Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.That is not a "fact". The demise of the SBT is only a problem for the LN conclusion if there were two shots before about z240. The shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses (40+) who reported an observation on the shot spacings was 1......2...3 with the last two shots in "rapid succession". If that was the pattern, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. The midpoint is well after z240 regardless of where you put the first shot.
That is not a "fact". The demise of the SBT is only a problem for the LN conclusion if there were two shots before about z240. The shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses (40+) who reported an observation on the shot spacings was 1......2...3 with the last two shots in "rapid succession". If that was the pattern, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. The midpoint is well after z240 regardless of where you put the first shot.
Of course it isn't a fact as it never happened. There was a conspiracy and the fact that two bullets couldn't cause all the wounds to JFK and JBC proves it.The "fact" that I was referring to was your statement: " He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved. [/quote]My point was that this is not a "fact, for the reasons given.
The "fact" that I was referring to was your statement: " He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved. My point was that this is not a "fact, for the reasons given.
Baloney. If a shot missed and one bullet didn't strike both JFK and JBC, how do you account for all the wounds without an additional shooter?According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed.
According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed.
The first dissenter of the Warren Commission (WC) was ironically someone who served on the Commission ? Senator Richard Russell. He would express thoughts and views that would be corroborated over the years, and they did NOT support the official conclusion.
Senator Russell was the most famous and successful politician from Georgia (later only eclipsed by President Jimmy Carter) in their state history. He served for 10 years in the Georgia state house, was elected Governor and served as a U.S. Senator for Georgia for 38 years.
He did not want to serve on the WC. He told President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) that he "had no respect for Warren", but he was outfoxed by his old friend LBJ who had already announced it publicly so he had to serve. Russell often told people he was "conscripted on the Commission."
Russell would attend nearly all the executive sessions, but due to his Senate duties he was limited to attending only 6% of the Commission hearings where testimony was taken. He made up for this by reading the transcripts, with help from an assistant, of the testimonies and other documents submitted to the Commission.
Russell would repeatedly voice suspicions that have been the source of debate for 54 years. He would say that the FBI had rushed to judgment in concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the lone assassin. He further stated that the FBI consequently was not thorough in investigating the assassination and appropriate in following up leads. Since the WC was reliant on the FBI, CIA, SS and other government agencies due to no investigators on their staff, this is a major concern for anyone looking into their report.
Russell would get confirmation on his suspicions later on as in 1976 the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities (SCIA) would conduct an investigation into this matter and release a report. The focus of the report was, "the performance of intelligence agencies in conducting their investigation of the assassination and their relationships to the Warren Commission." The report revealed that the Senate Committee "had developed evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission."
The report concluded that "both the CIA and the FBI failed in, or avoided carrying out, certain of their responsibilities in this matter.....The evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient and that facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided the Warren Commission...".
The Senate Committee also found, in regard to the FBI specifically, that "during the Warren Commission investigation top FBI officials were continually concerned with protecting the Bureau's reputation and avoiding any criticism for not fulfilling investigative responsibilities.... The Bureau issued its report on the basis of a narrow investigation focused on Oswald, without conducting a broad investigation of the assassination which would have revealed any conspiracy, foreign or domestic."
In 1979 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would weigh in on this topic as well after fully investigating the matter. A final report said that the FBI (1) "performed with varying degrees of competency," (2) "failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President," and (3) "was deficient in its sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination."
Russell, while on the Commission, also repeatedly expressed doubts as to whether the CIA could be trusted to provide the Commission with the full, unexpurgated truth. As history as shown he has been vindicated in this matter as the CIA kept from the WC their plots with the mafia against Castro. In 1976 the SCIA concluded that the CIA failed in, or avoided carrying out, certain of its responsibilities in investigating the assassination. And in 1979 the HSCA concluded that the CIA "was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination." According to the 1979 report, "the CIA did not always respond to the Commission's broad request for all relevant material," and the responses the CIA did make were often tardy. They also failed to share the information they had on LHO prior to the assassination with the WC.
In a 1964 telephone conversation Russell had with LBJ concerning "[t]hat danged Warren Commission business", which was recorded for posterity, he resoundingly said that the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) was a bunch of malarkey. In 1966 and 1970 Russell told the news media of his abiding dissatisfaction with the work of the Warren Commission. Once again, Russell stands vindicated by history.
Many consider Edward Jay Epstein's "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (1966), to be the best single piece of work on the Commission and its internal workings. In his book he concluded that the Warren Commission, "sincerely convinced that the national interest would best be served by the termination of rumors, and predisposed by its make-up and by the pressure of time not to search more deeply, failed to answer some of the essential questions about the tragedy," and that the Warren Report "fails to contend with serious contradictions presented by the evidence."
In 1979 the HSCA concluded that (1) "the Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency," **(2) "the Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President," (3) the Warren Commission "presented its conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive," and **(4) the Warren Report "was not, in some respects, an accurate presentation of the evidence available to the Commission ...particularly on the issue of a possible conspiracy in the assassination."
The HSCA would further vindicate Russell in its final report by attributing the Warren Commission's failure to adequately investigate the possibility of conspiracy too, in part, "the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government [i.e., the FBI and the CIA]."
In a 1970 television interview Senator Russell said, "I have never believed that Oswald planned that altogether by himself.... have doubts that he planned it all by himself. I think someone else worked with him." Obviously most of the people of this country believe the same thing as only a small, die-hard group still believe LHO to be the sole assassin with no help from anyone else. The final report of the HSCA in 1979 concluded that "there was a high probability that two gunmen were firing at the President" and that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
Senator Russell had much experience with the intelligence community as he was the chair of a Senate subcommittee on CIA oversight. As Russell biographer Gilbert C. Fite has written, Russell might have "possessed secret information others did not have, [and] he may have had reason to suspect some kind of conspiracy. Whatever he knew, if anything, he carried to the grave."
