JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on October 26, 2025, 01:11:56 PM
-
I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.
I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)
I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.
This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)
Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.
Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)
Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)
-
LP-
Well, I hope you continue to participate in the forums; you are the rare collegial, circumspect commenter.
My only comments--
The M-C is an adequate weapon at 75 yards, and was designed to meet military specs for accuracy at 200 yards. That is, if you put an M-C on a tripod, fixed on target, it would hit the bullseye at 200 yards, with the right ammo. And again and again.
I am partial to anti-Castro Cuban exiles or G-2'ers, or double agents, working with LHO.
I do not rule out the KGB having some sort of role; after all KGB was tight with G-2.
And there is the whole Bruce Solie angle. LHO's 2+ year's stay a few blocks from KGB-Minsk, and the oily DeMohrenschilt. The visit to Kostikov. Maybe something there.
Like you, I somewhat exhausted with the topic, and the rigidity of ideologies and narratives of those in the JFKA game, and disagreeable personalities.
But it is fun to read the forums.
-
I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.
I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)
I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.
This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)
Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.
Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)
Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)
I read Russo’s book “Live by the Sword” many years ago. I don’t remember many details, but I agree that he does have some reasonable ideas. I also read Jim Hosty’s book “Assignment Oswald”. Hosty makes his ideas clear about the Cuban aspects of the case. There are no smoking guns revealed, but Hosty does make some interesting points.
-
Yeah, too bad that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your "solution" of the JFK case. Too bad the last official U.S. Government investigation into JFK's murder (the HSCA) concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby lied about how and why he shot Oswald, that Ruby had substantial Mafia ties, that Silvia Odio's account is credible, that the first hit on JFK was fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, etc., etc.
You must be unpatriotic to reject the last and most thorough federal investigation into JFK's death. You are sowing distrust in our government and institutions. Your rejection of the HSCA is "nation rending." Why do you refuse to accept the government's last official findings about the assassination? :) :) :)
-
Yeah, too bad that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your "solution" of the JFK case. Too bad the last official U.S. Government investigation into JFK's murder (the HSCA) concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby lied about how and why he shot Oswald, that Ruby had substantial Mafia ties, that Silvia Odio's account is credible, that the first hit on JFK was fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, etc., etc.
You must be unpatriotic to reject the last and most thorough federal investigation into JFK's death. You are sowing distrust in our government and institutions. Your rejection of the HSCA is "nation rending." Why do you refuse to accept the government's last official findings about the assassination? :) :) :)
The government’s last official findings regarding the JFK Assassination was not the HSCA:
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found a major flaw in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigation by discrediting its acoustic evidence. After a review in 1982, the NAS found that the sounds interpreted by the HSCA as gunshots were recorded after the assassination occurred.
Based on the NAS findings, the Department of Justice (DOJ) later concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the HSCA's conspiracy theory.
The National Academy of Sciences reviewAcoustic evidence:
A key piece of evidence for the HSCA's conclusion of a conspiracy was an analysis of a Dictabelt recording from a Dallas Police motorcycle officer. This analysis indicated a high probability of a fourth shot coming from the grassy knoll, suggesting a second gunman.
The flaw: The National Academy of Sciences, acting on a request from the DOJ, reviewed the HSCA's acoustic evidence in 1982. Using new methods, the NAS found the supposed gunshots were recorded about a minute after the assassination and, therefore, were not related to the shooting itself.
The conclusion: The NAS concluded that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman".
The Department of Justice's response Review and reversal:
In 1988, after reviewing the acoustic analysis from both the FBI's Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Justice reversed its position.
Official conclusion: The DOJ formally concluded that "no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy" in the assassination of President Kennedy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&client=safari&sca_esv=6ddd0cbd40df43d1&hl=en-us&ei=RmD_aLLWE8-2wN4P-sfpuQ4&ved=0ahUKEwiykaTWq8SQAxVPG9AFHfpjOucQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&gs_lp=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_oBJGq_9DlugYECAEYB5IHBTQ2LjE0oAfb9QKyBwU0NS4xNLgH5ifCBwgwLjIuNTEuN8gHzQI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp (https://www.google.com/search?q=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&client=safari&sca_esv=6ddd0cbd40df43d1&hl=en-us&ei=RmD_aLLWE8-2wN4P-sfpuQ4&ved=0ahUKEwiykaTWq8SQAxVPG9AFHfpjOucQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&gs_lp=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_oBJGq_9DlugYECAEYB5IHBTQ2LjE0oAfb9QKyBwU0NS4xNLgH5ifCBwgwLjIuNTEuN8gHzQI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
-
Payette - I ask you to reconsider your pulling of the plug. My discovery of what I believe was a "getaway" car is now rippling through the JFK Assassination Investigation. That car NOT being parked alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film, is a game changer in the JFK Assassination Investigation. I ask you to re-engage and try to prove me wrong.
-
GC-
I never liked the CT treatment of the DPD tape. The whole thing is dubious, and I suspect there is a bit of 20th-century witchcraft involved in deciphering clicks on an ancient spool.
The CT community is sometimes its own worst enemy.
That said, what I can see with my own eyes on the Z-film, that is closely spaced shots on JFK and JBC...has me leaning to me than one gunsel on 11/22.
The GK smoke-and-bang show, even if only a diversion, is another pointer towards a conspiracy.
But hey, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
There are as many JFKA narratives as there are narrators.
-
[There were] closely spaced shots on JFK and JBC.
If you mean the Single Bullet Theory is incorrect, you're wrong.
-
If you mean the Single Bullet Theory is incorrect, you're wrong.
Well! In that case, I am wrong!
But I still regard Putin as pig-monkey, along with his pal The Ayatollah.
-
Well! In that case, I am wrong!
But I still regard Putin as pig-monkey, along with his pal The Ayatollah.
I'm very proud of you.
-
I'm very proud of you.
For a long, long time, the SBT'ers have said the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling, and that was proof it had first passed through JFKs throat.
JBC had a large scar on his back, and that was proof of his being hid by a slug "sideways" to his body.
You assent to that aspect of SBT?
-
I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.
I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)
I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.
This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)
Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.
Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)
Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)
Totally support this assessment and have for years. It’s why I no longer post. What’s the point? Griffith and his lunacy will be here until he dies.
-
For a long, long time, the SBT'ers have said the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling, and that was proof it had first passed through JFKs throat.
JBC had a large scar on his back, and that was proof of his being hid by a slug "sideways" to his body.
You assent to that aspect of SBT?
IIRC, it was eventually determined that the original measurement of the entry wound in JBC's back was too long because it was taken after the wound had been debrided, but the correct adjusted measurement still determined that the wound was oblong in shape.
Are you going to argue that its oblong-ness was the same as the entry wound to JFK's skull as determined by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck at autopsy and therefore proves that the oblong-ness of both wounds was simply due to the angle of incidence?
Regardless, if JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets, where did the bullet that exited JFK's throat end up?
Or do you think the wound to his throat was an entrance wound?
(LOL)
-
IIRC, it was eventually determined that the original measurement of the entry wound in JBC's back was too long because it was taken after the wound had been debrided, but the correct adjusted measurement still determined that the wound was oblong in shape.
Are you going to argue that its oblong-ness was the same as the entry wound to JFK's skull as determined by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck at autopsy and therefore proves that the oblong-ness of both wounds was simply due to the angle of incidence?
Regardless, if JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets, where did the bullet that exited JFK's throat end up?
Or do you think the wound to his throat was an entrance wound?
(LOL)
TG-
I agree with JBCs surgeon Robert Shaw, who had worked on 700 WWII gunshot victims: JBC was likely shot by an unimpeded bullet from above and behind.
And that the projectile that penetrated JBC's wrist, from the dorsal side, is difficult to explain as a shot that first passed through JBC's chest.
But as I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
And Putin and Hamas are pig-monkeys extraordinaire.
-
I agree with JBCs surgeon Robert Shaw, who had worked on 700 WWII gunshot victims: JBC was likely shot by an unimpeded bullet from above and behind.
