likely start a visible reaction when he discovered he could not breathe properly. But until that point he may have simply felt something odd in his throat. So how long would it take for him to realize he could not breathe? If he took a normal 15 breaths per minute and he was hit midway between breaths it could take 2 seconds before he started gasping for air.
In the photo, Jackie already has her head turned to JFK. He said that the photo was an instant after the first shot.
When the car passed him she was looking to her left. I don't see JFK suddenly leaning forward prior to z200.
You are changing their evidence. Ready did not say he just turned to his right. He said he turned to look behind him. In order to do that he first had to remove his right hand from the handhold. He does not do that until z199. That is the evidence.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z200.jpg) Z200 (clearer than Z199) | ] | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z207.jpg) |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z165.jpg) | ] | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z169.jpg) |
Besides, Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President as the car was approaching.
They were standing just west of the lamppost. She said they all turned in her direction.
She said that was BEFORE the first shot.
That is what you are seeing in your clip in the z170s. No one is even attempting to turn to look rearward.
I am not saying he was. The arrow is from the curb between the lamppost and the Thornton sign.That is correct. I have the positions of JFK plotted here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf). On a map of Dealey Plaza a line from Zapruder to JFK when he was opposite a point midway between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign extends to the rounded end of the north reflecting pool. If you watch JFK in the zfilm this alignment occurs in frame z195. So this photo, showing JFK clear when he is past the lamppost about halfway to the Thornton sign was his position at z195. So the WC was wrong when it said he was not visible until z210.
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/WCR-Exh893.jpg) |
Ok. The question is: how long before? He would likely start a visible reaction when he discovered he could not breathe properly. But until that point he may have simply felt something odd in his throat. So how long would it take for him to realize he could not breathe? If he took a normal 15 breaths per minute and he was hit midway between breaths it could take 2 seconds before he started gasping for air.
You're not getting it -- because you're so tied into your wacko pet theory. Willis said the first shot occurred while Jackie had her head turned towards his side of the street. That predates your "need" for a first shot at about Z200.We both agree that Willis said two different things that are inconsistent. He said that Jackie turned her head suddenly from looking left to looking right at the moment of the first shot AND he said that the first shot was so close in time to the exposure of his z202 photo that the loud sound caused him to press the shutter. Those are conflicting statements because Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.
JFK has to "suddenly lean forward" for some reason?Willis said that the shot caused him to lean forward. He is leaning forward in his photo (z202) but he is not leaning forward at z193. That is pretty sudden.
BTW, I don't see where the Governor's chest suddenly faces the side of the car to the extend you contend.uHis chest appears to be turned about 60 degrees to the right in z193.
Even if Ready decided to respond (super-human fashion) to a ca.Z200 first shot by moving his hand within one-eighth of a second of the event, he's still doesn't begin to turn rearward between Z199 and Z207, the last frame before a splice. All he does between Z199 and Z207 is lower his right hand. His head and torso have a minimal turn.Unforturnately we do not see Ready after z207. But between z198 and z207 he goes from having his right hand on the hand hold to having it down by his left thigh and his torso has turned from a forward position to about 30 degrees to the right and his head has turned as well. That is 1/2 a second. That is where he begins to turn around to look rearward, as we see him looking in z255.
Ready moved his head to a greater extend between Z165 and Z169 than he does just after Z200.Possibly. The point is that he keeps his right hand on the handhold so he is not preparing to turn rearward. He can't turn his head rearward without turning his shoulders and to do that he has to release the right hand from the handhold. The fact that he keeps his hand on the handhold up to z199 means that his z165-9 head turn is not a turn to look rearward. It is a turn to look forward and to the right.
Sure. Like they could have heard her.Have you read the article she wrote for the Dallas Morning News a few hours after the assassination? That is what she said. She said they acknowledged their cheers. Why do you think the Kennedy's would not have heard them? You weren't there. She was. Not a single witness has said that the sound of the motorcade prevented them from hearing people speak. Nellie had just spoken to JFK as they rounded the turn and he responded and both heard each other. Woodward said she shouted and they turned toward her and waved and smiled at them.
.... I think she was romanticizing a bit. The Kennedys were paying her exclusive attention. Really?
More crap. You're comparing an overhead position on a 2D map to a still from the reenactment film, and not allowing for the subject's re-positioning due to the reenactment film's 3D oblique angle.Please explain. I speak English not pseudo-techie. I say that JFK was midway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195. Where do you say that JFK was positioned at z195?
Kennedy appears to be visible to some degree prior to Z210 but would it be enough for the gunman to acquire the target and track it? Meaning he took a shot with less than a second to frame the target rather than delaying the shot a reasonable amount to improve the odds.Watch the Secret Service film from about 10:24 and you can see that JFK is visible from Oswald's position throughout the entire time he passes beneath the tree branches. No problem tracking at all:
Mason's wacko rationale to get the neck shot to occur at ca.Z200.Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds? He is obviously reacting before he appears from behind the Stemmons sign. The HSCA concluded he was beginning a reaction BEFORE he disappeared behind the sign. I can't tell for sure. You seem to be able to see that he is not reacting when he is behind the sign.
Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds. Similar to Connally -- who Mason says received Kennedy's neck bullet to his thigh -- being unaware of being struck in the leg at ca.Z200. Per Mason, Connally is not shot in the torso and arm until about Z270; he explains away the Governor's reactions in the Z220s and Z230s as "panic" and concern for the President.
We both agree that Willis said two different things that are inconsistent. He said that Jackie turned her head suddenly from looking left to looking right at the moment of the first shot AND he said that the first shot was so close in time to the exposure of his z202 photo that the loud sound caused him to press the shutter. Those are conflicting statements because Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z172.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z174.jpg) |
I was trying to resolve that conflict with the rest of the evidence. The rest of the evidence puts the first shot after z191 so his perception that Jackie turned her head in response to the first shot is false.
I suggested that it may have been his impression because when the car passed him, Jackie was looking left and in the photo she is looking right.
You, on the other hand, want to take this reference to Jackie turning to argue that the rest of the evidence is false,
including his recollection that the sound of the first shot caused him to reflexively press the shutter.
Willis said that the shot caused him to lean forward. He is leaning forward in his photo (z202) but he is not leaning forward at z193. That is pretty sudden.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z193.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z198.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z202.jpg) |
| (http://i61.tinypic.com/vp9i5v.jpg) Right: clear frames morphed | (http://i59.tinypic.com/4gt3pg.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png) |
His chest appears to be turned about 60 degrees to the right in z193.
Unforturnately we do not see Ready after z207. But between z198 and z207 he goes from having his right hand on the hand hold to having it down by his left thigh and his torso has turned from a forward position to about 30 degrees to the right and his head has turned as well. That is 1/2 a second.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z200.jpg) Z200 (clearer than Z199) | ] | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z207.jpg) |
That is where he begins to turn around to look rearward, as we see him looking in z255.
Possibly. The point is that he keeps his right hand on the handhold so he is not preparing to turn rearward.
He can't turn his head rearward without turning his shoulders and to do that he has to release the right hand from the handhold. The fact that he keeps his hand on the handhold up to z199 means that his z165-9 head turn is not a turn to look rearward. It is a turn to look forward and to the right.
Have you read the article she wrote for the Dallas Morning News a few hours after the assassination? That is what she said. She said they acknowledged their cheers.
Why do you think the Kennedy's would not have heard them? You weren't there. She was.
Not a single witness has said that the sound of the motorcade prevented them from hearing people speak. Nellie had just spoken to JFK as they rounded the turn and he responded and both heard each other. Woodward said she shouted and they turned toward her and waved and smiled at them.
Please explain. I speak English not pseudo-techie. I say that JFK was midway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195. Where do you say that JFK was positioned at z195?
Watch the Secret Service film from about 10:24 and you can see that JFK is visible from Oswald's position throughout the entire time he passes beneath the tree branches. No problem tracking at all:
| (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/18/Photo_wcd88_024.jpg) | (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d3/Photo_wcd88_025.jpg) |
| (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d4/Photo_wcd88_026.jpg) | (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/60/Photo_wcd88_027.jpg) |
Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds? He is obviously reacting before he appears from behind the Stemmons sign.
The HSCA concluded he was beginning a reaction BEFORE he disappeared behind the sign. I can't tell for sure.
You seem to be able to see that he is not reacting when he is behind the sign.
Re: Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.No. I am not providing subjective impressions of the evidence. I am presenting it, just as it was given, so anyone can see that it is inconsistent with a first shot before z191. You want to twist that evidence to say that it was all mistaken.
Wow. You're so wedded to your pet theory dogma that you would deny the only place where, in Willis' words":
"Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and
facing more to my side of the street."
.....The "rest of the evidence" meaning your subjective interpretation of what the witnesses said to conform it to your theory's "need" for a ca.Z200 first shot.
Wrong. I'm using non-subjective indications, and near-to-the-event and verifiable eyewitness observation to counter your subjective interpretation to satisfy a wacko pet theory.
Now that's what he was wrong about. Willis had a slide set he was marketing. How many white lies and exaggerated product claims has Donald T|rump made on his way to becoming rich and reaching the White House?
There is no change in Kennedy's body posture between Z193 and Z202. There is glare on his shirt front in Z202 that might be making you think you see some sort of posture change.You may be right. But I see no discernible lean forward prior from z150 to z193. He does raise his right hand to wave, however. It would be odd for someone describing his action during this period as leaning forward but not turning right and raising his right hand to wave.
One would expect that if Ready's torso really turned 30? between Z200 and Z207, there would a more significant change in his tie and handkerchief position. The right side "expands" because his right arm fills the area.That is quite right. We cannot see him in the zfilm after z207. But his right hand moved from holding the handhold in z198 to down by his right side in 8 frames (less than half a second). The next time we see him is in z255 (Altgens).
His right hand is at waist level in Z207. If his head has turned, it's very slightly. He seems to be holding his head up more between Z200 and Z207.
But you can't say if Ready continued to delay turning rearward after Z207. Only that he achieves his goal by Z255.
First give him a moment to decide to turn rearward. A good agent would check to see if the President was alright before deciding to remove his attention away from the man he was assigned to protect.Your opinion of what you think a good agent would do is not evidence of what this agent did. Ready did not say he checked to see if the President was ok. He said he thought he heard firecrackers and that he immediately turned to his right rear to locate the source of the sound. It may be that he did not think a firecracker would be a danger to the President.
Or... he's briefly checking on the President and the crowd nearest the President before committing to a full turn and not paying attention to what's ahead. Also Ready arguably said he didn't look behind until after he heard more than one shot:Ok. It may not be completely clear from his evidence that he turned immediately after the first shot. But it would be odd to say that he immediately acted if he waited 3 seconds after the first firecracker sound. This is particularly odd since Altgens (as well as another 40+ shot pattern witnesses) said that when his z255 photo was taken there had been only one shot (7 H 520):
"I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position.
I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but
was not able to determine the exact location."