As mentioned earlier, Senator Russell adamantly opposed the SBT. Russell expressed his vehement disagreement with the SBT in a proposed dissenting statement dictated on September 16, 1964; he argued against the theory at the final meeting of the Commission on September 18, 1964 (although the doctored transcript of this meeting contains no reference to Russell's arguments), and then criticized the SBT again that very day in a telephone conversation with LBJ; and he emphatically rejected the theory in interviews with the press in 1966 and 1970.
The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty. I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film. (Two other of the seven members of Commission shared Russell's doubts about the SBT; thus, nearly half the Commission questioned the theory.) These same reasons have been mentioned for 54 plus years in regards to why the SBT is not valid by researchers.
Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.
Overall though, he did far more than the other members as he labored to improve the quality of its investigation, to point out the bureaucratic pitfalls besetting the Commission, and to preserve its integrity. If the rest of the Commission had done the same to get to the truth no matter what, the strange and inexplicable investigative lapses of the FBI and the CIA, the WC's performance would certainly have been vastly improved, and the Warren Report would have been a different, more persuasive document.
Sadly, he was only one man and he could only do so much, but his public comments and remarks pointed us in the right direction many years ago.
According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed.
"there was a high probability that two gunmen were firing at the President" and that "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
>>> That 'high probability' conclusion can arguably be downgraded to 'possible' here, some 40 years later. Simply no evidence that reveals anyone but the prime suspect knew that an attempt was to made on Kennedy that day. If anyone has proof of same, by all means do post it.
If memory serves, LBJ dragged the right-wing southerner Russell practically kicking & screaming onto the Commission (purportedly because he, Johnson, wanted representation from both the left & right, and all regions of the country). So right away he had a member with an ox to gore it seems to me.
And if someone wants to offer up a challenge as to the feasibility of one bullet causing wounds in two bodies: Bring it on; I'm waiting.
Go ahead, make my day.
I am not sure what your definition of evidence is.
There is no evidence that shows what is claimed above. But there is evidence that shot #2 hit both JFK and JBC
There's also evidence the first shot was fired at around frame 160 verified by the Zapruder film. There's JBC testimony that he turned around when he heard the first shot, Rosemary Willis that she stopped running when she heard the first shot, BWFrazier that he heard the first shot when the presidential limo had just passed him, Barbara Rowland, Royce Skelton and Geneva Hines "as they (the car) turned the corner", Will Greer when the car "was almost past this building (the TSBD).", Paul Landis after the President's car "car had completed [it's] turn." Case Closed pages 319-21The problem is that there is a great deal of evidence that conflicts with a first shot before z186. There is no evidence that conflicts with a first shot after z186.
Governor Connally's wife also said that a separate bullet hit her husband and JFK. For the record -- she was in the car and right next to him.
I'm still waiting for you to support your belief that LHO was the lone assassin.
Of course it isn't a fact as it never happened. There was a conspiracy and the fact that two bullets couldn't cause all the wounds to JFK and JBC proves it.
No----she originally had no knowledge of a third shot
Nellie said she through Spokesman Julian Read that she did not know about a third shot. JBC said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck by the bullet. Both Nellie and Jackie confirm JBC cried out Oh No No No after they heard the first shot. The second shot was the head shot.
Nellie believed there was just two shots. When asked by the media, immediately after the assassination, about a third shot Nellie replied through Spokesman Julian Read: "Nellie does not know about a third shot" She never knew there was an additional shot until someone told her. Even then she describes, by using JBC's statement, that he was struck by the first shot.
Nellie not only answers she does not "know about a third shot" it is further explained in a news conference her memory of only two shots.
---------
JBC 11/27/63 Hospital Interview, first statement
"And then we had just turned the corner [from Houston onto Elm], we heard a shot; I turned to my left"
"I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat ? the president had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly."
JBC's first statement describes a wounding almost simultaneously with JFK's and describes seeing him slumped after a turn to the left. His statement radically changes when he testifies before the WC as does Nellie's. They become very similar except Nellie still references him being struck by the first shot same as Jackie.
The only one who thinks he was hit by a shot he never heard is JBC. Nobody else heard it either. Not Greer, Kellerman, Nellie, Jackie, Hill, Landis. Hesters, Altgens, Chisms, Sheriif Decker, Zapruder, Sitzman, and numerous other eyewitnesses.
"And then we had just turned the corner [from Houston onto Elm], we heard a shot; I turned to my left"
He turned to his right at the sound of the first shot... not his left. Nice try in attempting to eliminate a shot 'Two ShotJack'
No----she originally had no knowledge of a third shot
Nellie said she through Spokesman Julian Read that she did not know about a third shot. JBC said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck by the bullet. Both Nellie and Jackie confirm JBC cried out Oh No No No after they heard the first shot. The second shot was the head shot.
Nellie believed there was just two shots. When asked by the media, immediately after the assassination, about a third shot Nellie replied through Spokesman Julian Read: "Nellie does not know about a third shot" She never knew there was an additional shot until someone told her. Even then she describes, by using JBC's statement, that he was struck by the first shot.
Nellie not only answers she does not "know about a third shot" it is further explained in a news conference her memory of only two shots.
---------
JBC 11/27/63 Hospital Interview, first statement
"And then we had just turned the corner [from Houston onto Elm], we heard a shot; I turned to my left"
"I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat ? the president had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly."
JBC's first statement describes a wounding almost simultaneously with JFK's and describes seeing him slumped after a turn to the left. His statement radically changes when he testifies before the WC as does Nellie's. They become very similar except Nellie still references him being struck by the first shot same as Jackie.
The only one who thinks he was hit by a shot he never heard is JBC. Nobody else heard it either. Not Greer, Kellerman, Nellie, Jackie, Hill, Landis. Hesters, Altgens, Chisms, Sheriif Decker, Zapruder, Sitzman, and numerous other eyewitnesses.
Feel free to name yours
two bullets couldn't cause all the wounds to JFK and JBC
If the bullets are jacketed they certainly can
No---thanks for posting an interview years after the fact, that was very informative --- his very first statement from the Hospital bed is radically different than subsequent statements. His memory of the first shot was turning left after the first shot and seeing JFK slumped and feeling the pain of himself being wounded. His memory of the event is he was wounded immediately after hearing the gunshot and in the short time ("almost simultaneously") it took to start to turn to look at JFK.
Hospital Interview 11/27
"I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat ? the president had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly."
In his statements JBC always thought the rifle shot and his wounding were very close together
"were very, very brief span of time"
"Immediately after he heard the first shot"
"someone was shooting with an automatic rifle"
"rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took"
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+john+connally&view=detail&mid=64958BDA7A92B2FCC2AD64958BDA7A92B2FCC2AD&FORM=VIRE13
---------------------------------
Bill, you seem sure there was a third shot, if you can prove there was a third shot by all means do so. It is well known JBC never heard but two shots.
This is why taking things out context is bad. There wouldn't have been two bullets for all the wounds in JFK and JBC based on the official narrative. One bullet missed and one hit JFK in the head exclusively.
So explain how one bullet, jacketed or not, can cause seven wounds in two men. The SBT is NOT the answer as there is NO supporting evidence for it.
This is why taking things out context is bad. There wouldn't have been two bullets for all the wounds in JFK and JBC based on the official narrative. One bullet missed and one hit JFK in the head exclusively.
So explain how one bullet, jacketed or not, can cause seven wounds in two men. The SBT is NOT the answer as there is NO supporting evidence for it.
Then quote her saying that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet.
Yeah, the first and third, according to his WC testimony
And the second shot he only felt (unless he punched himself in the back)
Other people heard 3 shots.
In addition:
Connally WC Testimony 1964
"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
Have you seen the recreations in which the same model MC rifle with the same ammo is fired at the same angle/distance from Oswald's location? It is a matter of physics. Such a bullet fired from Oswald's distance using his rifle would easily pass through one body with sufficient force to cause the injuries to JC. It is indisputable science. It has been recreated many times. It is not only possible but exactly what would happen. Your baseless naysaying to the contrary is meaningless.
By doing what FMJ bullets are designed to do. You don't know the function of FMJ ammo, Rob? Or why they were so-designed in the first place?
And where did I say one unjacketed bullet could effect the wounds seen in Connally? Unjacketed bullets will disperse their energy when entering a body.
'One bullet missed and one hit Kennedy in the head'
>>> And one hit JFK in the back/neck
JBC said he cried out Oh no no no after he was struck by the bullet. Nellie said that was after the first shot and before a "second" shot. Jackie coroborates Nellie's statement by referencing JBC crying out Oh no no no after the first shot too. Nellie originally "did not know about a third shot." Jackie dismissed the media accounts of three shots and stated there was only two.
----------------------------------------
How did Sen Russell account for the wound in JBC's back with JFK in the way and also the fact that the carcano took 2.3 seconds to cycle?
McCloy asked the question where is the bullet that went through JFK if it did not strike JBC.
"I don't know where that bullet could have gone if it didn't go through Governor Connally."
McCloy explains the WC had discussions about was there three shots or two. Additionally he explained through personal experience people who were wounded and were not immediately aware of it, and also over time JBC waivered in his belief of separate shot.
Mr McCloy: "Frankly, I don't think he knew exactly when he was hit. I saw his recent testimony--at least somebody reported to me, perhaps indirectly, that he wasn't as certain now as when he first appeared before us--before our Commission when he said he was sure it wasn't the same shot which hit President Kennedy which hit him."
Sen Russell obviously believed there was a third shot----Prove there was third shot. A large number of eyewitnesses stated there was two shots or the second shot was the head shot. Either way that equals SBT.
So you can't quote her saying that the same bullet hit both JFK and JBC. Got it.
You have a conundrum then Bill as the head shot did NOT act like a FMJ bullet.
You can't show that one bullet could cause seven wounds in two men.
I did post the proof. The same as how we know JFK was hit, because of his reactions. You ask for proof but seem exceptionally weak when asked to provide it.
I am sure you do get it. Only two shots and the idea there was a conspiracy becomes very remote. All the posting and conspiracy analyzing was just a waste of time. It appears you can't handle being asked to prove your thread about Sen Russell and his belief there was three shots. All the posting about Sen Russell and his three shot scenario but when asked to prove there were three shots you come up missing. The WC and the HSCA both questioned the number of shots and the medias influence on the witnesses. The same WC which Sen Russell was a member.
The same model? Why didn't they use CE 139? Without using the same rifle that LHO allegedly used these tests mean nothing.
CE 139 had a myriad of issues that would have prevented anyone from using it, thus, it wasn't used for any recreation.
The SBT is unsupported and impossible.
The eyewitnesses state JFK reacted to being stuck by the first shot. You want to believe there was three shots-----prove it."Proof" of a fact is determined by the trier of fact - it is whatever evidence that is considered by the trier of fact to be sufficient to establish a fact. You obviously do not consider the abundant evidence of 3 shots to be sufficient to convince you that there were 3 shots. Others do, including all the members of the WC, HSCA. You appear to think that all that evidence is somehow wrong.