Since you evidently don't believe the bullet that exited JFK's throat was the same one that penetrated JBC's back, where do you believe the former ended up?
Or . . . gasp . . . do you believe JFK's throat wound was one of entrance, not exit?
-
TG-
I agree with JBCs surgeon Robert Shaw, who had worked on 700 WWII gunshot victims: JBC was likely shot by an unimpeded bullet from above and behind.
And that the projectile that penetrated JBC's wrist, from the dorsal side, is difficult to explain as a shot that first passed through JBC's chest.
But as I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
And Putin and Hamas are pig-monkeys extraordinaire.
Dr Shaw actually had various opinions on all the wounds. As did Drs. Gregory and Shire. Somewhat interesting reading.
He stated JBC mentioned seeing JFK wounded or in his words “injured” after the first shot:
Mr. SPECTER Dr. Shaw, my next question involves whether you have ever had a conversation with Governor Connally about the sequence of events of the day he was shot?
Dr. SHAW Yes, we have talked on more than one occasion about this. The Governor admits that certain aspects of the whole incident are a bit hazy. He remembers hearing a shot. He recognized it as a rifle shot and turned to the right to see whether President Kennedy had been injured. He recognized that the President had been injured, but almost immediately, he stated, that he felt a severe shock to his right chest. He immediately experienced some difficulty in breathing, and as he stated to me, he thought that he had received a mortal wound.
Specter asked Dr Shaw if the bullet that passed through JFK without striking anything of substance could have caused all of JFK’s injuries.
Mr. SPECTER Dr. Shaw, would you think it consistent with the facts that you know as to Governor Connally's wounds that he could have been struck by the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy, assuming that a missile with the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, a 6.5millimeter bullet, passed through President Kennedy at a distance of 160 to 250 feet from the rifle, passing through President Kennedy's body, entering on his back and striking only soft tissue and exiting on his neck; could that missile have also gone through Governor Connally's chest in your opinion?
Dr. SHAW Yes, taking your description of the first wound sustained by the President, which I, myself, did not observe, and considering the position of the two men in the limousine, I think it would be perfectly possible for the first bullet to have passed through the soft tissues of the neck of President Kennedy and produced the wounds that we found on Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER Could that bullet then have produced all the wounds that you found on Governor Connally?
Dr. SHAW Yes, I would still be postulating that Governor Connally was struck by one missile
-
Dr Shaw actually had various opinions on all the wounds. As did Drs. Gregory and Shire. Somewhat interesting reading.
He stated JBC mentioned seeing JFK wounded or in his words “injured” after the first shot:
Mr. SPECTER Dr. Shaw, my next question involves whether you have ever had a conversation with Governor Connally about the sequence of events of the day he was shot?
Dr. SHAW Yes, we have talked on more than one occasion about this. The Governor admits that certain aspects of the whole incident are a bit hazy. He remembers hearing a shot. He recognized it as a rifle shot and turned to the right to see whether President Kennedy had been injured. He recognized that the President had been injured, but almost immediately, he stated, that he felt a severe shock to his right chest. He immediately experienced some difficulty in breathing, and as he stated to me, he thought that he had received a mortal wound.
Specter asked Dr Shaw if the bullet that passed through JFK without striking anything of substance could have caused all of JFK’s injuries.
Mr. SPECTER Dr. Shaw, would you think it consistent with the facts that you know as to Governor Connally's wounds that he could have been struck by the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy, assuming that a missile with the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, a 6.5millimeter bullet, passed through President Kennedy at a distance of 160 to 250 feet from the rifle, passing through President Kennedy's body, entering on his back and striking only soft tissue and exiting on his neck; could that missile have also gone through Governor Connally's chest in your opinion?
Dr. SHAW Yes, taking your description of the first wound sustained by the President, which I, myself, did not observe, and considering the position of the two men in the limousine, I think it would be perfectly possible for the first bullet to have passed through the soft tissues of the neck of President Kennedy and produced the wounds that we found on Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER Could that bullet then have produced all the wounds that you found on Governor Connally?
Dr. SHAW Yes, I would still be postulating that Governor Connally was struck by one missile
JN--
Yes, Shaw was open to the SBT, but was more inclined to JBC having been shot shot by a separate missile, and he was puzzled by the dorsal entry wound on JBC's wrist.
You can hold your wrist in front of your body, and try to present the dorsal (wristwatch) side to the chest. A lot easier to present the ventral side to the chest.
In general, I am dubious about the SBT, and suspect three separate shots struck JFK and JBC, and the latter two very closely spaced (time wise).
I wonder about the JBC wrist wound, and the GK smoke-and-bang show. Did a bullet from the GK strike JBC's wrist? I don't know.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
I am not inclined to the narrative that JFK was struck from the front.
AS for JFK's throat wound, I have drawn no conclusions. A richochet?
-
JN--
Yes, Shaw was open to the SBT, but was more inclined to JBC having been shot shot by a separate missile, and he was puzzled by the dorsal entry wound on JBC's wrist.
You can hold your wrist in front of your body, and try to present the dorsal (wristwatch) side to the chest. A lot easier to present the ventral side to the chest.
In general, I am dubious about the SBT, and suspect three separate shots struck JFK and JBC, and the latter two very closely spaced (time wise).
I wonder about the JBC wrist wound, and the GK smoke-and-bang show. Did a bullet from the GK strike JBC's wrist? I don't know.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
I am not inclined to the narrative that JFK was struck from the front.
AS for JFK's throat wound, I have drawn no conclusions. A richochet?
Maybe you already have, but if you have not, you should take the time to read the WC testimonies of Drs. Shaw, Gregory, and Shires. Each had two separate testimonies, and both are informative as to the questioning of what they thought happened. Especially Gregory and Shaw. Both had discussions with JBC about what occurred.
The velocity of the bullet and the resulting appearance of the wounds is what they used to form their opinion. Because of all of their war experience, the doctors have an excellent grasp of what a wound should look like based on the speed of the bullet and resulting evidence. The one thing they assessed was the thigh wound could not have had much energy left when the bullet hit in order for the bullet to actually have done so little damage or maybe it was a glancing strike but nobody ever took the time to explain the trajectories involved and they mention that as well.
The position of JBC’s hand seems to be a question based on what frame is being considered, how many shots were fired, and the shape of the wound as the bullet passed from one point to the next. These doctors are well aware of JBC’s belief of having been hit by a separate or second shot and are actively trying to include that information in their answers. When Specter is questioning them about just one missile having done all the damage, they do not have much of a problem with stating it could have caused all the wounds, especially when they realize the bullet wound shape in JBC’s back and the bullet is still at near top velocity and after the bullet had just passed through flesh in JFK’s neck and would have started to tumble. The shape of the wounds in the chest, wrist, and thigh and the speed of the bullet play a major role in shaping their opinions.
A lot of the doctors stated beliefs about the wrist wound is centered on the bullet tumbling chest out of his JBC’s and the bullet hitting JBC’s wrist sideways and then striking his thigh butt first.
-
JN-
Yes, I have read the WC and HSCA testimonies.
I think I am on solid ground when I say Dr. Shaw leaned towards a separate bullet striking JBC, and was puzzled by the dorsal entry wound to JBCs wrist.
Yes Shaw allowed the SBT was possible.
My views are roughly those of Shaw. The SBT strikes me as dubious, and the JBC wrist wound an oddity.
Also, if you look at Z-280, you will see the left profile of JBCs face, as he looks towards the rear of the limo. JBC has made a nearly 180-degree turn in his seat.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z280.jpg
Yet by the reasoning of SBT, at this point JBC has already been shot through the chest by a large slug issued from a high-powered rifle, had his right wrist fractured, and the missile then buried itself in his left thigh.
After all that, JBC decides to turn around entirely in his seat and check on JFK...so says the SBT.
In constrast, JBC says he was immediately incapacitated by the slug that struck him, and was pushed forward by the impact. Thats strikes me as believable.
For me, the SBT is iffy.
But hey, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.