So where in the Zapruder film does Mrs. Kennedy turn towards Woodward and acknowledge her cheers?She is turned left up to z168 and she begins to turn to her right. She continues turning and faces forward by z178 and by she is turned to her far right by z190, and appears to be looking in the same direction as Gov. Connally and JFK, which, oddly enough, appears to be in the direction of Mary Woodward and her cheering friends.
How does Woodward know that her cheers were heard over the crowd by the Kennedys?I suppose the way anyone would know when you shout at someone and they immediately turn in your direction look at you and smile and wave. Why do you think she would not be able to tell they were acknowledging her and her friends?
You've got the area between the Thornton sign and the lamppost all wrong. A map is 2D while a photo is typically oblique.So, what point on the north side of Elm do you put JFK opposite in the frame I provided? How far ahead of the lamp post is he and how far in front of the Thornton sign is he?
Maybe the gunman did have extremely low-contrast vision, like the film.The film has good contrast. It is movie film. The point is that one can see Kennedy the entire time through the thin foliage of the oak tree. Oswald also had a scope. Even I could track him through the scope. Why do you think it would be difficult to track JFK as he passed under those outer leaves?
Interesting how you ferret out things to support your theory. It's as if the mechanics of your screwball theory pre-determine what you mine from research.Yeah. It is really interesting how all the evidence says that the first shot did not miss, was after z191, and the second shot was close to the third. I just "ferret" it out and present it. No need to editorialize and tweak it the way you are doing.
Hmmm. How is the President "reacting" in Z225?I am disappointed with you, Jerry. You are using the Trump approach: "If I don't agree with the evidence, I try an ad hominem approach to attack those gathering and presenting the evidence".
His hands appear to redirect in Z226, Z227 is too blurred, and in Z228 he's exhibiting a pronounced slump. But in Z225 he's not exhibiting a reaction that I can see.
They thought Kennedy had turned towards his wife as he went behind the sign. But clearer frames later showed Kennedy's right fingers (that are between him and Zapruder) are making his head seem in profile when it wasn't.
Sounds like a CT demanding "proof" through time-travel. True colors?
However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.
I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile all the eyewitness testimonies, I really do. But you must realize that witness memories are hugely unreliable. You and Jerry both are putting way too much stock in them.Perhaps you can give us an example, then, of a group of witnesses having similar recollection of a fact that was proven to be wrong. Give us an example even remotely similar to the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as he is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm (ie. not by smiling and waving).
No. I am not providing subjective impressions of the evidence. I am presenting it, just as it was given, so anyone can see that it is inconsistent with a first shot before z191. You want to twist that evidence to say that it was all mistaken.
For example:
Betzner said he took his z186 photo before the first shot.
Croft said he took his z161 photo long enough before the first shot that he had time to roll his film and snap another (that did not turn out) before the first shot.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_croft~0.jpg) Croft Photo (Z162) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg) Willis 05 Photo (Z202) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg) Approximate size of Kennedy limousine relative to Willis photo, if Croft had taken a photo at Z313 | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_fig13.jpg) Altgens (Z255, three seconds before Z313) includes area where Croft would have to move to take a photo at Z313, if he wanted less obstruction |
Croft stepping out in the street (for a better sight-line) or remaining where he was to take a photo in which the limousine was barely visible seems farfetched. I believe Kennedy himself is obstructed from Croft's view by Clint Hill by Z255, and would have been fully obstructed by the Queen Mary relative to Croft by the Z280s. We do, however, have verbatim statements from Jackie and the Connallys (saying they turned their heads to their right in response to hearing the first shot; the Connallys are seen in the Zapruder film to first do so in the Z160s while Mrs. Kennedy does so beginning in the early Z170s), and Phil Willis, who testified: "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street." "When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction ... when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him" Quote
Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. This doesn't work for your ca.Z200 "first shot" because he quits filming at Z185. My scenario that he might have not been that alarmed by a late-Z150 missed shot (and so didn't include its moment in time in his recollections) is in keeping with Hughes' claim that "Some of the people dropped to the ground at the first shot." From the photographic evidence (including the Dorman film), it would seem no one dropped to the ground until after the head shot. Furthermore, if Hughes had stopped at Z185, about 2/3 second before your theory's first shot, then it's unlikely he would have characterized the lag as five seconds. A second shot at ca.Z223 is over two seconds from when he stopped filming, while the Z313 head shot (which Hughes alludes to with "first shot" and people dropping to the ground) is almost seven seconds from when he stopped filming. Quote
(http://i67.tinypic.com/11he78h.jpg) By the Z160s, it had nearly completed 70? of the turn off from Houston. A 90? turn would be perpendicular to Houston. The animation stops at Z150 but we can picture the progression of the VP car to Z160. Quote
The occupants probably aren't looking dead-center through the windshield, but rather where the car is turning towards. This would place their heads parallel to the Depository in the Z150s. Quote
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z191.jpg) You've got some remarkable visible to determine that from Z191. Quote
What he said about his photo being instantaneous with the first shot is how he chose to characterize his 05 slide. By then he had labels on copies of that slide claiming the same thing, that were being sold commercially. When asked specifically about the first shot, Willis testified under oath: "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street." "When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction ... when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him" Quote
Right. He was selling sets of slides with the claim that his 05 slide was taken at the exact moment of the first shot. Under oath though, he pinpoints Mrs. Kennedy's head turn as the moment of the first shot, and claims (incorrectly) his slide corresponds with a Zapruder frame in which "he has already reached for his throat at that time" which means he introducing some reaction time, an admission of sorts that there was some time between his hearing the first shot and his taking his slide.. Quote
Willis couldn't see Kennedy's right hand or see if he was smiling. He was closer to Mrs. Kennedy and therefore witnessed her head turn in reaction, he thought, to the first shot. The head nod by Kennedy in the Z170s as seen from behind (as Willis saw it) could suggest to Willis what he termed "more or less slumped forward". Quote
That's quite a reaction. 1/4-to-1/2 second to decide to turn around and forget about how the President was. Quote
I would suggest some people use the term "immediately" in different ways. Ready said the first shot occurred as: "we began the approach to the Thornton Freeway" "The shooting occurred as we were approaching the Thornton Freeway [sign]"
Which photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign? I would think that the Z150s/Z160s would even more so represent to Ready the beginning of the approach to the Thornton sign. Quote
Not a danger? Even more reason to take his time to fully turn around. No reason though why he can't begin to turn his head rightward immediately. Quote
Ready reacts immediately with the turning of his head, within the same brief time span as the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy, all of whom said the first shot caused them to turn their heads rightward. Phil Willis witnessed Mrs. Kennedy turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite, testifying that he thought it was caused by her reacting to the first shot. She does this beginning in the early-Z170s. Quote
"I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between." Altgens told Trask in 1985: "My first instinct was 'well, they?re shooting firecrackers up there,' or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest idea that something was taking place." Seems he heard an unusual noise before the car came down to where he took his photo at Z255. Quote
Except how can Woodward see Jackie's face and her reaction, if the President is blocking the view by then? Also Jackie is not waving. And when does she see the Kennedys look around as if bewildered after the first shot if it's not when Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in the Z170s? Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. That's about the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they disappeared behind the sign. I figure it's doubtful they moved their heads while behind the sign because their head orientation seems to be same between Z207 and Z225 (the first post-sign when JFK's head comes fully into view). Compare Jackie's hat and the President's hairline; they seem unchanged.
Quote
I think she assumed that. But she has no way of actually knowing. Quote
You can fuzz out fine details if you reduce the contrast enough. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg) But you're left with a blurry indistinct target blob. Quote
You must have tweaked Woodward's comment that the first shot was a miss. And that Kennedy first slumped on the second shot. Quote
Guess you've forgotten that I said you have a brilliant mind (for other things) and that your theory is not as bad as others. Quote
Really. Eyewitness assessment by consensus. The Parkland witnesses mostly described a head wound further back than the Zapruder film and autopsy photos show. Many witnesses (ask Palamara) said the limousine stopped after the fatal shot. I suppose you're now going to suggest that I'm claiming most of the shot-spacing witnesses had a mass hallucination? |
Re: Betzner, Croft, Willis, Hughes....Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value. You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.
That's quite a reaction. 1/4-to-1/2 second to decline to turn around and forget about how the President was.Jerry, he said he turned around to look behind him "immediately" after the first shot. Do you really think 3 seconds (z151-z199) before even beginning the turn could be considered "immediately" by anyone?
I would suggest some people use the term "immediately" in different ways. Ready said the first shot occurred as:
"we began the approach to the Thornton Freeway"
"The shooting occurred as we were approaching the
Thornton Freeway [sign]"
Which photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign? I would think that the Z150s/Z160s would even more so represent to Ready the beginning of the approach to the Thornton sign.
Not a danger? Even more reason ....Again, thanks for demonstrating that one cannot take Ready's or Altgens' evidence as they gave it if you want to stick to your early missed first shot fantasy (with two shots well before the midpoint between first and last).
Altgens....
There you go again trying to second guess a witness' observation and say the witness did not observe what they said they observed. Woodward said:
Except how can Woodward see Jackie's face and her reaction, if the President is blocking the view by then? Also Jackie is not waving.
And when does she see the Kennedys look around as if bewildered after the first shot if it's not when Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in the Z170s? Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. That's about the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they disappeared behind the sign.Again, you are changing evidence. First of all, Woodward said the first shot occurred AFTER the President acknowledged their cheers.
Really. Eyewitness assessment by consensus. The Parkland witnesses mostly described a head wound further back than the Zapruder film and autopsy photos show. Many witnesses (ask Palamara) said the limousine stopped after the fatal shot.There was blood everywhere on JFK's head and Jackie had tried to put his skull back together. I am not sure that anyone other than those who closely treated JFK's head wound could give an accurate observation of its location. On the other hand, the witnesses who could see what JFK did in response to the first shot or hear the relative shot spacings, were able to make those observations without difficulty. As far as "consensus" is concerned, it depends on how you define consensus. It is not a simple majority. Significant proportions of witnesses giving conflicting accounts indicates confusion or inability to observe accurately. But if there are statistically significant numbers of witnesses who agree on a simple fact observations and only a smattering who disagree, one cannot ignore that evidence.
I suppose you're now going to suggest that I'm claiming most of the shot-spacing witnesses had a mass hallucination?No. You are going to change their evidence so that none of them actually heard the 1.......2...3 shot spacing that they said they heard.
Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value. You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.
That's the fatal flaw in most LN arguments. When there is contradictory evidence, it's always reconciled as "the evidence that I don't like must have been the product of a mistake or error".I will grant you that it is the fatal flaw in most SBT arguments. The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence, just a lot of arguments that the evidence that exists could be wrong.
The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence
For example, Buell Frazier said that Oswald took a paper wrapped package to work on Nov 22/63 that Oswald told him contained curtain rods.
CTers make a big issue about the statements of Frazier regarding the length of the package, its exact colour, and how Oswald carried it, even though by his own admission, Frazier said that he did not pay much attention to it or how Oswald carried it. CTers seize on this evidence as if it were ironclad proof that Oswald could not have taken the gun to work.