JBC's testimony (two shooters?) was struck by the first shot and then JBC was struck "almost simultaneously" by a second shot fired in less than the 2.3 seconds required to operate the carcano?JBC did not say he was struck almost simultaneously with a second shot. He said he heard the first shot, realized it was a rifle shot and turned around to try to see JFK but could not as he had moved. As he turned back to turn to his left he said he felt being struck forcefully in the back by another shot. He says that as he lay back onto his wife he heard a third shot and felt the spray of brain matter over him. Even though he did not hear three shots, he observed three shots.
Explain the wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK.It is certainly possible that JBC's back wound was caused by a bullet that had not passed through JFK. In fact, one can make a reasonable case that in order for the bullet to have missed his right lung as it did, it had to have been travelling at a very small angle to the direction of the car - almost from directly behind. That means it struck him when the car was farther down Elm when the angle to the SN was very small.
I did post the proof. The same as how we know JFK was hit, because of his reactions. You ask for proof but seem exceptionally weak when asked to provide it.
I am sure you do get it. Only two shots and the idea there was a conspiracy becomes very remote. All the posting and conspiracy analyzing was just a waste of time. It appears you can't handle being asked to prove your thread about Sen Russell and his belief there was three shots. All the posting about Sen Russell and his three shot scenario but when asked to prove there were three shots you come up missing. The WC and the HSCA both questioned the number of shots and the medias influence on the witnesses. The same WC which Sen Russell was a member.
I can't show anything except the research.
To wit:
A) The FMJ head shot hit the hard bone of the skull nose-first causing the bullet to release all its energy inside the head
B) The CE399 FMJ bullet hit no heavy bone nose-first, thus retaining enough energy/velocity to arrive in the left thigh in near-original condition (as intended by FMJ design)
Pretty sure FBI testers and Frazier used the actual weapon. It would be folly to not do so. And what are 'issues' to you lot does not automatically translate into what a trained marine would consider to be same.
And given the nature of what FMJ ammo is designed to do and is capable of, you are ignoring that aspect and simply whistling in the dark.
You're the one ignoring it as it is NOT meant to explode upon impact, but the head shot did. Russell was right not to believe in the SBT since it is fictitious.I want to be clear that I am not in any way endorsing your general view that Oswald did not fire all the shots. But your points about the SBT are valid. The SBT was a theory that legal counsel to the WC developed to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK went. There was never any actual evidence that it occurred and a great deal of evidence that conflicted with it. There is even more conflict between the "second bullet SBT" that is now popular and the evidence - particularly the "first bullet hit JFK" evidence, the evidence that the first shot was after z186, and the overwhelming evidence that the last two shots were closer together.
Um, three spent shells found in the SN
"Proof" of a fact is determined by the trier of fact - it is whatever evidence that is considered by the trier of fact to be sufficient to establish a fact. You obviously do not consider the abundant evidence of 3 shots to be sufficient to convince you that there were 3 shots. Others do, including all the members of the WC, HSCA. You appear to think that all that evidence is somehow wrong.
JBC did not say he was struck almost simultaneously with a second shot. He said he heard the first shot, realized it was a rifle shot and turned around to try to see JFK but could not as he had moved. As he turned back to turn to his left he said he felt being struck forcefully in the back by another shot. He says that as he lay back onto his wife he heard a third shot and felt the spray of brain matter over him. Even though he did not hear three shots, he observed three shots.
It is certainly possible that JBC's back wound was caused by a bullet that had not passed through JFK. In fact, one can make a reasonable case that in order for the bullet to have missed his right lung as it did, it had to have been travelling at a very small angle to the direction of the car - almost from directly behind. That means it struck him when the car was farther down Elm when the angle to the SN was very small.
You have offered nothing that trumps what JBC and his wife said.
You're the one ignoring it as it is NOT meant to explode upon impact, but the head shot did. Russell was right not to believe in the SBT since it is fictitious.
I want to be clear that I am not in any way endorsing your general view that Oswald did not fire all the shots. But your points about the SBT are valid. The SBT was a theory that legal counsel to the WC developed to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK went. There was never any actual evidence that it occurred and a great deal of evidence that conflicted with it. There is even more conflict between the "second bullet SBT" that is now popular and the evidence - particularly the "first bullet hit JFK" evidence, the evidence that the first shot was after z186, and the overwhelming evidence that the last two shots were closer together.
I am not sure what your definition of evidence is.
Over 20 witnesses recalled that JFK reacted immediately as if hit by the first shot. See this list of witnesses and their statements (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF). Not a single witness said that JFK smiled and waved after the first shot, let alone for 3 seconds. So that is evidence that the first shot, not the second, struck JFK. That evidence is also inconsistent with a first shot before z186 (Betzner, motorcade witnesses, witnesses along Elm).
The problem is that there is a great deal of evidence that conflicts with a first shot before z186. There is no evidence that conflicts with a first shot after z186.
The question that was asked was answered.
R Caprio: "So you can't quote her saying that the same bullet hit both JFK and JBC. Got it."
-----------------------------------
What JBC stated was he cried Oh no no no after he was wounded.
What Nelly and Jackie stated was he cried out Oh no no no after the first shot and before the second. JBC never heard an additional shot just felt the pain. Where is the confusion. What more proof do you need.
----------------------------
The thread is about Sen Russell and three distinct shots. Prove the three shots. From where I stand if there is a difference between yourself , Chapman, and Mason only you three know what it is. Nothing but pure blind faith. Each with his own placement of a shot that never happened. If there was a third shot there would be no argument over where it happened, let alone being placed at all times and locations in the shooting sequence.
"Proof" of a fact is determined by the trier of fact - it is whatever evidence that is considered by the trier of fact to be sufficient to establish a fact. You obviously do not consider the abundant evidence of 3 shots to be sufficient to convince you that there were 3 shots. Others do, including all the members of the WC, HSCA. You appear to think that all that evidence is somehow wrong.
JBC did not say he was struck almost simultaneously with a second shot. He said he heard the first shot, realized it was a rifle shot and turned around to try to see JFK but could not as he had moved. As he turned back to turn to his left he said he felt being struck forcefully in the back by another shot. He says that as he lay back onto his wife he heard a third shot and felt the spray of brain matter over him. Even though he did not hear three shots, he observed three shots.
It is certainly possible that JBC's back wound was caused by a bullet that had not passed through JFK. In fact, one can make a reasonable case that in order for the bullet to have missed his right lung as it did, it had to have been travelling at a very small angle to the direction of the car - almost from directly behind. That means it struck him when the car was farther down Elm when the angle to the SN was very small.
According to the evidence, all three shots struck either JFK or JBC. None missed................
I am not sure what your definition of evidence is.
I responded to your claim that all three shots found their mark. There's no evidence for that. In fact, it would be impossible. Less than a second passes between the time JFK is blocked by the Stemmons Freeway sign and when JBC is hit.
1) What the evidence shows is that JFK shows no signs of distress before the Stemmons Freeway Sign blocks him form the view of Zapruder at frame 208.
2) What the evidence shows is that by Frame 224 JBC suit lapel makes a rapid move forward indicating a bullet has passed through his body.
3) What the evidence shows is that by Frame 225 JFK is reacting to the automatic reflex known as the Thorburn position.
4) What the evidence shows is that the third shot hit JFK in the head and that either the first or second shot hit both JFK and JBC.
I have no problem with a claim that the second shot missed as LHO could still have had enough time to have fired a third shot, let's say first shot Frame 223, second shot missed around frame 250 (corresponds with Altgens testimony as to when he heard the first shot), third shot hit Frame 312. It's entirely possible, even probable, that Oswald was only using the iron sight for the first two shots and that would decrease the amount of time it takes to reload and fire by about 3/4 to a full second (12-18 frames). For the third and fatal head shot Oswald could have reaquired the target and fired in 3.3 seconds (62 frames).
While I agree there's earwitness testimony that places the first shot later than frame 186 I disagree there's no evidence of a shot before frame 186. The best evidence is the combination of the Zapruder film and the testimony of several witnesses plus Rosemary Willis can be seen on the Zapruder film running beside the presidential limo until she begins to slow down and turn her head to the left at frame 161. She later gave an interview in which she stated her reaction was due to a loud noise. This is in part why I agree with Gerald Posner that the sequence of shots were as follows;
1) Frame 160 missed
2) Frame 223 SB C-399 passes through JFK and JBC until it falls from his thigh and lands inside the pant cuff.
3) Frame 312 Fatal Head Shot
Harold Norman Affidavit 12/4/1963
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.
B. R. Williams and Junior Jarman back him up and all three were a floor directly below the snipers nest. What more do you need?
I want to be clear that I am not in any way endorsing your general view that Oswald did not fire all the shots. But your points about the SBT are valid. The SBT was a theory that legal counsel to the WC developed to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK went. There was never any actual evidence that it occurred and a great deal of evidence that conflicted with it. There is even more conflict between the "second bullet SBT" that is now popular and the evidence - particularly the "first bullet hit JFK" evidence, the evidence that the first shot was after z186, and the overwhelming evidence that the last two shots were closer together.
The question that was asked was answered.
R Caprio: "So you can't quote her saying that the same bullet hit both JFK and JBC. Got it."
-----------------------------------
What JBC stated was he cried Oh no no no after he was wounded.
What Nelly and Jackie stated was he cried out Oh no no no after the first shot and before the second. JBC never heard an additional shot just felt the pain. Where is the confusion. What more proof do you need.
----------------------------
The thread is about Sen Russell and three distinct shots. Prove the three shots. From where I stand if there is a difference between yourself , Chapman, and Mason only you three know what it is. Nothing but pure blind faith. Each with his own placement of a shot that never happened. If there was a third shot there would be no argument over where it happened, let alone being placed at all times and locations in the shooting sequence.
The twofer hit heavy rib bone only at a glance, not nose first.
You still haven't quoted her. I am not interested in your tangents. You have NOT shown that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet, thus, the SBT is false. This means that there was more that one shooter.
You believe JFK raising his arms and slumping is a definitive action as to when he was struck by the first shot but JBC stating he cried out when he is struck by a bullet is a tangent and we shouldn't believe him? We shouldn't believe Jackie and Nelly when they say they heard JBC cry out after the first shot? Is this representative of all the analysis you are posting?
Any progress on proving there was three shots?
I am going by the actual evidence and not body movement. I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred.
If you disagree then start citing some evidence to show that it occurred.
The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter.If the last two shots were closer together than 1 and 2, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. That means there were not two shots before z250. So what you see in z224-z250 has to be the result of one shot. If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250. That gives lots of time for Oswald to have fired both shots 1 and 2. No need for a second shooter.
Physical evidence vs body movement? It is not really the point Rob. JFK's body movement isn't an indication he was wounded? JBC crying out isn't an indication he was wounded? Your whole thread is based on what JBC said and Sen Russell believed, but now JBC states he cries out when he was wounded and you don't believe him. Now you are claiming you have physical evidence to refute all this but you don't want to post it?
Here is the statement that started the thread.
"The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty. I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film."
The fact there was at least two shots is a given. To believe there was three shots you have to believe there was at least two. Numerous eyewitnesses stated there was just two shots. You stated you are certain there was three distinct shots. Bill Chapman believes there was an early missed shot, which is in direct contradiction to the eyewitness statements. You believe there was a second gunman who, I am guessing, apparently just shot JBC. Andrew Mason believes-- I am not sure what Andrew believes, but a later shot than you or Bill, or something along those lines. You have been repeatedly asked to prove there was three shots. Up until now you have not offered the slightest proof of any kind to show there really was three shots, let alone a second gunman as you claim.
If in fact somewhere in your "Statements.....WC" posts you actually offered proof there were three shots it should be easy for you post it again or at least allude to it.
I want to believe as you do Rob, but I just can't. There is evidence of two shots but not three.
If the last two shots were closer together than 1 and 2, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. That means there were not two shots before z250. So what you see in z224-z250 has to be the result of one shot. If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250. That gives lots of time for Oswald to have fired both shots 1 and 2. No need for a second shooter.
My thread is about a member of the WC expressing doubts and these being confirmed by the HSCA. You have ignored this.
You have also failed to support your claim.
Except the SBT is false. So how do you explain seven wounds in two men with one bullet?Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.
I made no claim. You are certain there was three shots. There is evidence of only two shots. Prove there was three shots.You certainly do make a claim. You claim that there were not three shots and therefore, that the abundant evidence of three shots is false. You offer no explanation of how it is that so many (40+) not only agreed on the number of shots but also the specific pattern. You offer no explanation for the fact that of the 178 witnesses whose evidence relating to the number of shots was compiled by the HSCA: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots;132 reported hearing exactly three shots; (6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots). D. M. Green, ?Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy?, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142.
Explain the wound in Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You have said you have previous posts that prove it. Repost them.JBC's chest wound was caused by the second bullet. If the shot pattern was 1......2...3, the second shot occurred when the angle of the shot from the SN to the car was from almost directly behind. Since JFK had moved left, JBC's right armpit was not blocked by JFK.
If you truly do not understand the ability of a bullet to pass through multiple targets call any state Fish and Game office and explain to them your theory about a bullet not being able to pass through multiple targets . When they are done laughing I am sure they can provide you with whatever information is required to help you understand how a bullet works, especially a jacketed bullet. If you would like to watch a graphic demonstration of the concept watch "Schindlers List", in the beginning of the movie men are lined up and single shot is used to kill multiple men. Steven Spielberg had no problem understanding the concept.No one is saying that a 10 gram 6.5 mm. jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps is not capable of passing through a person and into another. The question is whether this bullet did pass through JBC's right armpit, chest, wrist and thigh after passing through JFK. The condition of CE399 does not help you in making that case. But that is a minor problem. The real problem is the evidence that JFK was struck by the first and JBC by the second and the fact that JBC's right armpit is right of JFK's neck exit wound.
Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.
You certainly do make a claim. You claim that there were not three shots and therefore, that the abundant evidence of three shots is false. You offer no explanation of how it is that so many (40+) not only agreed on the number of shots but also the specific pattern. You offer no explanation for the fact that of the 178 witnesses whose evidence relating to the number of shots was compiled by the HSCA: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots;132 reported hearing exactly three shots; (6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots). D. M. Green, ?Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy?, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142.
JBC's chest wound was caused by the second bullet. If the shot pattern was 1......2...3, the second shot occurred when the angle of the shot from the SN to the car was from almost directly behind. Since JFK had moved left, JBC's right armpit was not blocked by JFK.
No one is saying that a 10 gram 6.5 mm. jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps is not capable of passing through a person and into another. The question is whether this bullet did pass through JBC's right armpit, chest, wrist and thigh after passing through JFK. The condition of CE399 does not help you in making that case. But that is a minor problem. The real problem is the evidence that JFK was struck by the first and JBC by the second and the fact that JBC's right armpit is right of JFK's neck exit wound.
This just appears weird to me. If the first bullet hit JFK in the back and the second bullet hit JBC in the chest and wrist then the third bullet hit JFK in the head. That's three bullets! Consider this too. JBC's had his back facing Nellie between frames 250 and z278. That's the only time JBC could have received a hypothetical shot from left of the vehicle to his back without hitting Nellie. Are you saying there were shots from different directions?JBC's torso was twisted. His hips were turned slightly; his shoulders were turned about 75 degrees. So determining where his back was facing you have to specify what part of his back you are speaking about. He was struck in the right armpit at the level of the 5th rib. That part of his back was not facing Nellie. More important, it was exposed because his right arm was elevated as he was holding his stetson up in front of his chest. It is apparent that this part of his body was exposed to a shot from the rear from z260 to z278.
No, Rob thinks Sen Russell's statement somehow proves there is three shots and a second shooter------ there is evidence of two shots, prove there was three. Rob obviously can't, instead of insinuating there was three shots why don't you prove there was three shots? If there was in fact three shots it should be evident and easily shown.What is it about 132 witnesses who reported hearing 3 distinct shots that you find hard to see?
No matter how many variations of this same theory evolve there is still some basic problems. Apparently the shot has now moved to Z250 from Z270 and it is now a shot that hit him in the back instead of just the leg?I am not sure why you are confused. The first shot was after z186, and the last was just before z313, a difference of 127 frames. So the midpoint between 1 & 3 was z250. But witnesses did not describe evenly spaced shots They described a second shot noticeably closer to 3 than to 1. So it was after z250. How much after? Well look at the clues in zfilm. JFK's hair flies up from z273 to z276. George Hickey said he was watching the President at the time of the second shot. He said JFK's hair on the right side flew up at the time he heard the second shot but he was not hit by it. If that was caused by the bullet just missing his head, it must have struck JBC on the right side. There are a number of other clues that indicate the second shot was between z272-273.
It appears you have abandoned the two shots closer together at the end to an even shot spacing? At least the cycle time of the carcano registered and you are trying to incorporate it in this new variation.
1) After viewing the Zapuder Film, Connally actually states he felt he was wounded by Z235.That's true. But, interestingly, no one asked him where he turned around to see JFK. Nellie thought he was hit about the same time. But no one asked her to explain how that could be possible if she never looked back after the second shot, as she testified. She looks back from z255 to z270.
2) Where is the bullet that hit JFK but supposedly missed JBCCE399.
3) Connally cries out after being wounded and Jackie always felt if her attention had not been diverted from JFK by JBC screaming she would have pulled JFK over on her lap. Remember JBC cries out after being wounded and both Nelly and Jackie reference that as having been after the first shot. Nelly even specifically states before the second.If witnesses heard a 1.......2...3 pattern from various locations, many far away from the bullet path, the sounds must have been from three shots. There is no way hat a single shot can produce two distinct sounds for that many witnesses. Besides many described the sounds as being spaced about 2:1. That cannot be produced by only two shots.
4) If you are going to quote the witnesses at least state when they made there statements and how they changed over time. This appears to be the same seriously flawed logic that is always presented.
5) A large number of the eyewitnesses state there was two shots and where the first shot occurred and JFK reacts to it. Maybe stop regurgitating McAdam's witness compilation it is basically flawed, using latter statements not the earliest and heavily weighted to earwitnesses and not eyewitnesses.
6) The witness compilation you are quoting refers to the last two shots as being very close, "almost as one", or statements similar to this. Speer's analysis of them was that they were really talking about one shot.
7) There is still the same problem of few witnesses describe the assassination as taking place the way you are describing. Specifically the Zapruder Film does not.
JBC's torso was twisted. His hips were turned slightly; his shoulders were turned about 75 degrees. So determining where his back was facing you have to specify what part of his back you are speaking about. He was struck in the right armpit at the level of the 5th rib. That part of his back was not facing Nellie. More important, it was exposed because his right arm was elevated as he was holding his stetson up in front of his chest. It is apparent that this part of his body was exposed to a shot from the rear from z260 to z278.
What is it about 132 witnesses who reported hearing 3 distinct shots that you find hard to see?You using them as if they were digital recorders. Some have utilized the witness record to claim the limousine had stopped and that the wound seen at Parkland was at the rear of the skull. Justice-by-Democracy leads to things like lynchings and war declarations. You're like an Electoral Collage.
I am not sure why you are confused. The first shot was after z186, and the last was just before z313, a difference of 127 frames.Your moonbat-crazy theory has been confusing people for almost two decades. Any followers outside your family?
So the midpoint between 1 & 3 was z250.Your math is certainly working something out with a pencil.
But witnesses did not describe evenly spaced shots They described a second shot noticeably closer to 3 than to 1. So it was after z250. How much after? Well look at the clues in zfilm. JFK's hair flies up from z273 to z276.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z252.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z253.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z254.jpg) |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z268.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z269.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z270.jpg) |
George Hickey said he was watching the President at the time of the second shot. He said JFK's hair on the right side flew up at the time he heard the second shot but he was not hit by it. If that was caused by the bullet just missing his head, it must have struck JBC on the right side.
| (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AXW-bE6isPQ/UolNvHneNSI/AAAAAAAAw1I/wwG51z8e7zY/s1600/Z-Film+Clip+(SBT+In+Motion)(2).gif) | (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h8KVxdCLtyE/Vgq0BdGJ6KI/AAAAAAAAll8/2WndpMI19_8/s1600/Altgens%2Bcrop.jpg) |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z206.jpg) |
There are a number of other clues that indicate the second shot was between z272-273.Thanks. But when it comes to you advocating your pet theory, we've seen enough of your ability to process a "clue".
That's true. But, interestingly, no one asked him where he turned around to see JFK. Nellie thought he was hit about the same time. But no one asked her to explain how that could be possible if she never looked back after the second shot, as she testified. She looks back from z255 to z270.The Willis-06 photo (Z202) shows Nellie turned around enough to see the President. She has stated (more often then not) that she turned to see the President before he raised up his hands.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/connallys-pg48-life-nov25.66.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/nellietv.gif) |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z254.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z270.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z274.jpg) |
CE399.The missile wouldn't slow enough passing through the President's throat to be just gently stopped by the soft tissue in Connally's thigh. And what squeezed the bullet along its long axis?
You using them as if they were digital recorders.
Just that Hickey is turned around in the Altgens photo, giving him exactly one second to turn around and locate the President by Z273. Even if he did turn back around, he can't see to the right-front of the President's head in the Z270s.No. That is not correct. Read what he said. Hickey said he turned forward and was looking at the president when the last two shots were fired. He was looking backward still in Altgens 6 taken at z256. So, by Hickey's evidence as well as Altgens, that is before the last two shots.
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed
because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward
and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head."
Hickey could just-as-well be describing the President's forward lurch Z228ff.
Hickey's look backward occurred not immediately after the first shot, as he claimed, but after the second shot. He certainly is describing a first shot that struck nothing. If there was a first shot late-Z190s-to-Z200s (per your theory), then Hickey is hearing it as he looks in the direction of the President. Hickey discredits your theory on that account. If there was a first (missed) shot in the late-Z150s (as some claim), then Hickey is at least not looking towards the President when he hears it. He's not looking rearward but in the later written reconstruction he could have phrased it that way.Again, you are changing what he said. Read his evidence again.
Thanks. But when it comes to you advocating your pet theory, we've seen enough of your ability to process a "clue".You are avoiding the point. It is not about where she looks back. She said she looked back many times. It is about where she did not look back. She said she did not look back after the second shot. So if she is looking back it is before the second shot, according to her testimony.
The Willis-06 photo (Z202) shows Nellie turned around enough to see the President. She has stated (more often then not) that she turned to see the President before he raised up his hands.
Mason is back for his Christmas beating.
Mason's own Fun-House-Mirror depiction of the Connally torso shot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/connally-torso-transit-z271.jpg)
You using them as if they were digital recorders. Some have utilized the witness record to claim the limousine had stopped and that the wound seen at Parkland was at the rear of the skull. Justice-by-Democracy leads to things like lynchings and war declarations. You're like an Electoral Collage.
Your moonbat-crazy theory has been confusing people for almost two decades. Any followers outside your family?
Your math is certainly working something out with a pencil.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z252.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z253.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z254.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z268.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z269.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z270.jpg)
And not just there.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/3178bab.jpg)Just that Hickey is turned around in the Altgens photo, giving him exactly one second to turn around and locate the President by Z273. Even if he did turn back around, he can't see to the right-front of the President's head in the Z270s.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AXW-bE6isPQ/UolNvHneNSI/AAAAAAAAw1I/wwG51z8e7zY/s1600/Z-Film+Clip+(SBT+In+Motion)(2).gif) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h8KVxdCLtyE/Vgq0BdGJ6KI/AAAAAAAAll8/2WndpMI19_8/s1600/Altgens%2Bcrop.jpg)
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed
because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward
and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head."
Hickey could just-as-well be describing the President's forward lurch Z228ff.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z206.jpg)
Hickey's look backward occurred not immediately after the first shot, as he claimed, but after the second shot. He certainly is describing a first shot that struck nothing. If there was a first shot late-Z190s-to-Z200s (per your theory), then Hickey is hearing it as he looks in the direction of the President. Hickey discredits your theory on that account. If there was a first (missed) shot in the late-Z150s (as some claim), then Hickey is at least not looking towards the President when he hears it. He's not looking rearward but in the later written reconstruction he could have phrased it that way.
Thanks. But when it comes to you advocating your pet theory, we've seen enough of your ability to process a "clue".
The Willis-06 photo (Z202) shows Nellie turned around enough to see the President. She has stated (more often then not) that she turned to see the President before he raised up his hands.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/connallys-pg48-life-nov25.66.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/nellietv.gif)
After her husband has been shot (as he emerges from behind the sign), she later looks back-and-forth twice as if to see if the Secret Service agents are going to do something.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z254.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z270.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z274.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/6pooat.jpg)
Nellie is facing more away from Kennedy when she comes out of her Z255-270 turn than when she begins.
The missile wouldn't slow enough passing through the President's throat to be just gently stopped by the soft tissue in Connally's thigh. And what squeezed the bullet along its long axis?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TBmXZcDgvtI/AAAAAAAAEOA/BZUKLEOSaTo/s400/CE399+%282%29.jpg)
What is it about 132 witnesses who reported hearing 3 distinct shots that you find hard to see?
I am not sure why you are confused. The first shot was after z186, and the last was just before z313, a difference of 127 frames. So the midpoint between 1 & 3 was z250. But witnesses did not describe evenly spaced shots They described a second shot noticeably closer to 3 than to 1. So it was after z250. How much after? Well look at the clues in zfilm. JFK's hair flies up from z273 to z276. George Hickey said he was watching the President at the time of the second shot. He said JFK's hair on the right side flew up at the time he heard the second shot but he was not hit by it. If that was caused by the bullet just missing his head, it must have struck JBC on the right side. There are a number of other clues that indicate the second shot was between z272-273.
That's true. But, interestingly, no one asked him where he turned around to see JFK. Nellie thought he was hit about the same time. But no one asked her to explain how that could be possible if she never looked back after the second shot, as she testified. She looks back from z255 to z270. CE399.If witnesses heard a 1.......2...3 pattern from various locations, many far away from the bullet path, the sounds must have been from three shots. There is no way hat a single shot can produce two distinct sounds for that many witnesses. Besides many described the sounds as being spaced about 2:1. That cannot be produced by only two shots.
And?------------- Explain why it is important.
Maybe this will help.
WC conclusion pages 110-111
It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired.
I never, ever said or suggested that there was a z250 shot. You really need to read more carefully. z250 is simply the earliest one can place the midpoint between shots 1 and 3. The second shot as a perceptible time after the midpoint. There are many indicators that the second shot was between z272 and z273. Not only does JFK's hair lift, but the sun visor over Greer's head that was damaged by a bullet fragment also moves between those frames. JBC's wrist changes appearance there and JBC starts to sail forward before falling back onto his wife.
If memory serves in the past it was called Shot Pattern Analysis. I noticed there are some new wrinkles like the Z250 shot. It used to be a shot at Z270 or later.
The 132 witnesses of doom are still somewhat the same.Yes. They never change.
Interesting is Hickey like Kinney claims to have seen the hair fly forward due to the bullets impact. They are the only two to make that distinction and what is interesting is they were also room mates.I am not sure how you know that - what is your source? In any event, what difference does that make? Being room-mates means they are going to make up stories about what happened?
You misquoted Hickey.?? If you are suggesting that I misrepresented what Hickey said in his statements, please read them again because you have not read them correctly:
His first statement was different in key aspects. Kinney reiterated what Hickey stated that a bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward.There is no material conflict between Hickey's two statements. