JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 22, 2020, 02:47:03 PM
-
There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:
1. The marksmanship feat alleged by the lone-gunman theory was far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, to perform.
-- Oswald’s Marine rifle scores show that, at best, he was a mediocre marksman, and keep in mind he made those scores using a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to work) and while firing at stationary, ground-level targets, after hours of practice.
-- Most of Oswald’s fellow Marines who were asked about his shooting skills said he was a poor shot.
-- Members of Oswald’s gun club in Minsk, Russia, said he was a poor shot.
-- David Ferrie said Oswald was a terrible shot.
-- One of the most renowned snipers in U.S. Marine Corps history, Carlos Hathcock, tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting feat but failed to do so. After repeatedly trying and failing to duplicate Oswald’s supposed performance, Hathcock said he did not believe the WC’s shooting scenario.
-- The Warren Commission (WC) hired three Master-rated riflemen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. They used the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly used. They missed the head and neck area of the target board silhouettes 18 out of 18 times when they used the scope, and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sights. In other words, they missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times. Several of their misses were far apart on the boards. Some of their shots missed the silhouettes entirely.
It is revealing that these experienced, Master-rated riflemen shot so poorly even though they were allowed to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though two of them took longer than 6 seconds to fire, even though they were only firing from 30 feet up, and even though they were shooting at stationary--yes, stationary--target boards. Oswald would have been firing from 60 feet up and at a moving target.
2. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.
-- We now know that the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek was subjected to three tests, including a highly sensitive test done by the Atomic Energy Commission at its Oak Ridge facility. When the DPD lab test found no traces of the nitrates barium and antimony in the cast, the cast was subjected to more sophisticated testing, including neutron activation analysis (NAA), by the FBI lab (outsourced) and by the Atomic Energy Commission. Those tests, like the DPD test, found no traces of barium or antimony in the cheek cast.
-- The Mannlicher-Carcano would have plastered Oswald’s right cheek with invisible nitrate deposits, and those deposits would have been detectable by NAA even if Oswald had washed his face before the paraffin cast was made. Dr. Gerald McKnight:
NAA is so highly sensitive that it can pick up trace elements such as barium and antimony in parts per billion and trillion. Even if Oswald had used that brief stopover at the rooming house to scrub his skin to remove surface residues, the scientific certainty is that there would still remain enough atoms of barium and antimony deep in his facial pores, especially considering the heavy blowback from this particular type of rifle, to be detectable. Once the hot paraffin is applied to the cheek or hands, the heat will extract any residual nitrates buried in the pores. Short of Oswald spending the afternoon in a Russian steam bath sweating out his pores, the negative results of the paraffin cast of his right cheek argue strongly for his exculpation [being proved innocent]. (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, 2015, p. 260)
-- We now know from internal FBI and WC memos that the FBI and the WC were deeply troubled by the negative results from the paraffin cast of the cheek, especially when the NAA found no nitrates in the cheek cast.
-- We also now know from internal FBI memos that the FBI was advised that reenactments done at the Oak Ridge facility established that every time the Mannlicher-Carcano was fired, paraffin casts of the shooter’s right cheek tested positive for barium and antimony (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).
-- The internal memos make it all the more revealing, and damning, that the WC falsely claimed that “expert testimony” said the paraffin test was “unreliable” (WCR, p. 180). The WC staffers who wrote the report may not have known about the Oak Ridge reenactments, but we know the FBI was aware of them (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).
-- The WC could not accept the positive results from the paraffin casts of Oswald’s hands because it would have been forced to also accept the far more meaningful negative results from the cheek cast. WC staffers might have realized, and the FBI certainly knew, that the paraffin test on Oswald’s hands was of minimal evidentiary value because the presence of nitrates on hands can be innocently explained if the person has handled a number of common substances such as soap, sugar, rust, cloth, and, most important, printed materials such as books, and because earlier in the day Oswald had helped lay new flooring on the sixth floor, had moved a large number of book cartons, and had moved a large amount of school supplies.
3. The lone-gunman theory requires the single-bullet theory (SBT). If the SBT is wrong, then at least four shots were fired at JFK and at least two gunmen were involved. The SBT is one of the most ridiculous, dubious theories ever put forth in a criminal investigation.
-- No one has yet been able to explain how any non-deformed bullet could have made the irregular H-shaped tears in the front of Connally’s shirt, but the SBT says that CE 399, a nearly pristine bullet, somehow made those tears.
-- We now know from a number of released documents that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. We also know that even the second version of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The autopsy report that was submitted to the WC was written after Oswald was killed and after the government knew there would be no trial and thus no defense examination of the autopsy materials and no cross-examination of the autopsy doctors. Then and only then did the autopsy doctors claim that the throat wound was the back wound’s exit point.
-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.
-- CE 399, the SBT’s bullet that supposedly caused all of JFK’s and Connally’s non-fatal wounds, is virtually pristine. Its lands and grooves are even intact, and it is missing virtually no substance. However, every single bullet from the WC’s wound ballistics tests that struck one or more bones emerged with considerably more damage and deformity than CE 399 exhibits.
-- According to the SBT, CE 399 somehow nicked JFK’s tie knot when it allegedly exited his throat, but the nick on the knot is visibly inward from the edge of the knot.
-- CE 399 supposedly also made the irregular slits in the front of JFK’s shirt, but even a cursory examination of the slits shows that if a bullet had made them, that bullet would have had to go through the middle part of the tie knot—not dead center but at some point between the edges of the knot. Photos and video of JFK taken 1-5 minutes before he was shot show his tie knot in its normal position in the center of the collar. The actions of waving his hand and turning his head would not have caused his tie knot to shift markedly to the right or left.
-- Spectrographic and NAA testing of the shirt slits found no metallic residues on the front shirt slits, whereas such residues were found on the holes in the back of JFK’s shirt and coat. This finding agrees with the evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that the throat wound was an entrance wound, and that the slits were made by Parkland Hospital nurses as they hurried cut away JFK’s clothing.
-- In 2007, scientists at Texas A&M University reviewed the NAA research done by the WC and the HSCA and found that research to be markedly flawed, and they argued that the NAA results might actually indicate that more than one gunman was involved:
Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is A Second Shooter Possible?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf
-
BAD THINGS COME IN THREES FOR THE CONSPIRACY CROWD
1) Alek Hidell (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Dirty Harvey (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of making Lee Harvey Oswald a somebody
--------
BONUS
--------
BOOM>Click-Click
BOOM>Click-Click
BOOM>Click-Click
-
The vertical tears are rips with no material missing. The pluck-forward of material from the bullet would cause the vertical tears.
I already dealt with this silly GIF, but, as usual, you repost your claims without mentioning the counter-arguments, much less the refutations. The tears are not H-shaped, for starters, as I already noted.
Sure, argue with Hathcock, who is only considered the greatest Marine sniper of the 20th century. Yeah, what did he know? The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat either, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up and could take as long as they wanted to aim and fire their first shot.
Oh, Oswald didn't try when he fired at the range? Really? Then he was no serious marksman. When I was in the Army, even guys who were normally goof-offs and loafers tried their hardest at the range because marksmanship was considered a manly trait and because no one wanted to take the ribbing and teasing if they shot poorly.
-
I already dealt with this silly GIF, but, as usual, you repost your claims without mentioning the counter-arguments, much less the refutations. The tears are not H-shaped, for starters, as I already noted.
Sure, argue with Hathcock, who is only considered the greatest Marine sniper of the 20th century. Yeah, what did he know? The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat either, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up and could take as long as they wanted to aim and fire their first shot.
Oh, Oswald didn't try when he fired at the range? Really? Then he was no serious marksman. When I was in the Army, even guys who were normally goof-offs and loafers tried their hardest at the range because marksmanship was considered a manly trait and because no one wanted to take the ribbing and teasing if they shot poorly.
'Then he was no serious marksman'
Yet a marksman nevertheless
And what level did you attain
-
'Then he was no serious marksman'
Yet a marksman nevertheless.
How silly can you get? I guess if you want to define "marksman" as someone whose best day at the range was to barely qualify in the second of three categories, using a semi-automatic rifle against ground-level pop-up targets, after hours of practice--then, yeah, you can call him a "marksman."
Why do you suppose that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged feat, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor "sniper's nest," and were firing at stationary target boards?
And what level did you attain?
I qualified at all three levels: marksman, sharpshooter, and expert.
-
How silly can you get? I guess if you want to define "marksman" as someone whose best day at the range was to barely qualify in the second of three categories, using a semi-automatic rifle against ground-level pop-up targets, after hours of practice--then, yeah, you can call him a "marksman."
Why do you suppose that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged feat, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor "sniper's nest," and were firing at stationary target boards?
I qualified at all three levels: marksman, sharpshooter, and expert.
It would be cool if you could provide proof of those claims. In the meantime, have you ever had a day while shooting when you felt you were 'in-the-zone' so to speak? A kind of detachment, almost dreamlike. And have you ever 'peopled' (as opposed 'papered')?
-
There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:
1. The marksmanship feat alleged by the lone-gunman theory was far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, to perform.
False. A Marine recruit is trained to hit a human size target at 200, 300- and 500-yards using iron sights. The furthest shot at Dealey Plaza was 88 yards.
-- Oswald’s Marine rifle scores show that, at best, he was a mediocre marksman, and keep in mind he made those scores using a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to work) and while firing at stationary, ground-level targets, after hours of practice.
False. In his 1956 shooting tests he qualified with a rating of Sharpshooter. Most recruits only qualify as Marksman. Oswald did better than more than half the recruits who qualify as Marines. In the 1959 shooting tests, he barely qualified to be a Marine, but one still has to be a good shot, at 200, 300 and 500 yards, to do that.
Oswald was so proud of his shooting that he sent U. S. Marine Rifle Score Book home to his mother for safekeeping. Why would he do that if his shooting was terrible?
-- Most of Oswald’s fellow Marines who were asked about his shooting skills said he was a poor shot.
How do we know they were Marines who knew and remembered him? Did they remember him? Were they being trained in his same small group? Were they ever Marine recruits?
Do they have a motive to lie about this? Would their names be remembered at all if they answered “I don’t remember how well he shot”, or “I trained at the same time, but I don’t remember him being in our group” or “I was two months ahead of him”? Their only chance to have their own name remembered is to say they knew him, they remembered him and yes, he was a bad shot.
Even someone who was a real Marine, who really did know him, who really did remember him, has a motive to lie. The U. S. Marine Score Book has no motive to lie. And if it is a forgery, why was it sent to his mother at all? In 1956, did the conspirators already know they needed to frame Oswald as an assassin with a rifle? If so, why not frame some Marine who could shoot straight. There is no shortage of candidates.
-- Members of Oswald’s gun club in Minsk, Russia, said he was a poor shot.
False. He was a careless shot. He fired a quick shot the general direction of another member, because the rabbit was also in that general direction. The fact he missed the rabbit made no difference.
-- David Ferrie said Oswald was a terrible shot.
Did David Ferrie know Oswald, outside of a Civil Air Patrol meeting in 1955? Was there any rifle shooting going on at this meeting?
-- One of the most renowned snipers in U.S. Marine Corps history, Carlos Hathcock, tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting feat but failed to do so. After repeatedly trying and failing to duplicate Oswald’s supposed performance, Hathcock said he did not believe the WC’s shooting scenario.
False. We not have Carlos Hathcock saying that Oswald could not have made those shots. Instead, we have Craig Roberts claiming that Carlos Hathcock said that Oswald could not have made those shots.
If Robert’s story is true, how did Hathcock know what sort of scenario to test? The timing of the shots? The angles of the shots relative to the movement of the limousine? The speed of the limousine for each shot?
Did he have a copy of the Zapruder film? Did he also have still images of the Zapruder film? I would want all of this to come up with estimates.
Did Carlos Hathcock assume a steady speed of 20 mph? Did he use the wrong angles, where the target was moving at right angles and not almost directly away from the shooter?
And if Craig Roberts is telling the truth, why hasn’t any of the known associates of Carlos Hathcock stepped forward and say, yes, I remember Hathcock carrying out these tests at Quantico. And these are the angles used. And these are the speeds used.
-- The Warren Commission (WC) hired three Master-rated riflemen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. They used the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly used. They missed the head and neck area of the target board silhouettes 18 out of 18 times when they used the scope, and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sights. In other words, they missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times. Several of their misses were far apart on the boards. Some of their shots missed the silhouettes entirely.
True. Stop the presses.
But, military riflemen, firing at a target, just want to hit somewhere in the target, the silhouette of a head, neck and upper torso. Any hit anywhere in these three areas is considered a hit. They don’t get extra credit for hitting the head. So, I imagine they might aim at the ‘fat’ part of the target, the torso?
So, what instructions were they given? Were they told to ignore what they have been taught in the past, to not aim at the ‘fat’ part of the target but at the head?
In contrast, Oswald was, I assume, trying to maximize the odds of a kill. He might have been aiming at the head area for all three shots, which could easily result in one hit on the head and one on the neck.
It is revealing that these experienced, Master-rated riflemen shot so poorly even though they were allowed to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though two of them took longer than 6 seconds to fire, even though they were only firing from 30 feet up, and even though they were shooting at stationary--yes, stationary--target boards. Oswald would have been firing from 60 feet up and at a moving target.
The most likely scenario is that the three shots were fired over a span of 8.8 seconds, at z153, z222 and z312. The Warren Commission never said the three shots must have been fired within a 6 second span, only that they may have been fired within a 6 second span, or possibility a longer span of time.
2. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.
But the FBI tested C2766 rifle and WCC ammunition, firing 3 shots rapidly, tested the hands and cheek of the shooter with the paraffin test, and came up negative, just like they did with the paraffin test for Oswald’s cheek.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm)
. . .
-- The internal memos make it all the more revealing, and damning, that the WC falsely claimed that “expert testimony” said the paraffin test was “unreliable” (WCR, p. 180). The WC staffers who wrote the report may not have known about the Oak Ridge reenactments, but we know the FBI was aware of them (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).
But if the paraffin test is reliable, why had most major city police departments drop making the tests by 1963? Why isn’t the paraffin test used today by the police to see if anyone has recently fired a gun?
3. The lone-gunman theory requires the single-bullet theory (SBT). If the SBT is wrong, then at least four shots were fired at JFK and at least two gunmen were involved. The SBT is one of the most ridiculous, dubious theories ever put forth in a criminal investigation.
-- We now know from a number of released documents that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. We also know that even the second version of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The autopsy report that was submitted to the WC was written after Oswald was killed and after the government knew there would be no trial and thus no defense examination of the autopsy materials and no cross-examination of the autopsy doctors. Then and only then did the autopsy doctors claim that the throat wound was the back wound’s exit point.
The neither the back wound nor the throat wound had any exit point? It was just a coincidence that they are on opposite sides of the neck? And the holes in the clothes, both back and throat, indicate a shot from the back.
-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.
False. The clothes are used to make the definitive judgement. And the clothes shot the shot came from the back. And how could the shot come from the front without passing through the windshield? Who would be crazy enough to try a shot through the windshield without worrying about the shot being deflected? How could such a shot not go on to strike the back of the limousine or the Secret Service car just a few feet behind?
-
Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.777 In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." 778 The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.779
Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#marine
Based on this statement from the final report's conclusions...Oswald's shooting actually got worse :D
This is based on bench rest firing at a stationary target with a Springfield Armory M-1 Garand :-\
To accredit Lee Oswald as having been an accomplished proficient sniper based on his Marine training is just plain laughable silliness!
Question for anyone...Who wrote that final report anyway?
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#marine
Based on this statement from the final report's conclusions...Oswald's shooting actually got worse :D
This is based on bench rest firing at a stationary target with a Springfield Armory M-1 Garand :-\
To accredit Lee Oswald as having been an accomplished proficient sniper based on his Marine training is just plain laughable silliness!
Question for anyone...Who wrote that final report anyway?
Oswald's shooting actually got worse
Stop the presses. Like this is a new discovery? Yes. His scores got worse. In 1956 he was rated a sharpshooter, which is better than most Marine recruits who passed their shooting tests. In 1959, he barely rated as Marksman. But that is still good. To barely be rated as Marksman, you have to hit targets at 200, 300 and 500 yards, using the iron sights. So, hitting a target at 88 yards, with iron sights, does not seem to be beyond his capabilities.
As an aside, I would guess it was not unusual for Marines to do worse three years later if they chose to reenlist. Particularly if their duties do not require using the rifle but something else, like working with radar. Their most intensive training is generally during boot camp. I don’t think they are trained nearly as intensely, if at all, when they reenlist. At least, I have never heard that to be the case. If their skills have deteriorated too much and they will fail their rifle tests, they have to be retrained and retested. But this did not prove to be necessary for Oswald. He passed on his first attempt in 1959, just like he did in 1956.
-
Wow. You’re actually a 21 year veteran? You lost totally credibility the moment you said 399 was a “nearly pristine bullet”. Firstly, 399 wasn’t remotely pristine for multiple reasons. It was “leaking” toothpaste (lead) from its bottom indicating it had yawed at some point, which in this case was hitting bone as it bounced around Connally’s body. In addition the bullet was bowed considerably in its center. 399 behaved exactly as a full metal jacked bullet was designed to behave. More important however is your continued conspiracy bias and either ignorance of the actual evidence or your never ending attempts at deception. Anybody with your military experience surely must know in ballistics, ONLY a bullet never fired is considered pristine. Nearly pristine is an oxymoron.
-
In 1959, he barely rated as Marksman. But that is still good.
If you say so :D
-
Wow. You’re actually a 21 year veteran? You lost totally credibility the moment you said 399 was a “nearly pristine bullet”. Firstly, 399 wasn’t remotely pristine for multiple reasons. It was “leaking” toothpaste (lead) from its bottom indicating it had yawed at some point, which in this case was hitting bone as it bounced around Connally’s body. In addition the bullet was bowed considerably in its center. 399 behaved exactly as a full metal jacked bullet was designed to behave. More important however is your continued conspiracy bias and either ignorance of the actual evidence or your never ending attempts at deception. Anybody with your military experience surely must know in ballistics, ONLY a bullet never fired is considered pristine. Nearly pristine is an oxymoron.
If you really really want to get anal about it...a truly pristine bullet is one that has never even been loaded into a casing..... so what?
CE 399 was fired sure.
Into what--- no one will ever know.
-
If you really really want to get anal about it...a truly pristine bullet is one that has never even been loaded into a casing..... so what?
CE 399 was fired sure.
Into what--- no one will ever know.
Ridiculous you post this crap after 57 years. Nothing anal about it. The FACT is virtually every conspiracy type refers to 399 as “virtually”, “almost”, “practically” pristine. There was NOTHING remotely pristine about 399.
-
There was NOTHING remotely pristine about 399.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIN59nj-vbI/AAAAAAAAFQI/orGtgLLWo-E/s1600/CE573+&+CE399+Comparison.jpg)
Which bullet is the more "pristine"? Who is being ridiculous now?
Concession...CE 399 was fired from the 6th floor rifle. That was scientifically proven.
Other than that it is meaningless...we don't know when or where or into what it was fired.
-
This is embarrassing. You show the very same photo ALL conspiracy types show. I know you have other photos. Let’s see the bottom.
-
This is embarrassing. Let’s see the bottom.
OK----
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_Mooning.gif)
Now seriously...the bottom end of a projectile will LOGICALLY be deformed upon firing.
-
This is embarrassing. You show the very same photo ALL conspiracy types show. I know you have other photos. Let’s see the bottom.
Up and to the left*
Up and to the left
Up and to the left
'Pristine'... yeah, sure
*Inspiration: 'Back and to the left'
-
OK----
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_Mooning.gif)
You should wash your face before posting it.
And keep your mask on.
-
Up and to the left
Is that how you like it?
-
I believe this is perhaps the image that Jerry Freeman struggled to find:
(https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/2018/images/18-06-15/CE399-bullet.jpg)
Now seriously...the bottom end of a projectile will LOGICALLY be deformed upon firing.
If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.
Deformation upon firing, HA.
-
Is that how you like it?
Not on my bucket list.
First time you ever saw the butt-end view of ce399?
-
From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet? Surely they would've known this would arouse suspicion? Why not plant a smashed up bullet?
-
From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet? Surely they would've known this would arouse suspicion? Why not plant a smashed up bullet?
Because at that point no one knew that they were going to have to concoct the single-bullet theory. No one knew that Jackie was going to throw a monkey wrench into the cover-up plans by insisting that the autopsy be done at Bethesda instead of Walter Reed, as we now know from newly discovered Air Force One tapes.
And, yes, lots of bullets could make a 3-5 mm entry wound. You guys do realize that there are lots of other sizes of bullets besides 6.5 mm, right? Entry wounds in skin over soft tissue can be slightly smaller than the diameter of the bullet. So there is nothing unusual about a 3-5 mm entry wound in such cases.
-
Because at that point no one knew that they were going to have to concoct the single-bullet theory. No one knew that Jackie was going to throw a monkey wrench into the cover-up plans by insisting that the autopsy be done at Bethesda instead of Walter Reed, as we now know from newly discovered Air Force One tapes.
And, yes, lots of bullets could make a 3-5 mm entry wound. You guys do realize that there are lots of other sizes of bullets besides 6.5 mm, right? Entry wounds in skin over soft tissue can be slightly smaller than the diameter of the bullet. So there is nothing unusual about a 3-5 mm entry wound in such cases.
The cover-up plans??? You make this up on the fly or sit around for hours pontificating?
-
I believe this is perhaps the image that Jerry Freeman struggled to find:
(https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/2018/images/18-06-15/CE399-bullet.jpg)
If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.
Deformation upon firing, HA.
If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.
That may be true. I don't know enough about weapons to comment, but I can ask you how you know that this particular bullet struck Connally's rib?
-
From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet? Surely they would've known this would arouse suspicion? Why not plant a smashed up bullet?
Who said they (whoever "they" are) planted any bullet?
What if the bullet found by Tomlinson was indeed a different one (just like Wright told Josiah Thompson) and completely unrelated to the JFK murder? ...
Nobody in the chain of custody could identify the bullet, now in evidence as CE399, until it got to the FBI lab. As the rifle was also there, it would be easy to shoot some test rounds and "mix up" the bullets.... I'm not saying this happened, but it is within the realm of possibilities. Who knows what went on in the FBI lab during the first 24 hours after the murder....
-
From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet?
Note that even Mr Shields refers to 'a near pristine bullet'. And he is correct.
If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.
What an absurd statement. What would the bullet do---get stuck 1/2 way down the barrel? :D
That may be true. I don't know enough about weapons to comment, but I can ask you how you know that this particular bullet struck Connally's rib?
He absolutely 'knows' that CE 399 stuck and wounded two people because his brain is glued to the Warren Report.
-
The cover-up plans??? You make this up on the fly or sit around for hours pontificating?
Yes, the cover-up plans, as evidenced by the numerous Dealey Plaza witnesses who had their cameras and/or film taken, by the phony Secret Service agents in Dealey Plaza, by the Secret Service's forceful stealing of the body from Parkland Hospital to prevent a genuine autopsy from being performed on it, by the silencing of Oswald by Jack Ruby, by the murder of numerous witnesses and private researchers, by the disappearance of bullet fragments found during the autopsy, etc., etc., etc.
I'm guessing you know nothing about the new version of the Air Force One tapes that surfaced a few years ago, right? We now know that the plan was to separate Jackie from the casket but that she adamantly refused to go along, and that the Secret Service arranged for the body to be transported by helicopter to Bethesda.
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-af1-tapes-and-subsequent-events-at-andrews-afb-on-november-22-1963-what-was-supposed-to-happen-vs-what-did-happen/
The segment about the Air Force One tapes, the body, the casket, and Jackie and the body/casket starts at about 58:17:
-
I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.
* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:
“Evidential Implications of the Dermal Nitrate Test for Gunpowder Residues”
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2849&context=mulr
The article notes that the Turkel and Lipman study, which paraffin-test critics widely cited, and which the Colorado supreme court cited in its ruling against paraffin tests, was badly flawed and failed to conform to the “minimum requirements for scientific methodology.” The article further notes that the Harrison and Gilroy studies were much more precise and scientific than the Turkel and Lipman study.
* A key reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued is that most paraffin tests were done on hands, since most criminal shootings, like today, were done with handguns, not rifles. It was realized that false positives on hands were possible if the person had handled a number of common substances on the day of the shooting. If defense attorneys could show, or seem to show, that the accused had handled substances that could have left nitrates on his hands, the paraffin test’s evidentiary value was minimized or eliminated.
* Another reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued by police departments partly is that some courts ruled they were too unreliable, even though other courts, such as the Pennsylvania supreme court, ruled they were reliable enough as long as they were done properly.
* Paraffin tests done on cheeks were much more reliable because false positives were very unlikely. When a gunshot crime was committed with a rifle, the police would do a paraffin cast of the suspect’s right cheek (left cheek if he were left handed). The mold would then be tested spectrographically, usually by the police crime lab or by a locally contracted lab. If the paraffin cast tested positive for nitrates, mainly barium and antimony, this was viewed as strong evidence that the person had fired a rifle, and defense attorneys had a very hard time coming up innocent explanations for the presence of nitrates on the cheek.
* A 1991 article titled “Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests” in the Criminal Law Bulletin noted that gunshot residue tests done with neutron activation analysis (NAA) are extremely accurate: “Neutron activation analysis (NAA), a method for determining the elemental composition of substances, is extremely sensitive and accurate.”
However, the article also notes that NAA testing requires access to a nuclear reactor: “However, a principal disadvantage of NAA is the required access to a research nuclear reactor.”
“Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=133932
* It is very significant that the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek was tested with NAA at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and that the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the cast. This is powerful evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.
* There is a revealing and fascinating behind-the-scenes story about the NAA testing of Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast. Dr. Gerald McKnight discusses this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005).
In February 1964, Dr. Vincent Guinn contacted the FBI’s spectrographer, John Gallagher, to tell him the good news that reenactments done at the Oak Ridge facility proved that if Oswald fired a rifle three times in rapid succession, NAA testing of his paraffin cheek cast would positively detect nitrates in the cast:
The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, “leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts.” Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army’s World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue “on both cheeks” of the shooter. . . .
The test results . . . disclosed that every time the Mannlicher-Carcano was fired, the paraffin tests showed positive for barium and antimony. . . . (Breach of Trust, p. 259)
Guinn did not know that the FBI had already had Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast tested at Oak Ridge. When asked Guinn asked Gallagher for information about the Oswald paraffin casts, Gallagher stonewalled him and told him the information was unavailable at that time!
-
I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.
* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:
Well, I guess you can’t say that nothing but bad comes out of Marquette University.
I’m not talking about paraffin tests unless questions are answered.
Question 1:
The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.
So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?
Question 2:
If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?
Question 3:
If you answer Question 2 with “Because Nuclear Reactors are not available”, why is it that Nuclear Reactors used to be available for these tests, but no longer are?
Question 4:
And what do you mean by a “Nuclear Reactor”?
Like a full-size nuclear power plant? A small-scale research reactor? And why couldn’t such reactors be used today for critically important criminal cases? If paraffin tests are so reliable.
Surely, they would be used from time to time, in life or death (or life imprisonment cases), if the paraffin test was reliable.
-
The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.
Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims? Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.
So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?
If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?
I believe they are.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test
-
I believe this is perhaps the image that Jerry Freeman struggled to find:
(https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/2018/images/18-06-15/CE399-bullet.jpg)
If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.
Deformation upon firing, HA.
What happened to bullets merely fired into water------------------------
(https://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a72/leid/Ammo/975430f7-e25b-4dc2-8df0-f8278277668f_zps3f2ac699.jpg)
-
Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims?
I have provided that link a couple of times already. But here it is again:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
This specifically talks about, among other things, a man firing Oswald’s rifle three times, and a paraffin test coming up negative on him.
Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.
Actually, this is wrong. The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative. But gunpowder cannot escape the rifle near the hands or face as easily as it can Oswald’s handgun.
I believe they are.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test
You believe that paraffin tests are reliable. Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.
Phrenology is the “study” the heads of people, living or dead, to determine an individual’s natural tendency to commit crimes. Or to “prove” the inferiority of certain races.
-
The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative.
Nitrates are found on cardboard boxes which Oswald handled filling orders all morning.
-
You believe that paraffin tests are reliable. Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.
Let's stick to the topic.
-
One more picture of the various exhibits I can't find a clearer one I'm afraid [sorry]
(https://throughtheoswaldwindow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/HSCA-294.jpg?x49759)
-
Well, I guess you can’t say that nothing but bad comes out of Marquette University.
I’m not talking about paraffin tests unless questions are answered.
Question 1:
The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.
So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?
Question 2:
If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?
Question 3:
If you answer Question 2 with “Because Nuclear Reactors are not available”, why is it that Nuclear Reactors used to be available for these tests, but no longer are?
Question 4:
And what do you mean by a “Nuclear Reactor”?
Like a full-size nuclear power plant? A small-scale research reactor? And why couldn’t such reactors be used today for critically important criminal cases? If paraffin tests are so reliable.
Surely, they would be used from time to time, in life or death (or life imprisonment cases), if the paraffin test was reliable.
Blah, blah, blah. Just more of your dishonest ducking and dodging, and more of your dishonest strawman arguments (however, I'll stipulate that if they are not dishonest, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem).
I notice you ignored the fact that in the Oak Ridge tests, every single time a person fired a Carcano, the paraffin cast of his cheek tested positive for nitrates in NAA testing. Every. Single. Time.
That's why Guinn was so thrilled by the tests, and that's why he called Gallagher with the good news. Guinn thought they had a way to nail Oswald, a way to prove he had fired a rifle, because he knew that if Oswald had fired a rifle, especially three times in rapid succession, NAA testing of the paraffin cast of his cheek would detect nitrates. The only problem was that Guinn did not know that the FBI had already had Oswald's paraffin casts tested with NAA and that the cheek cast had tested negative for nitrates. Oops. Uh-oh.
Why do you suppose Gallagher did not tell Guinn about this fact? Humm? Why? And why do you suppose the FBI withheld this information from the WC? Hey? Why?
There is a big difference in reliability between paraffin tests done with regular spectrographic testing and paraffin tests done with NAA. The Marquette Law Review article makes the case that even regular paraffin tests had a high degree of accuracy when done properly. The Oak Ridge reenactments prove that paraffin tests done with NAA are vastly more accurate.
I'm guessing you did not even bother to read the article from the Marquette Law Review on the reliability of paraffin tests, since apparently, judging from your verbiage, that journal suddenly doesn't qualify as a credible source in your eyes. Of course, when you're too biased and/or too lazy to read research that you know will challenge your position, the easy way out is to just wave it aside and attack where it was published, even if it was published in a widely respected law journal that has been around for over 100 years.
Nobody said that nuclear reactors are no longer available for NAA. Nor did anyone say that NAA is no longer used to test for gunshot residue. Where do you get those strawman arguments? I said that NAA testing is far more expensive and labor intensive than spectrographic testing because NAA must be done with a research nuclear reactor. Did your brain not process the statement from the article on gunshot residue (GSR) testing that “However, a principal disadvantage of NAA is the required access to a research nuclear reactor"?
NAA is still used for GSR testing, but SEM/EDX GSR testing is the preferred method because it is much cheaper and easier to do and yet is highly accurate. See, for example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850715000308
GSR is no longer collected with paraffin wax because they now use a different kind of adhesive, but the method and principle is the same: an adhesive substance is applied to a part of the skin and then that substance is tested for GSR. One type of commonly used adhesive contains carbon, which makes it black in color and enables it to conduct electrons in SEM analysis. Sometimes a clear adhesive lifter is used, but this method requires the application of an extra step of carbon coating to prevent the elector beam from hitting and charging the sample during SEM analysis. The adhesive is normally attached to an aluminum stub that is built into the cap of a collection container. The criminalist removes the cap to expose the tape, and then he presses the cap onto a part of the skin to collect the GSR sample.
Now that we have sifted through your ducking and dodging and strawman arguments, when are you going to address the fact that in the Oak Ridge tests, when a person fired a Carcano, the paraffin casts of their cheek tested positive for nitrates when subjected to NAA? Every. Single. Time. When are you going to deal with this fact?
-
“-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.”
It’s interesting that the quote “small entry” hole in JFK’s throat is used. So it was fired from the front, now I am thinking it’s the shot from the grassy knoll. James File, I know, I know, said he used a Remington .221 Firefox pistol with sight to kill JFK. That’s about as small as you can get. I know it’s only .002 smaller than a .223 but in my research I find nothing about any massive damage by a .221 like the damage a frangible .223 does. So the shooter hit JFK in the throat, the weapon is easily concealable, he gets away.
-
“-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.”
It’s interesting that the quote “small entry” hole in JFK’s throat is used. So it was fired from the front, now I am thinking it’s the shot from the grassy knoll. James File, I know, I know, said he used a Remington .221 Firefox pistol with sight to kill JFK. That’s about as small as you can get. I know it’s only .002 smaller than a .223 but in my research I find nothing about any massive damage by a .221 like the damage a frangible .223 does. So the shooter hit JFK in the throat, the weapon is easily concealable, he gets away.
The Feds eventually ignored Dr. Perry's opinion that the missile that hit the throat ranged downward into the chest. In connection with this, it is very curious that the chest x-rays and photos are missing from the autopsy materials. The bruising that one of the medical technicians saw in Kennedy's chest after the doctors removed the chest organs tends to support Perry's conclusion.
Nurse Henchliffe, who in her many years as an ER nurse had seen many bullet wounds, told the WC that the throat wound looked like a typical entrance wound and that she had never seen exit wound that looked like that.
The throat-wound missile might well have been a fragment of glass from the windshield. We now know that there was a neat, round through-and-through hole in the windshield. Some experts, including Dr. Mantik, believe that a glass fragment struck Kennedy in the throat.
-
I was wondering about chest x-rays, now I know why there aren’t any, be proof of another shooter.
I think if the bullet did hit the windshield I doubt the collision would generate a piece of glass and send it straight at JFK. Typically when a bullet hits glass it goes straight through and sends the broken bits of glass outward away from the bullet. Also more likely the bullet because the shooter was aiming at JFK.
I think by lining up the hole in the windshield and JFK’s throat one might place the shooter. Would be a fun project if we had an overhead view and bullet hole location in glass, elevation, etc.
-
I think this video that was in the movie "JFK" is spot on.
-
Well, well, it turns out that one member of the Warren Commission (WC) and one of the WC attorneys knew that neutron activation analysis (NAA) had found no traces of nitrates on the paraffin mold of Oswald’s cheek, and that this meant he had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination. WC attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, a memo that came to light years later and only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg. Said Redlich,
At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. … There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle. (Memo from Redlich to Dulles, 7/2/1964)
This contradicts the WC’s later claim that nitrates were found on both sides of the paraffin cast of Oswald’s cheek and that therefore the paraffin test was “unreliable.”
The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit also reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found NAA to be 100% reliable. Since the test required a nuclear reactor, the test was done on the FBI’s behalf at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Oak Ridge facility. Seven men fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).
The Weisberg-released documents show that FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham lied through his teeth about the paraffin tests in his WC testimony. Yet, WC apologists such as John McAdams still cite Cunningham’s testimony to justify their rejection of the negative paraffin results on Oswald’s cheek cast.
Moreover, in the Oak Ridge control test, two of the seven shooters also underwent the standard diphenylamine paraffin test, the same kind of test the Dallas police used, and in both cases their cheek casts tested positive for nitrates (General Atomic Report GA-6152 to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 10-11). Also, all seven shooters had to wait three or four hours after firing the rifle before the paraffin molds were made of their cheeks.
Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin, says the following about Oswald’s paraffin test:
Paraffin tests test on a well-known fact that when a rifle is fired, gases blow back on the shooter’s face and hands, depositing detectable residues. At midnight on November 22, the Dallas police performed the normal tests on Oswald to detect any deposits, using warm liquid paraffin on his right cheek and both hands to make casts. As it hardened, the paraffin would remove and capture any deposits from his skin and pores. Police sent the casts to Dr. Martin F. Mason, director of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigative Laboratory at Parkland Memorial Hospital, who at 10:45 AM on November 23 tested them with reagent diphenyl-benzidine. The results showed “no traces of nitrates” on the right cheek, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle. . . .
In its Report the Commission dismisses paraffin tests by asserting that “a positive reaction is . . . valueless” in showing a suspect fired a weapon and thus “unreliable.” This is disingenuous. To be sure, ink, paper, and many other common objects that Oswald’s hands touched that day during the normal course of his work could have caused a positive reaction, but as the Commission’s own official evidence proved, the absence of traces is exculpatory. Oswald’s cheek had none; he had not fired a rifle.
Not satisfied with the Dallas testing, the FBI in its laboratory also performed a more refined spectrographic test of the samples, a scientific test used by law enforcement for 60 years in similar cases. The FBI lab drew the same conclusion about residues on the cheek. Then, under pressure from the Commission, the FBI submitted the paraffin casts to a third, even more sophisticated test. They took the samples to the Atomic Energy Commission facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. . . .
Upon receiving word of the findings, FBI headquarters immediately ordered its agents not to release or make known the results to anyone in order “to protect the Bureau”. . . . Nevertheless, after a bitterly contested lawsuit that lasted ten years, critic Harold Weisberg and his attorney James Lesar obtained the NAA raw data and the results from the bureau and the Oak Ridge authorities.
Weisberg discovered an additional element to the tests that was devastating for the official findings. The FBI had used a control in making the tests. Seven different men had fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and NAA officials had made paraffin casts of their cheeks, which were then tested for residues by the reactor. The control firings had deposited heavy residues on the control cheeks. Oswald’s check cast had no such residues or any traces whatsoever. He had not fired a rifle. (The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp. 171-172)
We all know that if Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast had tested positive for nitrates in the DPD diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, in the FBI spectrographic paraffin test, and in the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test, the WC would have hailed this as powerful evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/1963, and WC apologists would still be parroting this position to this day. But, since Oswald’s cheek cast tested negative for nitrates in all three of those tests, WC apologists bend over backward to not only ignore the negative results but to discredit even the NAA paraffin test, even though the FBI’s own control test found that the NAA paraffin test was 100% reliable.
WC apologists handle the paraffin test evidence the same way they handle the HSCA acoustical evidence: They cite some government/government-hired expert's critique of the evidence and then ignore subsequent disclosures on the evidence and ignore scholarly responses to the government-sponsored critique.
-
It’s curious, when you look at top down photo of where the JFK limo and the grassy knoll are located. A shot from the grassy knoll would be to JFK’s right, not front. So no windshield issues, no glass issues. But the throat shot had to have come from the front, where could a shooter have shot from the front. Overpass had a policeman on it. What am I missing??
-
It’s curious, when you look at top down photo of where the JFK limo and the grassy knoll are located. A shot from the grassy knoll would be to JFK’s right, not front. So no windshield issues, no glass issues. But the throat shot had to have come from the front, where could a shooter have shot from the front. Overpass had a policeman on it. What am I missing??
Maybe from the storm drain on the north side of the Elm St.
-
It’s curious, when you look at top down photo of where the JFK limo and the grassy knoll are located. A shot from the grassy knoll would be to JFK’s right, not front. So no windshield issues, no glass issues. But the throat shot had to have come from the front, where could a shooter have shot from the front. Overpass had a policeman on it. What am I missing??
Journalist Richard Dudman, who got a long, good look at the windshield hole, said the hole was high up in the left-hand corner of the windshield. Even a bullet penetrating the windshield from the right front could have sprayed glass fragments toward JFK.
Interestingly, Tom Robinson, the mortician, noticed three tiny holes in JFK's cheek, near the right eye. He recalled these tiny holes because embalming fluid was leaking from them. These wounds could not have been caused by debris coming from inside the cheek: the major brain trauma sites were too far away, and bone would have obstructed a path from the brain anyway. Something must have struck JFK's cheek from the outside.
Dr. Mantik devotes four pages to this issue in Murder in Dealey Plaza, pp. 257-260. Among many other things, he says,
And then I wondered, if there really had been a complete hole in the windshield (Larry Sneed, No More Silence 1998, pp. 147-148), was it possible that a fragment of glass had caused the throat wound? It met all of the requirements: it was radiolucent, it had a limited range, the pathologists (probably) would not have seen it, and, furthermore, the bullet might even have come from the right front. In particular, spray of glass particles, diverging in a cone (even from a right front shot) might have permitted some of them to strike JFK in a left to right direction. (p. 258)
-
I just did some investigating on my own and found some illustrations; one by Don Roberdeau and one by Ian Greenhalgh. Don’s illustration is a bullet path from the hole in the windshield to JFK’s throat. Ian’s illustration is a top view of Dealy Plaza showing JFK limo in various locations along the route with Z film frame numbers. I estimated the frame number JFK was hit in the throat at about 218, because he was behind the sign when hit. Then I reduced bullet path illustration and taped it to the Dealy Plaza at the approximate frame location I choose. By extending the bullet path you see where it would have come from, a parking area on the far side of Commerce St.
Parking lot: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dealey+Plaza/@32.77807,-96.8091258,137m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9915d508f639:0xcfa47bf25b709fe0!8m2!3d32.7788184!4d-96.8082993
Bullet path illustration: https://imgur.com/bx7eamY
Dealy Plaza map: http://www.septclues.com/USA%20FAKERY/DealeyPlazaMAP_IanGreenhalgh.jpg
-
I just did some investigating on my own and found some illustrations; one by Don Roberdeau and one by Ian Greenhalgh. Don’s illustration is a bullet path from the hole in the windshield to JFK’s throat. Ian’s illustration is a top view of Dealy Plaza showing JFK limo in various locations along the route with Z film frame numbers. I estimated the frame number JFK was hit in the throat at about 218, because he was behind the sign when hit. Then I reduced bullet path illustration and taped it to the Dealy Plaza at the approximate frame location I choose. By extending the bullet path you see where it would have come from, a parking area on the far side of Commerce St.
Parking lot: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dealey+Plaza/@32.77807,-96.8091258,137m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9915d508f639:0xcfa47bf25b709fe0!8m2!3d32.7788184!4d-96.8082993
Bullet path illustration: https://imgur.com/bx7eamY
Dealy Plaza map: http://www.septclues.com/USA%20FAKERY/DealeyPlazaMAP_IanGreenhalgh.jpg
Sherry Fiester did some work on this. According to her trajectory, the bullet was fired from the south grassy knoll (the other knoll).This bullet went through the windscreen, hence why so many witnesses saw a hole in the windscreen, and hit JFK in the head exiting out the right rear, just like the Parkland doctors confirmed the wound was.
-
"Sherry Fiester did some work on this. According to her trajectory, the bullet was fired from the south grassy knoll (the other knoll).This bullet went through the windscreen, hence why so many witnesses saw a hole in the windscreen, and hit JFK in the head exiting out the right rear, just like the Parkland doctors confirmed the wound was."
Where was the entry wound? Thanks for the tip about Sherry Fiester, I will check it out.
-
Maybe from the storm drain on the north side of the Elm St.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Ytd6ERaOrDsacilcXuXmYNwFK46naEl5Gw3GtzMovRiipH0r3DrrxbBFzJKVl5r3uswVc5TXzFkj0SC_Z6qtAVbfj85Gbt9SiyFcVjwu39eg4adzOPvVWibHt0NOZbU__w=w1280)
-
It’s curious, when you look at top down photo of where the JFK limo and the grassy knoll are located. A shot from the grassy knoll would be to JFK’s right, not front. So no windshield issues, no glass issues. But the throat shot had to have come from the front, where could a shooter have shot from the front. Overpass had a policeman on it. What am I missing??
There is lots of glass. There is the (semi-permanent) small side glass on the central partition. There is the (i think electric) door glass, shown half wound up on the Nellie side in the pix (the wind must have had a bit of south in it, it would have been cold on the faster sections of the motorcade). I bet that these glasses were extra thick.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/mz65Il1Bg2soh96gihyqVbZ8LYvarpQgR1bVmvHNZYA2G_aezDnhYAVnUB5rcbNNyWL5GeViZ_gJyJzFWio5al7wuExLru9zo3qim4oBwzPSGywd8VE3t_GYg2hQfaitnw=w1280)
-
There is lots of glass. There is the (semi-permanent) small side glass on the central partition. There is the (i think electric) door glass, shown half wound up on the Nellie side in the pix (the wind must have had a bit of south in it, it would have been cold on the faster sections of the motorcade). I bet that these glasses were extra thick.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/mz65Il1Bg2soh96gihyqVbZ8LYvarpQgR1bVmvHNZYA2G_aezDnhYAVnUB5rcbNNyWL5GeViZ_gJyJzFWio5al7wuExLru9zo3qim4oBwzPSGywd8VE3t_GYg2hQfaitnw=w1280)
Yeah... x-tra thick, uh....... what is WRONG with you ????
-
The baseless assertation that Oswald cannot be the assassin because it required some uncanny marksmanship abilities that he did not possess is among the weakest but most persistent CTer claims. First, Oswald was trained to shoot in the US Marines. He was not some rube who had no experience with rifles. Second, the longest distance at which he hit JFK that day was entirely within the capabilities of an individual trained by the US Marines. Charles Whitman, with similar training, hit human targets at much longer distances. Third, the timeframe for firing the shots is uncertain because we do not know the exact sequence in which the shots were fired. Oswald may have had as much or more than ten seconds or more seconds to fire all his shots depending on the sequence and timing. Nothing about Oswald's marksmanship or his rifle precludes him as the assassin.
-
Whitman had been out of the Marines 20 months. Oswald had been out of the Marines for over 4 years.
-
There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:
3. The lone-gunman theory requires the single-bullet theory (SBT). If the SBT is wrong, then at least four shots were fired at JFK and at least two gunmen were involved. The SBT is one of the most ridiculous, dubious theories ever put forth in a criminal investigation.
-- No one has yet been able to explain how any non-deformed bullet could have made the irregular H-shaped tears in the front of Connally’s shirt, but the SBT says that CE 399, a nearly pristine bullet, somehow made those tears.
-- We now know from a number of released documents that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. We also know that even the second version of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The autopsy report that was submitted to the WC was written after Oswald was killed and after the government knew there would be no trial and thus no defense examination of the autopsy materials and no cross-examination of the autopsy doctors. Then and only then did the autopsy doctors claim that the throat wound was the back wound’s exit point.
-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.
-- CE 399, the SBT’s bullet that supposedly caused all of JFK’s and Connally’s non-fatal wounds, is virtually pristine. Its lands and grooves are even intact, and it is missing virtually no substance. However, every single bullet from the WC’s wound ballistics tests that struck one or more bones emerged with considerably more damage and deformity than CE 399 exhibits.
-- According to the SBT, CE 399 somehow nicked JFK’s tie knot when it allegedly exited his throat, but the nick on the knot is visibly inward from the edge of the knot.
-- CE 399 supposedly also made the irregular slits in the front of JFK’s shirt, but even a cursory examination of the slits shows that if a bullet had made them, that bullet would have had to go through the middle part of the tie knot—not dead center but at some point between the edges of the knot. Photos and video of JFK taken 1-5 minutes before he was shot show his tie knot in its normal position in the center of the collar. The actions of waving his hand and turning his head would not have caused his tie knot to shift markedly to the right or left.
-- Spectrographic and NAA testing of the shirt slits found no metallic residues on the front shirt slits, whereas such residues were found on the holes in the back of JFK’s shirt and coat. This finding agrees with the evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that the throat wound was an entrance wound, and that the slits were made by Parkland Hospital nurses as they hurried cut away JFK’s clothing.
-- In 2007, scientists at Texas A&M University reviewed the NAA research done by the WC and the HSCA and found that research to be markedly flawed, and they argued that the NAA results might actually indicate that more than one gunman was involved:
Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is A Second Shooter Possible?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf
Ignore CE 399 and the Single Bullet Theory is perfectly feasible.
There is evidence, particularly from Connally's wrist wound, that the bullet that passes through both men fragments, ruling out CE 399 as the bullet.
Take CE 399 out of the equation and there is no problem with both men being shot through by the same bullet.
-
Ignore CE 399 and the Single Bullet Theory is perfectly feasible.
There is evidence, particularly from Connally's wrist wound, that the bullet that passes through both men fragments, ruling out CE 399 as the bullet.
Take CE 399 out of the equation and there is no problem with both men being shot through by the same bullet.
The problem is Governor Connally stated he heard the first shot, turned to look over his right shoulder but failing to see the President was in the process of turning back when he was hit in the back by a second bullet. Mrs. Connally said her husband was hit by the second bullet, and the President already had his hands at his throat when that happened.
Both the FBI and the SS committed to the 3 shots - 3 hits scenario.
-
Whitman had been out of the Marines 20 months. Oswald had been out of the Marines for over 4 years.
Thanks for pointing that out, Neil... explains why the little nobody missed Walker and the first shot at the somebody in the limo. You know, just getting the kinks out..
-
This is embarrassing. You show the very same photo ALL conspiracy types show. I know you have other photos. Let’s see the bottom.
'Pristine'.. yeah, sure
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SHz79HN/pristine-haha.png)
-
'virtually pristine'
'non-deformed'
Okay, sure
::)
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SHz79HN/pristine-haha.png)
Let's see you get your head squished to that extent and see how 'non-deformed' and 'pristine' you feel, Michael.
OUCH!
-
The baseless assertation that Oswald cannot be the assassin because it required some uncanny marksmanship abilities that he did not possess is among the weakest but most persistent CTer claims. First, Oswald was trained to shoot in the US Marines. He was not some rube who had no experience with rifles. Second, the longest distance at which he hit JFK that day was entirely within the capabilities of an individual trained by the US Marines. Charles Whitman, with similar training, hit human targets at much longer distances. Third, the timeframe for firing the shots is uncertain because we do not know the exact sequence in which the shots were fired. Oswald may have had as much or more than ten seconds or more seconds to fire all his shots depending on the sequence and timing. Nothing about Oswald's marksmanship or his rifle precludes him as the assassin.
In addition, the clock starts at the first shot so whatever these brainiacs claim as total time elapsed, the nobody needs only coax/massage the bolt action back & forth a couple of times during any given time frame.
-
'Pristine'.. yeah, sure
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SHz79HN/pristine-haha.png)
Mr.Chapman,
I have the feeling you are being deceptive about the 'pristine bullet.' Granted, your Commission's exhibit 399 has a flattened base. This bullet, according to the Warren Report, smashed 4 inches of rib bone in the Governor's chest, and proceeded to fracture the wrist of the Governor before lodging in his left thigh.
A similar bullet was fired through the wrist of a human cadaver, this is CE 856. Note the mushrooming of the nose of the bullet:
(http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg)
What is your explanation for the fact that CE 399's nose is almost fully intact, save the sample that the FBi took for their examinations?
-
The problem is Governor Connally stated he heard the first shot, turned to look over his right shoulder but failing to see the President was in the process of turning back when he was hit in the back by a second bullet. Mrs. Connally said her husband was hit by the second bullet, and the President already had his hands at his throat when that happened.
Both the FBI and the SS committed to the 3 shots - 3 hits scenario.
Watch the Z-film.
It's inescapable that both men react at the same instant.
-
Watch the Z-film.
It's inescapable that both men react at the same instant.
I'm sorry, I mistakenly believed you had a genuine interest in the case, but au contraire you have embraced the US Government's version of events. I hope one day you will wake up and realize not everything the government tells you is true.
-
Mr.Chapman,
I have the feeling you are being deceptive about the 'pristine bullet.' Granted, your Commission's exhibit 399 has a flattened base. This bullet, according to the Warren Report, smashed 4 inches of rib bone in the Governor's chest, and proceeded to fracture the wrist of the Governor before lodging in his left thigh.
A similar bullet was fired through the wrist of a human cadaver, this is CE 856. Note the mushrooming of the nose of the bullet:
(http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg)
What is your explanation for the fact that CE 399's nose is almost fully intact, save the sample that the FBi took for their examinations?
First of all, the main 'non-pristine' part of 399 is the squishing along the side which—in turn—causes the butt end to lose its normal, circular shape.
Additionally, a cadaver a few feet away (adjusted powder-load notwithstanding) just ain't the same as firing from the exact same Oswaldian angle & distance.
-
I'm sorry, I mistakenly believed you had a genuine interest in the case, but au contraire you have embraced the US Government's version of events. I hope one day you will wake up and realize not everything the government tells you is true.
I have a genuine interest in trying to understand the evidence to the best of my ability.
The Z-film shows both men reacting simultaneously in a very extreme manner.
If they are reacting to a being shot then they were both shot at the same time.
It's really obvious.
You choose not to see it.
-
I have a genuine interest in trying to understand the evidence to the best of my ability.
The Z-film shows both men reacting simultaneously in a very extreme manner.
If they are reacting to a being shot then they were both shot at the same time.
It's really obvious.
You choose not to see it.
I am sorry I was a bit snappy, didn't mean to :(
From memory: the Governor stated that he was hit around Z-234 to Z-237. He has further stated that he heard the first shot, had time to think and time to turn, and was in the process of turning back when he was hit in the back. His wife said that after she heard the first shot, she looked at the President and she observed he had his hands at his throat. Then the second shot came in and it hit the Governor, who was pushed to the right front.
Surely the Governor and his wife weren't fools who couldn't count. We can't just ignore the testimony of the guy WHO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT in favour of an interpretation of the Z-film. There are many interpretations. We are handicapped by the fact that the road sign blocked Zapruder's and our view, and we will never know what happened while the limousine and its occupants were behind it. From Zapruder's perspective that is.
So you have to consider two contradictory pieces of evidence: the witness testimony and the Z-film. You say I ignore the Z-film, but aren't you choosing to disregard the Governor's and his wife's sworn statements?
-
Thanks for pointing that out, Neil... explains why the little nobody missed Walker and the first shot at the someday in the limo. You know, just getting the kinks out..
Like you actually know that there was a first shot that missed or that Oswald fired it. Even an actual parrot is more discerning.
-
In addition, the clock starts at the first shot so whatever these brainiacs claim as total time elapsed, the nobody needs only coax/massage the bolt action back & forth a couple of times during any given time frame.
Like you know when the first shot occurred, Polly.
-
Additionally, a cadaver a few feet away (adjusted powder-load notwithstanding) just ain't the same as firing from the exact same Oswaldian angle & distance.
Like you know what CE399 was fired at and from how far away, Polly.
-
Surely the Governor and his wife weren't fools who couldn't count. We can't just ignore the testimony of the guy WHO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT in favour of an interpretation of the Z-film.
Thumb1:
But Mr. Rorschach, why do you have so many pictures of my parents fighting?
-
I am sorry I was a bit snappy, didn't mean to :(
From memory: the Governor stated that he was hit around Z-234 to Z-237. He has further stated that he heard the first shot, had time to think and time to turn, and was in the process of turning back when he was hit in the back. His wife said that after she heard the first shot, she looked at the President and she observed he had his hands at his throat. Then the second shot came in and it hit the Governor, who was pushed to the right front.
Surely the Governor and his wife weren't fools who couldn't count. We can't just ignore the testimony of the guy WHO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT in favour of an interpretation of the Z-film. There are many interpretations. We are handicapped by the fact that the road sign blocked Zapruder's and our view, and we will never know what happened while the limousine and its occupants were behind it. From Zapruder's perspective that is.
So you have to consider two contradictory pieces of evidence: the witness testimony and the Z-film. You say I ignore the Z-film, but aren't you choosing to disregard the Governor's and his wife's sworn statements?
"We can't just ignore the testimony of the guy WHO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT in favour of an interpretation of the Z-film"
Agreed, JBC's testimony can't be ignored but if his testimony contains things that aren't in the Z-film you must surely agree that, in terms of evidence, the Z-film takes precedence.
Another point to make, that is rarely taken into account when examining JBC's testimony, is that he is recalling an event so traumatic that he didn't even know his wrist was shattered at the time. It was a life-and-death moment and it has been well documented that traumatic events can distort the memory:
"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."
"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."
"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."
"Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?" [Chess Stetson,Matthew P. Fiesta,David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:
I believe such distortions are present in JBC's recollection of events surrounding the shooting.
For instance, JBC testifies that after hearing the first shot he turned to look over his right shoulder to see the President. There is only one moment when JBC turns to look over his right shoulder in the Z-film and that is after he is shot.
He has described the time interval between hearing the first shot and being hit as a "split second". It is also worth noting that he clearly hears the first shot and immediately recognises it as a rifle shot yet he doesn't hear the shot that hits him (a split second later)
He chooses z231-234 as the moment he is shot. I would argue this is the moment he is aware of being shot. This may seem like splitting hairs but there is a time-lag between a stimulus and the conscious awareness of that stimulus:
"Human thought takes time to form, and so the “right now” that we’re experiencing inside our skulls is always a little later than what’s going on in the outside world. It takes 500 milliseconds, or half a second, for sensory information from the outside world to be incorporated into conscious experience."
[https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/what-is-the-speed-of-thought.html#:~:text=Human%20thought%20takes%20time%20to,be%20incorporated%20into%20conscious%20experience.]
500 milliseconds is roughly 9 z-frames meaning the shot actually struck JBC in the range of z222-225. This is the exact moment of the Z-film JFK and JBC begin simultaneous and extreme physical movements indicative of a reflex reaction to a severe external stimulus (ie: being shot)
-
Like you actually know that there was a first shot that missed or that Oswald fired it. Even an actual parrot is more discerning.
I don't need to know; actual attendees (at any given scene) saw/said, despite you attempting to tell us what they saw or said.
-
Like you know what CE399 was fired at and from how far away, Polly.
I don't need to know, Cracker.
-
Like you actually know that there was a first shot that missed or that Oswald fired it. Even an actual parrot is more discerning.
I don't need to know, Cracker.
-
I don't need to know; actual attendees (at any given scene) saw/said, despite you attempting to tell us what they saw or said.
Sure Chapman. Regale us with your knowledge of exactly what "attendees" saw a first shot that missed or Oswald firing such a shot.
-
Sure Chapman. Regale us with your knowledge of exactly what "attendees" saw a first shot that missed or Oswald firing such a shot.
Royce Skelton
See/Say Attendee
JBK* Motorcade
Dealey Plaza
SAW/SAID
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Skelton.htm
DALLAS SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: November 22, 1963.
19H496
I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman say, "Oh no," or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the South away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane. [Statement does not reveal where Skelton thought the shots came from.]

FBI REPORT: December 17, 1963.
CD205
Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building. A few seconds later, he heard what he believed to be three shots. He did not see anyone fall but he saw a woman grab someone and hold him and heard her say "Oh, no! Oh, no!" It seemed as if the car slowed down for few seconds and then he heard a voice say something to the effect of: "Get out of here," and the car quickly sped away.

DEPOSITION: April 8, 1964.
6H237
Mr. SKELTON. Just about the same time the car straightened up-got around the corner-I heard two shots, but I didn't know at that time they were shots.
Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?
Mr. SKELTON. Well, I couldn't tell then, they were still so far from where I was.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there-more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were theses dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car.
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
*Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy
-
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
That would be towards the underpass and up behind the knoll area wouldn't it?
-
That would be towards the underpass and up behind the knoll area wouldn't it?
Skelton said he was standing on the underpass when he observed all of this. And he said it sounded like the shots came from, "Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away." So any sound TOWARDS the underpass would be at him; since, again, that was where he was located.
Question: How could JFK and JC get shot in their backs from someone shooting from the knoll or underpass?
-
Royce Skelton
See/Say Attendee
JBK* Motorcade
Dealey Plaza
SAW/SAID
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Skelton.htm
DALLAS SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: November 22, 1963.
19H496
I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman say, "Oh no," or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the South away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane. [Statement does not reveal where Skelton thought the shots came from.]

FBI REPORT: December 17, 1963.
CD205
Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building. A few seconds later, he heard what he believed to be three shots. He did not see anyone fall but he saw a woman grab someone and hold him and heard her say "Oh, no! Oh, no!" It seemed as if the car slowed down for few seconds and then he heard a voice say something to the effect of: "Get out of here," and the car quickly sped away.

DEPOSITION: April 8, 1964.
6H237
Mr. SKELTON. Just about the same time the car straightened up-got around the corner-I heard two shots, but I didn't know at that time they were shots.
Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?
Mr. SKELTON. Well, I couldn't tell then, they were still so far from where I was.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there-more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were theses dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car.
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
*Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy
Later in the same testimony Skelton makes it clear when he saw the smoke and it wasn't after the first shot:
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?
Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.
There was no early missed shot.
-
Skelton said he was standing on the underpass when he observed all of this.
Be that as it may...saying 'shots towards the President's car' wouldn't otherwise make any sense.
Question: How could JFK and JC get shot in their backs from someone shooting from the knoll or underpass?
No one has ever asserted that. However, locations of more than one shooter would easily explain that.
I know..prove there was more than one shooter---It goes around in circles.
-
Be that as it may...saying 'shots towards the President's car' wouldn't otherwise make any sense.No one has ever asserted that. However, locations of more than one shooter would easily explain that.
I know..prove there was more than one shooter---It goes around in circles.
Well, he later said "Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away." "Towards the President's car" and "Right around the motorcycles" is muddled as heck.
Anyway, my point (there was one) is that if one cites the earwitnesses who said all of the shots sounded like they came from the knoll then that can't be right. At least one shot came from behind the limo. If there were two shooters/locations then they need to say they sounded like they came from multiple locations wouldn't they?
For what it's worth, I think putting a shooter behind the fence or on the underpass makes no sense at all. It's too open among other problems. If these were professional hitmen that seems to be risky. I would guess. Doesn't mean it didn't happen just that it's dumb.
-
Royce Skelton
So which was it: concrete, dust, or smoke? And if he saw 2 things hit the pavement were they both a "missed first shot"? And how do you know they didn't hit something before hitting the pavement and in fact were not missed shots at all?
Or you can just interpret this to tell whatever story you feel like believing.
-
Question: How could JFK and JC get shot in their backs from someone shooting from the knoll or underpass?
Why automatically assume there was exactly one shooter?
-
Later in the same testimony Skelton makes it clear when he saw the smoke and it wasn't after the first shot:
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?
Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.
There was no early missed shot.
Thumb1: Thanks Dan. Not only that, but he's just guessing that it was a bullet.
-
Why automatically assume there was exactly one shooter?
No assumption needed: There's no evidence of a second weapon being fired.
-
No assumption needed: There's no evidence of a second weapon being fired.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't you learned anything yet?
-
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't you learned anything yet?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Like Oswald on the stairway..
-
Entry wound in JKF's throat proves more than one shooter. JFK getting hit with a frangible round in the head proves there was more than one shooter. If the bullet that hit JFK in the throat came through the windshield, that proves more than one shooter.
Summing it up, both JFK and JC were hit by bullet(s) coming from the rear of them. JFK's throat wound came from the front and the frangible round that hit JFK in the head came from the rear.
-
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Like Oswald on the stairway..
BS.. the evidence of absence is Dorothy Garner not seeing anybody on or near the stairs between Adams & Styles going down and Truly & Baker coming up. Rankin didn't bury the Stroud letter for nothing!
You really don't know much about this case, don't you?
-
BS.. the evidence of absence is Dorothy Garner not seeing anybody on or near the stairs between Adams & Styles going down and Truly & Baker coming up. Rankin didn't bury the Stroud letter for nothing!
You really don't know much about this case, don't you?
As usual, you're trying to turn the meaning of the term into a pretzel, you disingenuous troll. I know full well about Garner not hearing or seeing Oswald on the stairs.
Now, let me put this in a way as if I was addressing a 5-year old:
'There, there, little Marty.. don't cry: Just because the nice lady didn't spy, with her little eye, the bad man tippy-toeing past her door, (just after nice Mr. Kennedy fell down & broke his crown) that doesn't mean that the the bad man wasn't there'
-
As usual, you're trying to turn the meaning of the term into a pretzel, you disingenuous troll. I know full well about Garner not hearing or seeing Oswald on the stairs: Let me put this in a way as if I was addressing a 5-year old:
'There, there, little Marty.. don't cry: Just because the nice lady didn't spy, with her little eye, the bad man tippy-toeing past her door, (just after nice Mr. Kennedy fell down & broke his crown) that doesn't mean that the the bad man wasn't there'
Is the ego thing playing up again? Talking down to people in a pathetically hysterical way is truly hilarious, especially when you just shot yourself in the foot once again.
Only an idiot would claim there is no evidence to support the claim that Oswald wasn't on the stairs and at the same time admit that he actually knows about the evidence (the Stroud letter) that destroys the claim that Oswald was actually on the stairs. Actually, if you had been to the building, as I have, before they sealed off the stairs you would know that there is no way Dorothy Garner, standing next to the stairs as she was, could have missed anybody going up or down.
Oh, I'm sorry, is that too much for your feeble mind to process?
-
Is the ego thing playing up again? Talking down to people in a pathetically hysterical way is truly hilarious, especially when you just shot yourself in the foot once again.
Only an idiot would claim there is no evidence to support the claim that Oswald wasn't on the stairs and at the same time admit that he actually knows about the evidence (the Stroud letter) that destroys the claim that Oswald was actually on the stairs. Actually, if you had been to the building, as I have, before they sealed off the stairs you would know that there is no way Dorothy Garner, standing next to the stairs as she was, could have missed anybody going up or down.
Oh, I'm sorry, is that too much for your feeble mind to process?
LOL
--------------------------
'idiot'
'feeble mind'
Stop crying, little Marty
--------------------------
if you had been to the building, as I have, before they sealed off the stairs
I don't believe one gd word you say
'Dorothy Garner, standing next to the stairs as she was'
Standing in an open storage room at some point IIRC
'could have missed anybody going up or down'
Garner being fully concentrated, very professional, no screwing around (according to her fellow employees)
> like not screwing around by listening for steps on the stairs other than the 2 girls descending, for instance
-
if you had been to the building, as I have, before they sealed off the stairs
I don't believe one gd word you say
And who cares?
'Dorothy Garner, standing next to the stairs as she was'
Standing in an open storage room at some point IIRC
Which only confirms that you have never been there and don't know what you are talking about. But then, what else is new?
'could have missed anybody going up or down'
Garner being fully concentrated, very professional, no screwing around (according to her fellow employees)
> like not wasting time by listening for steps on the stairs other than the 2 girls descending, for instance
Says the guy who is clueless but desperately needs a way out but doesn't know where to find one
Garner didn't have to be "fully concentrated, very professional, no screwing around" to be standing next to the stairs and see who passed and who didn't. She didn't have to listen, she had eyes!
-
You really don't know much about this case, don't you?
No surprise there. Chapman is hands-down the most ignorant person in the history of this forum.
-
I don't believe one gd word you say
Who gives a gd what you believe?
-
No surprise there. Chapman is hands-down the most ignorant person in the history of this forum.
Says the guy who is, knee-down, the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history.
-
Says the guy who is, knee-down, the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history.
Oh, now you've hurt my feelings. I thought I was the biggest Oswald arse-kisser.... :D
Get a life, loser
-
Who gives a gd what you believe?
Fancy you using god
Digging a foxhole already?
-
Oh, now you've hurt my feelings. I thought I was the biggest Oswald arse-kisser.... :D
Get a life, loser
LOL
--------------------------
'Get a life, loser'
Still not original, clever,
nor creative, Sparky
--------------------------
I thought I was the biggest Oswald arse-kisser
No, only #2.
-
Who gives a gd what you believe?
You do. Otherwise why do you keep coming back for more?
Moth to the flame?
-
You do. Otherwise why do you keep coming back for more?
Moth to the flame?
Nobody is "coming back for more". You are like a bad itch, which needs to be scratched all the time.
Stop the scratching for a moment and the itch will get worse.
There is no remedy for trolls like you. Somebody needs to counter your BS because if they don't you will only increase the BS level and get away with it.... and that's not going to happen!
-
Nobody is "coming back for more". You are like a bad itch, which needs to be scratched all the time.
Stop the scratching for a moment and the itch will get worse.
There is no remedy for trolls like you. Somebody needs to counter your BS because if they don't you will only increase the BS level and get away with it.... and that's not going to happen!
Wha exactly do you think I'm attempting to 'get away with'?
-
Wha exactly do you think I'm attempting to 'get away with'?
You are not getting away with anything. People like John and I make sure of that every day.
-
You are not getting away with anything. People like John and I make sure of that every day.
Again, what is there to 'get away with', exactly?
Can we expect a press conference soon?
-
Again, what is there to 'get away with', exactly?
Can we expect a press conference soon?
Can we expect a press conference soon?
About what? A Canadian fool who thinks he's superior than everybody else?
A press conference would be a waste of time because nobody believes such a thing exists.
-
Can we expect a press conference soon?
About what? A Canadian fool who thinks he's superior than everybody else?
A press conference would be a waste of time because nobody believes such a thing exists.
'superior than everybody else'
That would be 'superior to'. Sober up. You're slurring.
Again, what exactly are do you think I'm trying to 'get away with?'
-
'superior than everybody else'
That would be 'superior to'. Sober up. You're slurring.
Again, what exactly are do you think I'm trying to 'get away with?'
How would I know what you are trying, but whatever it is, it isn't going to happen!
-
How would I know what you are trying, but whatever it is, it isn't going to happen!
Ah, the fear and foreboding of the unknown.
Plots everywhere, I tell you!
BOO! HAHAHA!
-
Fancy you using god
Digging a foxhole already?
Fancy you taking your god's name in vain.
-
Oh, now you've hurt my feelings. I thought I was the biggest Oswald arse-kisser.... :D
"Oswald arse-kisser" is Chapman-speak for pointing out Chapman's constant errors and misinformation. But Chapman is too busy kissing his own arse to see or understand anything that goes on.
-
"Oswald arse-kisser" is Chapman-speak for pointing out Chapman's constant errors and misinformation. But Chapman is too busy kissing his own arse to see or understand anything that goes on.
'Oswald arse-kisser' is used by Chapman to point out that you are the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history, Mr McKneeley.
-
Fancy you taking your god's name in vain.
Pray tell: What god would that be, Neil?
-
Pray tell: What god would that be, Neil?
I don't know or care what god you may or may not believe in.
-
'Oswald arse-kisser' is used by Chapman to point out that you are the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history, Mr McKneeley.
Are you still kissing the arse of your child-molesting father?
-
Are you still kissing the arse of your child-molesting father?
My father molested children?
Tell us about it. I had no idea!
-
I don't know or care what god you may or may not believe in.
I'm shattered
-
#4 - The fatal shot to JFK's skull was made by a frangible bullet or some other type of bullet that couldn't have come from the Carcano rifle.
#5 - the trajectory of the headshot doesn't trace back to the Sixth floor of the Book Depository.
-
...the trajectory of the headshot doesn't trace back to the Sixth floor of the Book Depository.
All you have to do is draw a line from the window to the limo [that's what everybody else does] :-\
-
The most likely candidate for the head shot was from Hinkley in the car behind JFK's car, purely accidental of course. A huge amount evidence points in this direction.
-
The most likely candidate for the head shot was from Hinkley in the car behind JFK's car, purely accidental of course. A huge amount evidence points in this direction.
:D :D :D
Who the fk is Hinkley?
-
All you have to do is draw a line from the window to the limo [that's what everybody else does] :-\
It's not the line from the window to the limo that's relevant. A line is easily drawn.
It's the angle of the shot that is the problem, if you want to trace back the trajectory of the bullet.
-
Hickey, sorry I said Hinckley by mistake, is the Secret Service Agent in the car behind JFK's car that picked up an M16 and accidentally fired it.
-
Hickey, sorry I said Hinckley by mistake, is the Secret Service Agent in the car behind JFK's car that picked up an M16 and accidentally fired it.
:D :D :D
So there's loads of evidence it was Hinkley with an M16 who fired the fatal shot.
Or was it Hickey with an AR-15?
You've obviously researched this area really well.
What is the #1 piece of evidence that demonstrates Hickey fired the shots?
What's the single piece of evidence, the best piece of evidence that convinces you Hickey did it?
-
:D :D :D
So there's loads of evidence it was Hinkley with an M16 who fired the fatal shot.
Or was it Hickey with an AR-15?
You've obviously researched this area really well.
What is the #1 piece of evidence that demonstrates Hickey fired the shots?
What's the single piece of evidence, the best piece of evidence that convinces you Hickey did it?
I have spent i think 13 weeks looking into this. And, the number one, biggest, most convincing, paramount, best, bit of evidence, is that JFK's head exploded.
But, u said the shots, how did u know that Hickey fired a burst of shots. Suddenly u have gone up in my estimates. From minus 10 to plus 1.
-
I guess the number one thing that convinced me that Hickey shot JFK was the way he acted when confronted by Bonar Menninger. Hickey could have easily said “you are mistaken, I did not shoot anyone”. But no, it went to court with the Secret Service backing him. Just like when Oswald said “I’m just a patsy”, that tells it all.
That is the number one thing but there is lots more evidence; eye witnesses seeing Hickey with the gun, people smelling smoke in the motorcade, etc.
-
JFK’s head exploding was solid evidence that there were more than one gun firing at him. It is also more good evidence that Hickey did it because he was the only person that was holding a weapon that could do that kind of damage. The gun fired a frangible round that explodes just after impact. So the bullet hit JFK in the back of the head, traveled a few inches inside his head and the exploded thus blowing his head apart.
Once again I have to correct myself, not shot’s, it’s a shot. I am not saying Hickey fired more than one shot.
If you want more information on this watch the video “JFK – Smoking Gun” by Colin McLaren