But the critical part of Frazier's evidence is that it puts Oswald carrying a paper wrapped longish package and that Oswald lied about its contents.
Frazier expressed no uncertainty about what Oswald said or that he carried a package that was consistent with what he said it contained. The disassembled rifle fit entirely into the package recovered in the SN (CE364) [sic]
and it had Oswald's palmprint on it as well as fibres matching the blanket found the the Paine's garage that Marina said was used to wrap the rifle.
No paper package other than CE364 [sic] was found.
No curtain rods were found.
Oswald did not carry curtain rods or a paper package out of the TSBD.
Yet all of this evidence is dismissed by CTers as unreliable.
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.
That doesn't follow. We don't know what the bag was or what it contained.
Yes, but there is no evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw. It fact they explicitly said it was not.CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.
No, it's the conclusions that you make based upon this evidence that is unreliable. It contains a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents.
Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.
CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.
Can you explain to me the difference between your use of "speculation and assumptions" and inferences?
Croft said he took his z161 photo long enough before the first shot that he had time to roll his film and snap another (that did not turn out) before the first shot.
You are misusing Croft.If so, please explain how you would use the interview he gave to Robert Trask.
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.
CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.
No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.
You don?t actually know that, becauseThe point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package. First of all, he didn't need curtain rods. His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them. Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods. He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't. Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work. He knew he had to do this because the next question would have been: then where are they? There was no answer to that question. Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage. Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long. The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21. So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.
a) you don?t know exactly what he said during interrogation
and
b) you don?t know what the contents were
No. It tells us that did not wish to reveal the contents of the package. I am unable to conceive of any innocent reason why an innocent Oswald would lie about the contents of this package. But he did. The only reason for lying about its contents was a non-innocent one. His gun then turns out to be a murder weapon. Hmmm. Let me see. Why did he not tell Frazier what was in the package. hmmm. Tough one.....
?Hiding something? tells you that he killed someone?
The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence. Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred. Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.
I don?t see any distinction in the way you?re ?inferring? things.
The point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package. First of all, he didn't need curtain rods.
His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods
and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them.
Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods.
He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't.
Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work.
Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage.
Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long.
The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21. So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.
The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence. Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred.
Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.
A guy may have lied to a coworker about the contents of a package, therefore he murdered the president?
Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6
Randle called police and said the bag she saw Oswald carrying was big enough to hold a rifle, didn't she?
Buell said he saw a 'big bag' approx 2' x 5" when he glanced into the back seat. How such a bag qualifies as 'big' is beyond me.
Police like to get first impressions from each separate witness before said witnesses have a chance to compare notes. Boy meets girl and all-of-a-sudden the bag shape-shifts to a size potentially keeping Buell's arse out of the electric chair.
And you characters call us naive.
AND How would they have known to make up and describe a package that was very similar to the package foun in the SN?
Translation for newbies:
'We declare that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the President based solely on his lying about the contents of the bag. The prosecution rests"
Are you sure any LNer is claiming that?
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.
No. It tells us that did not wish to reveal the contents of the package. I am unable to conceive of any innocent reason why an innocent Oswald would lie about the contents of this package. But he did. The only reason for lying about its contents was a non-innocent one. His gun then turns out to be a murder weapon. Hmmm. Let me see. Why did he not tell Frazier what was in the package. hmmm. Tough one.....
Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6
It wasn't very similar to the package supposedly found in the SN.
Where do you get that from?
Different size, different length, different paper.
Where do you get those from?
Correction: James Bookhout reported that Randle stated that. She never stated that in her testimony, or in a signed affidavit, or in any recorded interview.
Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle. The only people to ever have claimed to have seen the bag in question.
Citations required.
Seriously, Tim? I know you saw this thread -- you commented in it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html)
Well then you're just playing games because the citations are in the thread.
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_298_300.png)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/anderton-memo.png)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_302_300.png)
How do you know that?He did not have an apartment and the room he was renting on N. Beckley already had curtains and blinds. Why do you think he needed curtain rods?
Mary Bledsoe had nothing to do with the Beckley St house.Sorry. Earlene Roberts or Gladys Johnson would have had to have given permission. Bledsoe was his previous landlady.
What makes you think his visit was urgent, or that curtain rods were his primary motivation to go to Irving that night?Buell Frazier's testimony at 2H222:
How do you know what he took with him when he left?Mary Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus, minutes after the assassination, and did not mention that he was carrying anything. She described his shirt with a hole in the elbow. But she missed the curtain rod package, it appears. The taxi driver, Wm. Whaley, also never mentioned him carrying anything, nor did Earlene Roberts who was at home when Oswald arrived. Funny that.
That doesn't necessarily mean he was lying. But even if he was, that doesn't somehow prove there was a rifle in the bag. Particularly when the bag wasn't long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.That was my original point. He was carrying a longish package in which he lied about its contents and you cling to the discrepancy of a few inches from what Buell Frazier estimated to be its length, even though he admitted he didn't pay much attention to it.
I think you skipped "fifth". In any case, there's no evidence that the C2766 rifle was ever in the Paine garage. And very little evidence to suggest that C2766 was even his gun.Marina's evidence is not evidence? The blanket fibres are not evidence? The backyard photos are not evidence? The paper trail to and from Klein's is not evidence? The "A.J.Hidell" identity card found on Oswald is not evidence?
How could you possibly know that?It is a reasonable inference from the evidence that we have. An assumption is a fact that is accepted as being true without proof. An inference is a conclusion of fact that is based on indirect proof: ie. evidence and a logical thought process. You seem to be confusing the two concepts.
That's begging the question. You don't know he ever brought a gun to work. You're just assuming he did.
False premises lead to false conclusions.There are no premises. Just reasoning based on evidence.
He did not have an apartment and the room he was renting on N. Beckley already had curtains and blinds. Why do you think he needed curtain rods?
Sorry. Earlene Roberts or Gladys Johnson would have had to have given permission.
The "urgency" is evident from the fact that went to Irving on a Thursday night. He was normally going to go to Irving for the weekend. He needed them for Friday, rather than Monday. And he would not be in his room on the weekend as he would be in Irving. Again, why?
This, along with all the other evidence, tends to support the conclusion that he went to Irving to get his gun.
Mary Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus, minutes after the assassination, and did not mention that he was carrying anything.
That was my original point. He was carrying a longish package in which he lied about its contents and you cling to the discrepancy of a few inches from what Buell Frazier estimated to be its length, even though he admitted he didn't pay much attention to it.
Marina's evidence is not evidence?
The blanket fibres are not evidence?
The backyard photos are not evidence?
The paper trail to and from Klein's is not evidence?
The "A.J.Hidell" identity card found on Oswald is not evidence?
It is a reasonable inference from the evidence that we have. An assumption is a fact that is accepted as being true without proof. An inference is a conclusion of fact that is based on indirect proof: ie. evidence and a logical thought process. You seem to be confusing the two concepts.
27 inches in length eh? And Oswald had one end of that cupped in his right hand and the other end tucked under his right armpit? :o Assuming that you can find signed copies of transcripts of their testimonies then at best what you've got there is different length. Your claim is that the bag was of different size, different length, different paper.
Vincent Drain reported that Det. Lewis stated that Frazier said.....
SA James Anderton said what?
Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely reported that Frazier stated that....
Sorry but you fail by your own standard.
I don't know if he needed them or not. Maybe he just wanted new ones. Maybe
I don't see how that makes anything "urgent"
No it doesn't. You're assuming that he went to Irving to get his gun and then interpreting his actions under that light. There's no evidence that he ever got a gun.
Does that mean he couldn't have been carrying anything? Does that mean he couldn't have taken something with him when he left and dropped it somewhere else, given it to somebody, left it at the bus station, or any number of other possibilities?
How do you know he lied about the contents when you don't know what the contents were or even exactly what he said about it? The answer is, you don't.
Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle rolled up in a blanket in early October. How is that evidence that the C2766 rifle was in the Paine's garage on 11/21-22?
Evidence of what? 3 fibers that couldn't be tied to any specific blanket?
Evidence of what. That Oswald was holding a rifle that may or may not have been C2766 in a photo taken in March or April?
Evidence of what? That unscientific handwriting analysis of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon was claimed to have been written by Oswald?
Evidence of what? That an ID card that nobody ever mentioned in any report or interview prior to Oswald's death suddenly turned up in the evidence stream?
No, you are confusing the two concepts as everything you're claiming to be evidence doesn't actually support your claim that "his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage". You're accepting that as true without proof.
According to Ruth Paine, Oswald had always called to ask her permission to visit.
Not this time.
And maybe rifle through his stuff and see if there might be something, a tool of some sort maybe... that he could use to accommodate any activity he may or may not have planned for the next day.
The real question is; did he fail by your standard? The documents shown to you are the same kind as those you have relied upon since the first post I've read from you on this forum and probably even longer.
Could it possibly be that you are now questioning and/or disbelieving documents the veracity of which you have been defending for years?
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder too?
Too bad you have no evidence of him "rifling through his stuff" while he was there.
I don't know if I should feel insulted by you , annoyed at you, or just feel sorry for you. How could the gist of my response to Iacoletti possibly have escaped you?
There you go again. No one saw him therefore it didn't happen.
Don't quit your day job, Clouseau
No, just evidence that Oswald went out to visit the Paine residence without first gaining permission, something he had never failed to do before. In doing so, the possibility of him being able to access his belongings was thereby established.
Too bad for whom, exactly? Oswald was on the property, as were his belongings. The night before the assassination. That's all I got.
Be insulted or annoyed as much as you like...
The gist of your response was beyond obvious and an extremely weak cop out. You were confronted with information you didn't like and you couldn't refute so rather than dealing with it you came up with that ridiculous reply to John.
But my question (which of course you ignored) still stands. You have defended the veracity of those kinds of documents for as long as I can remember. Do you feel that the documents John has shown you are authentic and their content correct?
I don't know if he needed them or not. Maybe he just wanted new ones. Maybe the ones that were there were broken and the story about a news reporter breaking them was contrived to explain an inconvenient photo.If he actually had curtain rods, why would he not take them home? Let's suppose that he was carrying a package of curtain rods when he left the TSBD that the police, the bus driver, bus passengers, taxi driver and Earlene Roberts all missed. Where are the curtain rods?
Why would they have "had to have given permission"? Have you seen the lease?
I don't see how that makes anything "urgent".
No it doesn't. You're assuming that he went to Irving to get his gun and then interpreting his actions under that light. There's no evidence that he ever got a gun.
Does that mean he couldn't have been carrying anything? Does that mean he couldn't have taken something with him when he left and dropped it somewhere else, given it to somebody, left it at the bus station, or any number of other possibilities?
How do you know he lied about the contents when you don't know what the contents were or even exactly what he said about it? The answer is, you don't.Oswald denied he had curtain rods. Why would he say that if he actually had curtain rods? If Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude to fabricate their evidence, then Oswald lied about the curtain rods. So you are essentially saying that BF/LMR lied. So I guess they were in on the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. That does not explain Oswald's behaviour in leaving the TSBD getting his gun, killing Officer Tippit, and pulling his gun in the Texas Theater and saying "It's all over now". Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.
Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle rolled up in a blanket in early October. How is that evidence that the C2766 rifle was in the Paine's garage on 11/21-22?By itself, it is not conclusive. But there is evidence that Oswald owned only one rifle and no evidence that he owned more than one rifle. So if she saw a rifle stock, that is evidence that tends to show that Oswald's rifle was there. The paper trail linking C2766 to Oswald via his mail box and his use of the A.J. Hidell ID card is evidence that Oswald's rifle was the C2766 rifle. The back-yard photos are consistent with Oswald holding a gun that is identical to C2766 in every respect. Add to that the behaviour of Oswald subsequent to the assassination and you can conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was involved in the assassination. Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.
Evidence of what? 3 fibers that couldn't be tied to any specific blanket?What evidence is there that he owned or possessed another rifle? Marina said it was the same rifle that he used to shoot at Gen. Walker.
Evidence of what. That Oswald was holding a rifle that may or may not have been C2766 in a photo taken in March or April?
Evidence of what? That unscientific handwriting analysis of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon was claimed to have been written by Oswald?Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions. You believe the evidence to be false. You believe the police and FBI were all in on an enormous conspiracy. I don't. Let's leave it at that.
Evidence of what? That an ID card that nobody ever mentioned in any report or interview prior to Oswald's death suddenly turned up in the evidence stream?
No, you are confusing the two concepts as everything you're claiming to be evidence doesn't actually support your claim that "his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage". You're accepting that as true without proof.
Hilarious!
That's all I got.
That ain't much, Sherlock!
You still do not grasp the one and only point I was making in my response to John Iacoletti. That the sole gist of my response to his post is not obvious to you indicates that your excessive alcohol consumption has caught up to you and the havoc that you've inflicted on your brain cells has your IQ now hovering at a level just above that of an idiot.
I accept the documents that John Iacoletti presented as being authentic and the content within them as being recorded accurately.
I'm not at all surprised that you would give honesty such short shrift.
One can only observe the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made an unannounced, first-time-ever-surprise appearance at the Paine home. On the eve of the assassination. And that attached to that home was a garage. And that inside that garage was a blanket belonging to the Oswalds. And that inside that blanket were some Oswald belongings that afforded Dirty Harvey an opportunity to rifle through... for whatever reason.
On the eve of the assassination.
If he actually had curtain rods, why would he not take them home?
Oswald denied he had curtain rods. Why would he say that if he actually had curtain rods?
If Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude to fabricate their evidence, then Oswald lied about the curtain rods. So you are essentially saying that BF/LMR lied.
So I guess they were in on the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
That does not explain Oswald's behaviour in leaving the TSBD
getting his gun,
killing Officer Tippit,
and pulling his gun in the Texas Theater
and saying "It's all over now".
Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.
By itself, it is not conclusive. But there is evidence that Oswald owned only one rifle and no evidence that he owned more than one rifle.
So if she saw a rifle stock, that is evidence that tends to show that Oswald's rifle was there.
The paper trail linking C2766 to Oswald via his mail box
and his use of the A.J. Hidell ID card is evidence that Oswald's rifle was the C2766 rifle.
The back-yard photos are consistent with Oswald holding a gun that is identical to C2766 in every respect.
Add to that the behaviour of Oswald subsequent to the assassination and you can conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was involved in the assassination. Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.
What evidence is there that he owned or possessed another rifle? Marina said it was the same rifle that he used to shoot at Gen. Walker.
Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions. You believe the evidence to be false. You believe the police and FBI were all in on an enormous conspiracy. I don't. Let's leave it at that.
I'm not at all surprised that you would give honesty such short shrift.
One can only observe the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made an unannounced, first-time-ever-surprise appearance at the Paine home. On the eve of the assassination. And that attached to that home was a garage. And that inside that garage was a blanket belonging to the Oswalds. And that inside that blanket were some Oswald belongings that afforded Dirty Harvey an opportunity to rifle through... for whatever reason.
On the eve of the assassination.
I have no idea. I'm merely objecting to your assertion that Oswald didn't carry any package out of the TSBD when you don't actually know that to be true.I don't have to "know" it to be true by itself. I know it to be true because Oswald not carrying a package out of the TSBD fits with all the rest of the evidence and Oswald carrying a package out fits with none of the evidence (no one noticed him carrying anything and no package was found, no curtain rods were found but a package similar to the one he carried into the TSBD was found and the gun that is linked to Oswald was found in the TSBD).
I don't know. I don't even know that he ever said this. But let's say that he actually told Frazier that he had curtain rods and actually told Fritz that he never told Frazier that. How do you get from that to he had a C2766 rifle in a bag?By looking at the rest of the evidence and trying to fit that evidence to a scenario in which Oswald was not involved and concluding, as Marina and Robert Oswald did, that no such reasonable scenario can be found.
Lots of people left the TSBD.No employee left the TSBD after the assassination except Oswald.
I don't have to "know" it to be true by itself. I know it to be true because Oswald not carrying a package out of the TSBD fits with all the rest of the evidence and Oswald carrying a package out fits with none of the evidence (no one noticed him carrying anything and no package was found, no curtain rods were found but a package similar to the one he carried into the TSBD was found and the gun that is linked to Oswald was found in the TSBD).
A friendly suggestion: Watch a few episodes of Forensic Files and tell us whether you agree with their conclusions.
So, in other words, you're guessing that Oswald didn't carry a package out of the TSBD.Let me ask you: would you agree that there were grounds to arrest Oswald?
And really? If something is not found then it never existed? Is that your position? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found? How about Oswald's black shirt?
I've seen a lot of Forensic Files and they only give you one side of the story. Not unlike the Warren Commission.
But this isn't a forensic case. It would be interesting though to check the evidence that hasn't yet gone "missing" for DNA.
Let me ask you: would you agree that there were grounds to arrest Oswald?
my problems with CE 399:
1. No experiment so far which shoots MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet thru 2 bodies, then exits spinning and enters a wrist backwards, goes thru, and looks like CE 399 when recovered.
2. No experiment involving shooting an MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet through 2 bodies has demonstrated the straight line trajectory of the SBT proposed by Myers computer animation.
2b. Nor has any shooting experiment demonstated the bullet trajectory zig zagging as an alternative explanation for all the wounds.
3. The finding of CE 399, and the subsequent chain of custody is in doubt, given the revelation that FBI agent Odum denied having made report that O.P.Wright had positively identified CE 399 as the bullet he found on stretcher. O.P Wright thought the bullet appeared to be more pointed, as opposed to ball shaped.
4. No blood splatter on Governor Connallys white hat, which was in proximity to bullet exit point in his chest and close to his wrist, since he still had it gripped in hand after the fact.
5. The convoluted position necessary to explain how Gov Connally could be holding hat upside down and no part of hat be in the bullet trajectory path is problematic and the Z film position at Z 223 does not appear to support a right arm crossed over far enough to be holding hat upside down on the outer left side of JCs left thigh as in this diagram:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-68b1f05ec78555607750319242e0a90f)
Lets see you post an image of CE399
It'll be a first for CTers if you also post the butt-end view.
Demonstrably false.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601)
Haven't seen any one here do so
You just did, didn't you?
At the time he was arrested, no. Hypothetically after evidence was gathered, yes. But then he gets acquitted because of reasonable doubt.
my problems with CE 399:
1. No experiment so far which shoots MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet thru 2 bodies, then exits spinning and enters a wrist backwards, goes thru, and looks like CE 399 when recovered.
2. No experiment involving shooting an MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet through 2 bodies has demonstrated the straight line trajectory of the SBT proposed by Myers computer animation.
2b. Nor has any shooting experiment demonstated the bullet trajectory zig zagging as an alternative explanation for all the wounds.
3. The finding of CE 399, and the subsequent chain of custody is in doubt, given the revelation that FBI agent Odum denied having made report that O.P.Wright had positively identified CE 399 as the bullet he found on stretcher. O.P Wright thought the bullet appeared to be more pointed, as opposed to ball shaped.
4. No blood splatter on Governor Connallys white hat, which was in proximity to bullet exit point in his chest and close to his wrist, since he still had it gripped in hand after the fact.
5. The convoluted position necessary to explain how Gov Connally could be holding hat upside down and no part of hat be in the bullet trajectory path is problematic and the Z film position at Z 223 does not appear to support a right arm crossed over far enough to be holding hat upside down on the outer left side of JCs left thigh as in this diagram:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-68b1f05ec78555607750319242e0a90f)
Is this a schoolyard...
Pretty sure anyone who resists arrest is going to be cuffed... Yeah, that's it!
Haven't seen any one here do so
Pretty sure anyone who resists arrest is going to be cuffed... Yeah, that's it!
To "resist arrest", you have to be told you're being arrested. And to be arrested, the police have to have probable cause that you committed the crime you are being arrested for.
'Probable cause' for sure... Lee Harvey Oswald probably caused the deaths of Officer Tippit and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
At the time he was arrested, no. Hypothetically after evidence was gathered, yes. But then he gets acquitted because of reasonable doubt.He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK. Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit? Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?
He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK. Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit? Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?
Andrew, Oswald punched officer McDonald. That alone was sufficient cause for arrest.He could have been arrested for entering the theater without paying. He not only punched the arresting officer, he pulled his gun on him and during the struggle in which he resisted being arrested, he tried to fire the gun as he said "Well, its over now". The police were looking for a man in that area with a gun who fit Oswald's description. More than enough evidence already to arrest him.
He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK.
Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit? Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?
Andrew, Oswald punched officer McDonald. That alone was sufficient cause for arrest.
He could have been arrested for entering the theater without paying. He not only punched the arresting officer, he pulled his gun on him and during the struggle in which he resisted being arrested, he tried to fire the gun as he said "Well, its over now".
The police were looking for a man in that area with a gun who fit Oswald's description. More than enough evidence already to arrest him.
He was arrested for both.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
That's exactly what I'm saying. What evidence did they have at the time of his arrest that he had anything to do with either murder? Because a shoe salesman thought he looked funny?
Funny 'strange' or funny 'ha-ha', John? The distinction is importart in this situation. You seem to be belittling the use of the word so as to mock the observation of an alert citizen.
Maybe put yourself in Brewer's shoes* for a moment and think about which use of the word would be the more reasonable, given the gravity of the situation.
*Yeah, I know, eh?
It's debatable whether he actually punched McDonald. But it doesn't matter, because he wasn't arrested for punching McDonald. The arrest report doesn't mention that at all. The box for "officer(s) injured" isn't even checked.
I'm not "belittling" Brewer, I'm saying that doesn't constitute probable cause for the police to search, beat up, and arrest somebody for murder.
Are you certain that police had the intent to beat somebody up for looking funny?
Are you certain the surrounding events, in combination, wouldn't at least be enough reason to check out what Brewer noticed?
Are you sure Oswald didn't somehow provoke the police into trying to subdue him?
There's no evidence that he "pulled his gun on him" or "tried to fire the gun". How many times are you going to repeat those myths?So are you saying that it is a myth that McDonald actually said this (3 H 300):
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of "probable cause".
So are you saying that it is a myth that McDonald actually said this (3 H 300):
Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. When this hand-we went down into the seats.
Mr. BALL. When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?
Mr. MCDONALD. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt
movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap.
I didn?t know what it was at the time.
? Because that is evidence on which one could easily conclude that Oswald pulled his gun on the arresting officer and pulled the trigger with the gun pointing at the officer.
You may not believe it, but that does not make that evidence mythical. It exists.
Magic Bullet??
Governor Connally's wife even said they were shot at 2 different times. There is no way one single bullet shot them both. But at the same time, people say they only heard 3 single shots. Also, I thought the first shot was shot at the curb? Then the second hit Kennedy in the neck and the third was the fatal shot to the head?
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.
(https://i.imgur.com/UZP7ht1.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/uFqBHiv.gif)
Yeah, now that I look at it again you're right. I figured to believe her since she was in the vehicle as well. It crazy how a bullet can exit from one person to another so fast. It looks as if they were hit at the exact same time though? But everyone only heard 3 shots. The head, neck, and curb... Could there have been a 4th shot?
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.That is certainly the case if you believe that CE399 was from the second shot.
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.
That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun...
Both of these claims are untrue. Brennan was the only one who ever claimed to see Oswald on the 6th floor and he only did so several days later after initially failing to identify him.
There were witnesses who claimed to see a person with a gun on or near the knoll (Jean Hill, Rosemary Willis, Ed Hoffman).
That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.
Was this person seen to be aiming the weapon by any chance? Pretty sure Brennan saw a rifle being aimed downrange at the exact time of the shooting sequence... and by the way Euins saw the trigger being pulled at the exact time of the second shot.
Brennan chose not to ID Oswald out of fear for the safety of his family. Buell Frazier left Dallas out of fear for his family's safety. Are you now going to once again laugh at the concept of a man putting the safety of his family ahead of everything else in life?
Google 'freeway man MacAdams'
That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.
Yeah, the headshot does look like it came from the front. No doubt that's how the vast majority of people felt upon first viewing the Zapruder film. However, those familiar with ballistics, or with any real knowledge of physics, knew better. The momentum of a bullet striking the head would not have resulted in the degree of backward movement that we see in the Zapruder film. The momentum of the bullet striking kennedy's head did result in some movement but only a couple of inches. That was a forward movement. John Mytton has a Gif that shows it quite nicely.
A couple of Mythbusters episodes looked into whether a bullet striking a body could violently propel it backwards. They found that they couldn't even do it with a 50 caliber bullet.
James Tague believed that he was hit by either the second or third shot but he wasn't sure of which one.
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.
The violent backward movement of Kennedy resulting from the head shot was a neuromuscular reaction.
JFK might have been hit simultaneously from the front and back, but you being a physicist, why wouldn't a "blast-out" from the back not push the head forward? (then violently back and to the left)
A "blast-out" from the back could have pushed the head forward a couple of inches if there had been a "blast-out" from the back. There wasn't.
According to over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who were there, there was a blast-out from the back. Why should I believe you?
It's McAdams, and don't. Not unless you want more of the same rhetoric you get here from LNers.
As opposed to your endless proclamations of what witnesses saw or meant. To wit: Are you certain Brennan wasn't still concerned, even after finding out that Euins was a second witness?
And is it within the realm of possibilty that he would hold back from telling his wife (according to you) so as to not upset her unnecessarily?
Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.
And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh. You forgot to mention that this lady in red told a TV station back then that she didn't see a shooter, only heard the shot. Then in 1992, said she saw the shooter firing from behind a tree.
Is that your definition of rhetoric?
Go ask Alice.
;)
Hoffman changed his story over time
So did Brennan! Kinda destroys the point you foolishly tried to make.
Brennan's story is consistent with his stated fear for the safety of his family. Show us third-party confirmation of any persons who knew Brennan (relatives, friends) as anything but truthful.
Even Hoffman's own kin said he had a propensity for telling tall tales, FFS.
Brennan's story is consistent
Read his book and compare it to his initial statements.... maybe you learn something.
It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.
Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.
And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh.
Do you mean the book ghost-written some 42 years after the fact? And here I thought you characters (Oswald apologists) were such champions of first-day (even first-minute, it seems) information
A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this? But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat. It looks like it could be a little white dog.
A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this? But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat. It looks like it could be a little white dog.
Hypocrite. What falls flat is you completely ignoring what Jean Hill said about not seeing a shooter in 1964 (just heard a shot) then years later her saying she saw the shooter firing while standing near a tree.
How convenient.
Happy to be corrected but I don't think she has said that Unless your just reading between the lines or something
Was this somehow supposed to refute that Brennan's story changed over time?
Can you present a passage or two (thus showing the context) from Brennan's book that could be seen as being at odds with his testimony and/or affidavit. Are you certain that the ghost writer wasn't being somewhat flowery in describing what Brennan saw? Are you now going to snatch out a word or two and make an entire thread out of it?
Hypocrite. What falls flat is you completely ignoring what Jean Hill said about not seeing a shooter in 1964 (just heard a shot) then years later her saying she saw the shooter firing while standing near a tree.
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.
This brief interview alone discredits the Warren Commisson's "findings". Clearly the Connally's say that JFK hit first in the throat, a separate bullet hits Connally, and then the final blow to the President's head.
Then why did the governor himself say that he was hit by a different shot?
Sure everybody jumped at sound of rifle shots.
Begin watching at at 51:40
Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
He had no doubts [so he said] but I have mine.
In another post someone said that was fine...then called me a buff [whatever that is]
In those frames 225-226, Jackie's jumping too...did she get hit also?
Jackie is not seen to be reacting in those frames. JFK and Connally unmistakably are.You are assuming that JFK's hand positions are not part of his reaction. That's not exactly beyond doubt.
[ Begin watching at at 51:40.Cronkite sums it up rather well beginning at 54:30 or so when he says: "In our own view, on the evidence, it is difficult to believe the Single Bullet Theory..." His rejection of Gov. Connally and Nellie Connally's "theory" that there were three shots all of which hit occupants of the car on the grounds that it is "even more difficult to believe" is based solely on the ground that a high speed bullet that struck JFK on the first shot (which he acknowledges has much evidence for support) magically disappeared without striking the car. So if that first bullet did not magically disappear but was CE399 that came out of his leg, that problem with 3 shots 3 hits disappears. That possibility was never considered.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shotsYou are right: that is speculation.
Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?Maybe because the bullet that entered his upper back went through his neck.
You are right: that is speculation.
It is not speculation that there is coordinated movement of all the bodies, it would be a logical inference to connect such movement with a flinch from the shot What is your conclusion?
Maybe because the bullet that entered his upper back went through his neck.
Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
He had no doubts [so he said] but I have mine.
In another post someone said that was fine...then called me a buff [whatever that is]
In those frames 225-226, Jackie's jumping too...did she get hit also?
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
People see what they expect to see.
I expected to see JFK & JBC reacting separately. In fact, I think JBC was swatting at the bullet from the ghost shooter in the sewer.
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.Why would he have put his hands up before he was hit..LOL
Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
Sam Kinney speaks with neighbor friend Gary Loucks about putting a bullet on the stretcher in Parkland Hospital.
forumassassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/195-breaking-jfk-ss-agents-deathbed-confession/
Are we really this "Na?ve" ?Yeah...apparently :(
Yeah...apparently :(No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make. The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so. But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point. The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.
The only other alternative = more than one shooter = a conspiracy.
It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.
(https://stevenhager420.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-56-09-am.png?w=318&h=224)
Seconds after the assassination, a crowd gathered near the Triple Underpass where gunsmoke had been seen and smelled by many witnesses.
I didn't write that.You said: 1. "The only other alternative = more than one shooter = a conspiracy.". My point was: 2. that is only the case if JBC was reacting to his chest wound within a few frames of JFK's response to his throat wound seen after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign. So by writing 1. you are saying 2.
I just say there was no 'Magic Bullet'.
😂🤣😃 You clearly don't know the evidence of this case.I know it is difficult to accept that the SBT is not needed for LN conclusion, but that is what the evidence shows,. Even most LN supporters don't want to accept it. But I have given you an accurate summary of the evidence. Is it just that you do not want to base conclusions on well corroborated witness evidence? If you think I have misrepresented the evidence read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_patern_evidence.pdf) and tell me what you think I have misquoted or misrepresented.
There was a professional hit team out there in Dealey Plaza
[Maybe the Alpha 66 guys]
...Oswald was not one of the shooters.
He was the fall guy.
The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.Three bullets caused those wounds. The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?
Three bullets caused those wounds.According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.
The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?
No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make. The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so. But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point. The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.
But that is not all. A second shot SBT is also excluded by the Connallys and about 22 other witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (in distinctly different way than the smiling and waving seen prior to z195 or so).
Again, that is not all: a second shot SBT is excluded by dozens of witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade who put the first shot after z186-z191.
A first shot SBT is excluded if you believe that the Connallys were right in their observation that JBC was not struck in the chest on the first shot.
So the demise of the SBT does not imply multiple shooters unless you are convinced that all these witnesses are wrong.
Three shots fired from the SN fits all the evidence. It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.
David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shots
Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?
The wound could be accurately referred to as the 'back/neck' wound since the entry was at the junction where the neck anatomically meets the back (according to an article on MacAdams site).
Can you link to your David Wimps work? I have seen other work that reveals the passengers did not lurch forward at the rear entry head hit to JFK.
Describing JBC's chest wound as him being 'hit in the chest' implies a shot from the front, at least as far as I understand the written word. You are ignoring the back wound suffered by the guv, it seems to me.The chest is the whole part of the human body between the abdomen and the neck, also called the thorax. There was no shot from the front. I am not sure why you would ask since my point was that all shots were fired by a single shooter in the SN.
Are you claiming a shot from the front indeed hit JBC?
The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.
According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.Ok. So the you now think one shooter could have made these wounds. I am puzzled. Does this mean "that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows"?
Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald.
Ok. So the you now think one shooter could have made these wounds.Another Felucca who misinterprets what is posted. Note what I posted "
I am puzzled.Seems to be your default position.
Does this mean "that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows"?
No, the sewer guy took the head shot. :)
Good call, and I would speculate that shooter in the sewer had periscope eyes like them aliens in Men in Black . And was sitting on a whoopee cushion.
How can anyone believe JFK and JBC were hit by a single bullet fired from 60 feet in the air?The question is not whether a shot through JFK could have hit Gov. Connally. Rather it is whether it hit Gov. Connally in the right armpit.
As Cyril Wecht pointed out during the HSCA, JFK would need to be tying his shoes for the trajectory to work.
The question is not whether a shot through JFK could have hit Gov. Connally. Rather it is whether it hit Gov. Connally in the right armpit.
There is no problem with the vertical alignment of JBC's wounds and JFK's throat wound. It is the horizontal - right to left - trajectory that is a problem. The trajectory is consistent with a shot through JFK to the left side of JBC but not with a strike to the far right side.
If you are a serious researcher, then show us how there is no problem with the "vertical" MB trajectory (yaw). Use 2 lasers to do a re-enactment. It's a cheap, simple experiment that is deadly accurate. So far not a single LNer has pulled it off else we would have heard about it by now. They obviously aren't interested in the truth.First of all, JFK was not sitting on a chair as you have shown. He was.on a seat that was sloped backward and was lower to tbe floor. It was about 6" higher than JBC's jump seat which was mounted on the floor. That put his adams apple about 4 to 6 inches higher than JBC's adams apple. The downward trajectory of 17 degrees causes a drop of 7.5 inches from JFK to JBC's seatback. That puts it just above the height of JBC's armpit level when it passes the plane of JBC's seat back, which is 24" from JFK's throat exit wound.. See this 3D model. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_positions_3D_views.pdf)
Demonstrating the MB trajectory was possible is the only way to support your claims. Otherwise, we must assume that you are either too lazy, don't care, or you have done it already and wish you hadn't.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle.If that was obvious to anyone, it would have to be Humes. It wasn't. Humes concluded that the bullet went through. Have you read his report? Where do you get 45 to 60 degrees? Did you just make that up?
First of all, JFK was not sitting on a chair as you have shown. He was.on a seat that was sloped backward and was lower to tbe floor. It was about 6" higher than JBC's jump seat which was mounted on the floor. That put his adams apple about 4 to 6 inches higher than JBC's adams apple. The downward trajectory of 17 degrees causes a drop of 7.5 inches from JFK to JBC's seatback. That puts it just above the height of JBC's armpit level when it passes the plane of JBC's seat back, which is 24" from JFK's throat exit wound.. See this 3D model. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_positions_3D_views.pdf)
Andrew, I don't expect you to sit up straight in a chair. I expect you to sit in any damn arrangement that makes the magic bullet work. Don't tell me how it was possible, show me with a re-enactment, and not with CGI.How does one shine a laser through someone's neck?
How does one shine a laser through someone's neck?
I agree that the SBT trajectory never works. But it doesn't work because of the fact that JBC's right armpit is not left of JFK's midline.
In regard to Andrew Mason Reply # 258 Re: The Magic BulletJust so I am not misunderstanding, you are relying on a statement from a non-medicaly trained person who was observing and who was not privy to all the information that was provided to Humes, the doctor conducting the autopsy, and who, as far as we know, never read Humes' report? And you are using that to contradict Humes' findings?
NO Andrew , I did not just make that up , pertaining to me saying that the back shot was a downward 45 to 60 degree angle as heard by Francis X. O'Neill who heard Humes say that the bullets entered from a 45-60 degree angle. This statement is on Page 4 , Lines 18 & 19 .
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md47.pdf
This information is from the Affidavit of Francis X. O'Neill who was interviewed by T. Mark Flanagan,
James Kelly and Donald Purdy of the Staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations on January 10th , 1978.
With 2 lasers you can simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru JFK's back/neck. Point the 2 lasers at one another as depicted in my graphic to form 1 beam. Now get in between them so that the bottom laser strikes your throat below the Adam's apple at approx. C6. Does the top laser strike your back at T1? If not, reposition your body so that it does. Then take a couple of pics showing your body position and post them to support your claims.I am not sure how that is any more accurate than a putting perfectly straight line through a 3d model at an angle that can be measured to within 1/100th of a degree. But since you have already tried it, you should be able to show us your photos. Where are they? How can they possibly be materially different than this photo (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)?
You can do the same for Connally's back wound. Then superimpose your surrogates onto the same photo to show how their bodies must have been orientated to make the MB work. I couldn't do it without bending over so much that the bottom laser struck my chin.I agree with you that the path from the SN through JFK's neck exit wound does not strike JBC in the right armpit or anywhere on the right side. But it is not because it goes too high. It goes too far to the left. You have to use the correct relative seat positions. You can get those from photos, such as Croft's. JFK's head was about 4" higher than JBC and about 30" behind. That put his neck exit wound about 24" from the plane of JBC's back.
I am not sure how that is any more accurate than a putting perfectly straight line through a 3d model at an angle that can be measured to within 1/100th of a degree. But since you have already tried it, you should be able to show us your photos. Where are they? How can they possibly be materially different than this photo (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)?
I agree with you that the path from the SN through JFK's neck exit wound does not strike JBC in the right armpit or anywhere on the right side. But it is not because it goes too high. It goes too far to the left. You have to use the correct relative seat positions. You can get those from photos, such as Croft's. JFK's head was about 4" higher than JBC and about 30" behind. That put his neck exit wound about 24" from the plane of JBC's back.
You trust CGI to your detriment. I can make CGI do anything I want, but what use is that? I'm a photogrammetrist and I know that there is nothing better than a physical re-enactment using surrogates. It's cheap, easy and deadly accurate and anyone can participate. Why would you look to CGI for answers? It's made up BS. I don't post my photos because I can't prove a negative with them. This is for the LNers to show that the MB was possible.Your point seems to be that a shot on a downward 17 degree cannot enter JFK's back and exit his throat in a way that matches the vertical positions of his wounds. That it can match those positions is easily demonstrated by the Croft photo with a downward 17 degree arrow superimposed on it. It also shows that the path goes above JBC's seatback.
Let's stick to JFK for now. If you can't demonstrate that the MB thru JFK works, then what it did thru Connally is irrelevant.
Even Specter got it wrong in the above photo. Look where he has the line exiting "JFK's" throat. It is well above the tie knot. Using a line through the tie the bullet would have hit the back of the car seat.The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher.
The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher.
This photo actually shows the path of the second shot that actually hit Connally and just missed JFK. Hickey said that the second shot looked like it missed JFK because the hair on JFK's head flew forward on the second shot.
The bullet did not miss.You missed Hickey's observation (18 H 762):
11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent
,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head
The frontal neck wound never traversed the body and the entry wound in the back never traversed the body . At what point did the " Magic Bullet " become the "Magic Bullet" . It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle. Now if there is not a path through the president by either bullet , then there should have been two bullets left in JFK. Fords movement of the back wound to the base of the back of the neck was to say the least a move that was very debatable and quite dishonest to say the least. Now if Humes says that the back wound did not extend past the little finger knuckle , then it does not matter where Ford would have placed the back wound because per Humes the path in the back was short and at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle. We know on thing for sure, the wound in the back of JFK was lower than what the front entry wound was on JFK !
You missed Hickey's observation (18 H 762):
- He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.
That is consistent with what Kinney reported on the second shot, although Kinney is not as clear.
Now, if you follow the evidence, Hickey says he turned and looked at the President just before the second shot and continued to look as the third shot sounded. In Altgens' photo taken at z256, Hickey is still turned to the rear. So Hickey's observations are consistent only with the second shot after z256, which is also what Altgens said. This also fits with the 40+ witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together. It also fits with the 22+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot.
Show us where Ford moved the wound from the 14cm x I4cm location noted on the face sheet.
No, both Hickey and Kinney were clear with their descriptions of the Assassination. Using Hickey's later statement and misrepresenting Kinney's statement is your embellishment. These two statements could not be clearer. What is not clear is why you want to misrepresent them.You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement. He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head. There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other. So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot. He clarifies this on his subsequent statement.
11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent
,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head
Elizabeth Loftus explains why Hickey's story changed with time and no longer matches Kinney.Witnesses may or may not be reliable. The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm. How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God? Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63? If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.
"Ask Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who pioneered the study of false memory ? what happens when people remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently than how they happened.
She has conducted hundreds of experiments on more than 30,000 people over the past 40 years. She has found that a person's memory is highly susceptible to suggestions or insinuations from conversations with other people or from watching, reading or listening to news stories.
Most people, she says, think of their memory as a recording device that they can turn on and off, one that records everything precisely. But she says it is more pliable.
Think, for example, of a conversation with a relative who recounts an event as if it was firsthand but it really happened to you, she says. In those instances, the person may have heard about an event often, and over time it became so familiar that it felt like the person's own experience.
She says everyone also embellishes memories or adds to them when they recount them, and over time those changes become part of the memory."
"Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."
Maybe it is time to dump the witness compilation if you don't even understand their origins.
Your point seems to be that a shot on a downward 17 degree cannot enter JFK's back and exit his throat in a way that matches the vertical positions of his wounds. That it can match those positions is easily demonstrated by the Croft photo with a downward 17 degree arrow superimposed on it. It also shows that the path goes above JBC's seatback.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)
You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement. He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head. There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other. So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot. He clarifies this on his subsequent statement.
Now, if we did not see JFK's hair fly forward after Hickey turned around and before the head shot, we might be justified in saying that he was mistaken. But when we see JFK's hair fly up like that just before Greer turns around (which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot), it does make sense. The alternative is to suppose that he just guessed that JFK's hair flew forward as if the bullet just missed his head and that it was a remarkable coincidence that his hair does fly forward just like he described.
Witnesses may or may not be reliable. The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm. How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God? Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63? If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.
This exactly what Elizabeth Loftus was referring to --in other people can influence memory.
Hickey and Kinney, who roomed together on assignments, gave very similar statements and are also the only two eyewitnesses to make a statements claiming to see the hair fly forward due to the impact of the bullet.
It is obvious you know what Hickey meant by
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
Otherwise you would be quoting what he first stated instead of later statements and trying to explain away the first statement.
-----------------------------------------
These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.
These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.You have to read their statements before you can analyse them. What does "I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." tell you about what happened on the first of those two shots?
You have no way of knowing that three bullets caused all the wounds since no proper autopsy was ever performed.?? There were three shots heard. There were 3 shells on the floor. According to Harold Norman, the bolt action was heard three times. Witnesses close to the effects of the shots (eg. the Connallys, Greer, Secret Service) testified as to the effects of each of the three shots. There is nothing in the autopsy findings that precludes those wounds having been made by three bullets. That may not convince you that the wounds were caused by three shots, but it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.
A single shooter could NOT have fired three times in the allotted time accurately. A single shooter with a bolt-action rifle also doesn't match what was heard regarding the sequence of the shots.And your evidence is?? The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds, which is, according to the evidence, about the time span of the three shots. There is abundant evidence that the second shot was after the midpoint. According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
Your opinion is based on something other than the actual evidence.I have just given you the evidence. Are you saying that is not actual evidence? Why?
Was it ruled out that a bullet that entered from the front through the throat could have ended up in his lung? One of Parkland doctors, I believe Perry stated there was blood coming up from one of the lungs
You have to read their statements before you can analyse them. What does "I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." tell you about what happened on the first of those two shots?
?? There were three shots heard. it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.Any qualified links on those statements?
The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
I have just given you the evidence.
Was it ruled out that a bullet that entered from the front through the throat could have ended up in his lung? One of Parkland doctors, I believe Perry stated there was blood coming up from one of the lungs
No. He said there were two shots. Two shots did two things. Although they were in such rapid succession that there was practically no time element between them, they were distinct shots. Now, what happened on the first of those two shots?
Exactly, read the statement as it is stated not read into the statement what you want it to say. He said exactly what happened, the bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward. Sounds a whole lot like Z313. He also said the last two were like they were one shot.
George Hickey 11/30--- second statementThat statement by itself does not pinpoint the second shot, but the next sentences of that statement together with the zfilm do. You can see his hair fly up on his head from about z273 to z276. The sunvisor that was struck by a fragment also moves between z271 and z272. Greer said he turned around twice - the first time was immediately after the second shot. His first turn is from z278 to z280. That, together witb the 40+ witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3 shot pattern makes a pretty reasonable basis for a shot between z271 and z272. That is also when JBC begins to sail forward and fall over, which both Nellie and Greer said he did immediately after the second shot.
"I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."
How can that ever be misconstrued as being a shot at Z270 making his hair somehow move followed by a pause and then a shot at Z313 that really does make his hair and much more fly forward. There is no possible way to even explain the rational that is behind thinking of this nature.
Is this the same type of analysis you are applying to other eyewitness statements? It would have to be to come up with an imaginary shot at Z270.
Any qualified links on those statements?
If the autopsy photos and x-rays are considered gospel to the LNers, then we know exactly how/what the MB did thru JFK's back->throat.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)
With a downward trajectory angle of 17 deg, the FMJ bullet entered JFK's back at T1, smashed thru C7 then exited thru a small hole at C6. If that's not magic, then I've got some beans you might be interested in.
The Warren Commission found that a minimum of about 2.3 seconds was required to fire, reload aim and fire again using Oswald?s rifle.(Frazier: WC 3 H 407). This appears to be based on the FBI re-enactment using that rifle. FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier, who actually fired 3 shots in 4.6 seconds, said ?4.6 seconds is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think?.Frazier: 3 H 407 The FBI?s Ronald Simmons noted that one marksman fired three shots in 4.6 seconds using the telescopic sight and three shots in 4.45 seconds using the iron sights.(Simmons: 3 H 446). There was no time placed on the middle shots so we cannot determine the smallest interval between shots. None of the FBI marksmen had practised with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Simmons admitted that with practice the shooter would likely be able to operate the bolt smoothly without moving the rifle from its target.(3 H 449) There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony of Marina Oswald: 1 H 53 and 65).
And your point is? What does this have to do with FBI Agent Miller firing 3 shots with the Oswald's bolt-action MC in those times (which is what Simmons was referring to)?
The FBI's Ronald Simmons????? WTF
...
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.
"There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony of Marina Oswald:"I am not sure what you are reading (1 H 65):
That's not evidence.
If you actually read her testimony you will see she didn't know what LHO was doing but was led by the questioner into supporting the proposition of him practicing.
And your point is? What does this have to do with FBI Agent Miller firing 3 shots with the Oswald's bolt-action MC in those times (which is what Simmons was referring to)?I am not sure what you are reading (1 H 65):
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about llis practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn?t clean it at that time.
Yes-twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don?t know. The rifle was always with this. I don?t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
A number of witnesses heard more than three shots. Furthermore, a good number heard two shots very close together. This would be impossible if a bolt-action rifle was used as claimed.
Ditto SS agent Kellerman's comment about a "flurry of shots."
. It is called circular logic.
None of the FBI marksmen had practised with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.No wonder there. It was a falling apart piece of crap from 1940!
There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony of Marina Oswald: 1 H 53 and 65).
http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg
I wonder why two different people were holding the ruler. To hide something?
?? There were three shots heard. There were 3 shells on the floor. According to Harold Norman, the bolt action was heard three times. Witnesses close to the effects of the shots (eg. the Connallys, Greer, Secret Service) testified as to the effects of each of the three shots. There is nothing in the autopsy findings that precludes those wounds having been made by three bullets. That may not convince you that the wounds were caused by three shots, but it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.
And your evidence is?? The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds, which is, according to the evidence, about the time span of the three shots. There is abundant evidence that the second shot was after the midpoint. According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
I have just given you the evidence. Are you saying that is not actual evidence? Why?
I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.
All that was conjecture anyway
Which makes it all the more strange that he completely missed the 1st shot.
Oswald had to moved into position only AFTER the JFK limo begins down Elm st
that Oswald accidentally shot off his 1st shot, because he had his finger ready on the trigger AS he moved and he may have in his haste and anxiety, sqeezed the trigger.Not very expert marksman like :)
I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.? How did three shells end up on the floor?
? How did three shells end up on the floor?
The FMJ bullet entered at the level of C7. It did not smash through C7. It exited at the level of C7.
Didn't smash thru C7? According to your beloved x-ray it did.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)
According to your beloved pitch angle it did.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
So then how did it exit thru a small hole and carry on in a straight line to smash thru more bone then show up on the wrong gurney with no blood, tissue or bone on it and barely any deformation or lose of material?
So you claim that the MB entered at C7 and exited at C7 thru JFK's neck at a 17 deg yaw angle. Re-enactment please?
Did not.
Did not.
It didn't.
Nope. Finding people willing to be shot would be too difficult. Not only that it would be illegal.
Damn, you got me there. You truly are a master debater!
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
In my view even if you place the throat wound at the unlikely very top of the widening its still lowere than the back wound
and also significantly exact measurement calculable. 8) :) Walk: ;)
Which back wound? The one at the T-3, the one at T-1, or the one at C-7?
If anyone has the time and inclination could they help me with a few /their estimation of -
.. Just before JFK clutches at his throat his body is almost exactly square with the square of
the limo which in turn is almost exactly square with the square of the road.
Near enough for what we need so treat as 100% square.
Now at C7 we draw a line square with these body and limo squares from one side of the road to other.
So theoretically level with the 2D view C7 entrance/
Now just on the horizontal plane of this we want a similar line with the throat wound.
In the view of the throat wound being lower we can ignore for now.
Now drawing a right angle line across those 2 lines, particularly from each wound across to other line ..
What I would like a few estimations of is " how may inches across do you think that is?" 8) ::) ;)
Sorry Michael but I can't visualize what you are trying to say. Not sure what it is that you want to figure out. I will say that Kennedy was not positioned facing fully forward at the time of the single bullet strike.
Do you think his upper torso until his head and upper neck was square withe limo then Tim and just head and upper neck at variance/?
Or whole body at variance to square with the limo.
What I wanted to figger was when I see trajectory demos it looks like they estimate that distance counting downward trajectory as 3-4 inches.
According to me its more likely 8&1/2 -9 inches.
Quote - "You're referring to the vertical difference between Kennedy's throat wound and Connallys back wound? I believe it was about 8 inches."
No I wasn't - I was referring to the distance across JFK of back and front wounds from one to the other, but not going into angle or vertical difference.
But just for this equation here,
the distance between 2 parallel lines on the horizontal with C7. :)
I don't know what your "distance between 2 parallel lines" is referring to. The distance that the bullet traveled through the flesh of Kennedy's neck was about 6.5 inches. That's the number that I usually go with anyway.
Gotcha?? I was thinking JFK is tall solid broad and maybe that might be 8-10 inches BUT if anyone ever wanted as exact as can be you could make
a pretty close estimate mannequin the same size as JFK. 8)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/DSC04413.jpg)
LOL Tim/Whoever sorry but best I can do off the cuff at moment. What I was looking for is the right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines :)
Hope that explains that anyway. :D
Michael,
Again, the wording you use is a bit confusing to me. The "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines"? I get what you mean by distance though. Follow the link below and click on the image there. If you use Kennedy's ear as a gauge, you should be able to approximate the distance between the two wounds. Using that photo, you can even get the vertical angle between the two wounds. That's approximating the location of the entry wound of course. 5.5 cm below the fold in the neck.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=22
The angle between two parallel lines is either 0 degrees or 180 degrees.
On edit, I now get what you mean by "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines".
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)How about using an actual human rather than someone's artistic impression of one:
But Gary, they were all mistaken, lying, or totally incapable.*
*Nutters, tick the appropriate excuse.
How about using an actual human rather than someone's artistic impression of one:
Here is a side view of a male standing straight up:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward15_7_deg.jpg)
Here he is with a 2 degree forward lean:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward_17deg.jpg)
From the HSCA TESTIMONY OF J. LEE RANKIN, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE WARREN COMMISSION:
Mr. SAWYER. With respect to--As you are undoubtedly aware, much of the criticism of the Warren Commission report and much the basis of the various critics who have written extensively on the subject has been centered about one thing, principally the single bullet theory and the fact that available time did not permit one assassin. You made a decision or you and the Commission not to allow access to the autopsy information. Are you still satisfied with that decision as being a sound one?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes, I am. I think it has been revealed, that the basis of the decision was that the Kennedy family did not wish to have the pictures of the President, as shown by the X-rays and the other pictures after the assassination attempt, be the way that the American people and the world would remember the dead President. We thought we had good evidence from the doctors who were involved at the hospital in Dallas and also at the autopsy, and we did not want the President's memory to be presented in that manner, and we had already promised the American people that the investigation that everything that we obtained, except for such matters as involved national security, would be made available to them, so we would have had to publish it, if we used it ourselves.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscarank.htm
===================================
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 1964
TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin
FROM: Arlen Specter
SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy
In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.
2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.
3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:
"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."
When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisified that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
=====================
Unlike the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel examined the autopsy photos and x-rays.
(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RgkPjye.jpg)
"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."
http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.
These impressions were created by the 2 FBI agents, O'Neil and Siebert, who attended the autopsy, took
notes and wrote a report about what they saw and heard. They were drawn independent of each
other for the HSCA. They show the location of the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck.
They illustrate the reason Gerald Ford needed to changed the discription of the location of the back
wound to the neck to accomodate Arlen Spector's SBT.
Could you explain what it is you're trying to convey with the arrows through the model?
? How did three shells end up on the floor?
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.
Andrew, do yourself a favor and do a re-enactment using 2 lasers. You CANNOT use photos for this. A re-enactment is cheap and deadly accurate. It may change your world view. :)
Aim 2 lasers at one another at a 17 deg angle and get in-between them so that the high laser strikes your back at T1 and the low laser strikes your throat at C7. Otherwise, all 2D photo analyses aren't worth the electrons.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
I'm still waiting for ANYONE to use this simple/cheap experiment to validate the SBT.
Good luck!
C7. I only accept it as any back wounds but each to their own. :)
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.
When Dr. Perry made the Tracheostomy cut in the frontal entry neck wound he made an incision that was short and neat and as Dr. McClelland said "Perry was a master with the scalpel" .
The wound described by Dr. Perry as round 5 mm and roughly to spherical to oval shape , not a punched out wound like is seen at Bethesda , went back to looking like it did before the small incision that was made by Dr. Perry . The garbled up look of the front of JFK's neck was not done at Parkland as per Parkland ! Like Thomas Robinson said " talking of surgery to the head " to make it look like the wounds on JFK had come from shots from the rear " The Drs. did that "!
www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/
I'm still waiting for you to use this simple/cheap experiment to invalidate the SBT. Why haven't you done so? After all, it's cheap, simple on spot-on accurate, right? So, why haven't you done it yet?
Correct.....however-
NO NEED FOR LASERS OR 'MODIFIED' X-RAY PHOTOS
Correct.....however-
One does need to actually fire a bullet, using a 1940 piece of crap rifle [from a distance of 150 feet is OK]..have it traverse 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, strike a necktie knot, remove 4 inches of rib, and shatter a radius bone and have it come out looking brand new.
Let us know how well you do.
Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.
I see we're making some progress.
Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.
That's a start.
Naturally, once the droolers are shown that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible, the next step is to show that a bullet could cause the wounds and emerge relatively intact.
Jerry knows that 399 didn't 'come out looking brand new', so we'll let that go.
Rather, we will demonstrate that a single bullet could indeed cause all the wounds and emerge relatively intact. That is to say, not fragmented, nose not smashed, and not tremendously mangled as the detractors of the SBT insist would have to be the case.
I submit that the documentary 'Beyond The Magic Bullet' does just that.
If anyone can provide a better re-enactment of the SBT, I'd love to see it.
Impossible trajectory ? Objection overruled.
Impossible to cause the wounds and not be mangled ? Objection overruled.
The Court finds that the SBT is not only possible, it's the best explanation available !
Judge Gee has ruled.
Next case, please.
Because you can't prove a negative. Try to keep up.
Found a sketch that Dr McClelland did a little over a year ago [from memory of course]
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3y8AAOSwddhZ0USy/s-l1600.jpg)
And you claim to be a physicist? ???
http://www3.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm#egprovneg
LOL! There's every reason to believe Connally was struck substantially earlier than Z338, and practically no reason to believe Kennedy was struck as "early as Z210."
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2b7jhu.jpg) (http://i65.tinypic.com/35ity1g.jpg) (http://i65.tinypic.com/2ngxugn.jpg)
Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226. This is consistent with both men being struck at about z223.
Instead , the FBI told the Commission that the two civilians had been interviewed by Special Agent Bardwell Odum, who was told by the men , that the stretcher bullet " appears to be the same one ". But when Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar contacted the National Archives , they found no record of such an interview , in spite of the fact that the FBI was required to document interviews like that. And when they contacted Bardwell Odum in person , he denied ever conducting an interview and stated that he had NEVER even seen CE 399 .
The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot. But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/hsca-f46-applied-to-wounding-position.jpg)
Clyde Snow's "upright" angle through the neck was in reference to how the neck structure changes between a life-position and auropsy-position.
When it came to depicting the "wounding position", the HSCA always shows the neck transit ranging downward.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)
I amended the diagram above (showing the limousine at about Z190) to show the slope from the Oswald window to the limousine at about Z223-25.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg)
The difference is that Leavelle was just reinforcing the already established evidence whereas Odum was contradicting everything that had gone before.
The "anatomical position" is a generic position in which the individual is imagined to be standing upright and the neck area is structurally upright. This is supposed to give a consistency to wound locations so that various autopsy reports can be read with a common body position in mind.Huh?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)
Generic example
The HSCA noted in Volume VII that the "anatomical position" differed from the life- or "wounding position". The neck structures changed such that the wound entry that was located perpendicular out from the T1 level (in the "anatomical position") was now above the T1 level (in the "wounding position").
Another source of confusion is that the term "autopsy position" is used interchangably to describe the "anatomical position". Kennedy at autopsy, with his head resting on a chock, had his neck structrues essentially in the life- or "wounding position". I guess the term"autopsy position" began to be used because the "anatomical position" is used at autopsy.
Huh?
Are you saying the diagrams of JFK's neck wound the HSCA published don't depict the wounds actual location?
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot. But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.
Huh?
Are you saying the diagrams of JFK's neck wound the HSCA published don't depict the wounds actual location?
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?
"Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?"
No.
You seem to think the HSCA should have applied (without any adjustment) the wound track shown in their "Autopsy Position" diagram to the moment Kennedy was shot.
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in this position?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/seated-position.jpg)
"Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?"
Irrelevant!
Show the frame of the Z-film that shows JFK in the position he was in when actually hit by the
alleged "Magic Bullet".
This one: Full Metal Jacket
Impact characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet#Impact_characteristics
[EXCERPT]
"By design, fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding, and possibly failing to disable the target. Furthermore, a projectile that goes completely through a target can cause unintentional damage* downrange of the target".
--------------------------------------------------
*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.
Is this intact to you?
(https://s33.postimg.cc/3sr4ir9sv/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)
This one: Full Metal Jacket
Impact characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet#Impact_characteristics
[EXCERPT]
"By design, fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding, and possibly failing to disable the target. Furthermore, a projectile that goes completely through a target can cause unintentional damage* downrange of the target".
--------------------------------------------------
*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.
Is this intact to you?
(https://s33.postimg.cc/3sr4ir9sv/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)
*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.
Seems to me that you are a maroon....You obviously don't understand what you posted...
"fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding,"
Are you aware that JFK was "SEVERELY WOUNDED" ....Do you actually believe the bullet that blew half his head away was a FMJ projectile???
Show us where I addressed the head shot in my post.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg)
So now you;re proposing that the massive wound on JFK's head was not made by an FMJ.... Do I have that right Chappie?
Are you aware that JFK was "SEVERELY WOUNDED" ....Do you actually believe the bullet that blew half his head away was a FMJ projectile???
That?s because he was shot in the brain.
The non-severe woundings bit refers to bullets maintaining structural integrity through other parts of the body, usually the torso, which end of leaving focal, less serious and more easily treatable wounds than the explosive, diffuse and sometimes inoperable destruction left by hollow points.
The best you can hope for after being shot in the brain is not having too drastic behavioural or personality changes.
You're FOS....Many soldiers were shot through the head with military FMJ bullets and survived...some with no ill effects from the wound.The Vietnam Head Injury Study: "the low velocity penetrating fragment wounds typically sustained resulted in relatively focal defects". Something like shrapnel and handguns. Seems they couldn't find many who survived the bullet from a high-velocity sniper rifle.
Could be your friend's helmet stopped the bullet and a metal chip from the helmet then went through the brain.
I have a friend who was shot through the head in Vietnam and he is perfectly normal...
As the article YOU posted says....FMJ bullets can pass right through a persons body and cause little damage.....JFK was not hit in the head by a FMJ bullet.....
That?s because he was shot in the brain.
The non-severe woundings bit refers to bullets maintaining structural integrity through other parts of the body, usually the torso, which end of leaving focal, less serious and more easily treatable wounds than the explosive, diffuse and sometimes inoperable destruction left by hollow points.
The best you can hope for after being shot in the brain is not having too drastic behavioural or personality changes.
If JFK had been shot through the neck with a bullet traveling @ 2700 fps from the TSBD Carcano as the WC
claimed, the shock wave created by that bullet would blown out a large hole in the front of his neck.
The doctors at Parkland described a 3 to 5 mm clean cut wound of entrance.
Was there any bullet entry/exit damage at the back of John Connally's car seat?Maybe that's why they rushed the car off to be stripped down and repaired ASAP...
You raise an excellent point.... Is it possible for two bullets from the same gun to perform completely opposite?....
I doubt it.... If FMJ bullets had been used there would have been neat clean small wounds on the victims.....And the bullets would have been found intact in the car.
Show us where there was a need for a bullet to be magic...JC got hit and required 6 hours surgery to remove a pulverized 5th rib, a "sucking" wound in his chest, a fractured wrist bone and leg injury - just about dead! 5 days later he made an amazing speech from his hospital bed, never a cough, no pain or side effects in a rather lengthy interview!
Maybe that's why they rushed the car off to be stripped down and repaired ASAP...That may have been a reason Jake. Maybe they should have examined the seat behind JFK's right shoulder as well and determined if something passed through there! Maybe the windshield as well. There may have been another reason to whisk the car away without thorough examination from independent investigators!
The bullet marked as CE-399 did not hit anyone on Nov. 22nd , 1963 !Now that is a fair assessment. Consider that SS Agent Dick Johnsen was the one assigned by Clint Hill to accompany JFK's body on the airplane. It seemed this was necessary to make sure no body switching conspiracy could ever have deemed to have happened! (Tippit was a look alike some have conjectured). Then, we also learn that this same Dick Johnsen is the one who also carries the magic bullet CE399 during its path to the crime lab. It also it seems that Clint Hill (Mrs. Kennedy's body guard) takes control of the whole crime scene. Was not Emory Roberts the man in charge?
JC got hit and required 6 hours surgery to remove a pulverized 5th rib, a "sucking" wound in his chest, a fractured wrist bone and leg injury - just about dead! 5 days later he made an amazing speech from his hospital bed, never a cough, no pain or side effects in a rather lengthy interview!That may have been a reason Jake. Maybe they should have examined the seat behind JFK's right shoulder as well and determined if something passed through there! Maybe the windshield as well. There may have been another reason to whisk the car away without thorough examination from independent investigators!Now that is a fair assessment. Consider that SS Agent Dick Johnsen was the one assigned by Clint Hill to accompany JFK's body on the airplane. It seemed this was necessary to make sure no body switching conspiracy could ever have deemed to have happened! (Tippit was a look alike some have conjectured). Then, we also learn that this same Dick Johnsen is the one who also carries the magic bullet CE399 during its path to the crime lab. It also it seems that Clint Hill (Mrs. Kennedy's body guard) takes control of the whole crime scene. Was not Emory Roberts the man in charge?
This is an interesting picture. I am not sure its origin or if it is a CT's dream! Note the bullet hole someone has drawn in on the lower back of JFK's back.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_c.jpg)
In Clint Hill's book Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir, he makes this observation:
Hill writes: "The doctor points to a wound in the throat and explains that this is where the emergency tracheotomy was done at Parkland Hospital, which covered up the area where a bullet had exited. He rolls the president slightly onto his left side and points to a small wound just below the neckline, slightly to the right of the spinal column in the upper back. This, he says, is where the bullet entered, and then came out the front of the neck. The bullet that caused these wounds hit nothing but soft tissue. Those wounds, I knew without a doubt, came from the first shot. It corroborates what I saw---the president suddenly grabbing his throat immediately after the first explosive noise. The doctor points to a wound on the right rear of the head. This, he says, was the fatal wound. He lifts up a piece of the scalp, with skin and hair still attached, which reveals a hole in the skull, and an area in which a good portion of the brain matter is gone{emphasis added]"
So, during the autopsy, a tracheostomy is performed and conveniently the bullet hole is used as the entrance for this procedure. Looking back at Hill's testimony, he already wrote the President off as dead as he covered his head and chest with his jacket: Did the massive injury he sustained really warrant a tracheostomy, was his windpipe damaged?
Mr. SPECTER. Did you do anything with your coat upon arrival at Parkland Hospital to shield the President?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I removed it and covered the President's head and upper chest.
Was it possible that there was a coverup here and that the original entrance hole was on his LHS and not an exit wound? The hole at the back according to Hill's description by the autopsy doctor seems to indicate a lower position than something from the TSBD. Could there have been traces of this bullet in the upholstery behind JFK's back or trunk?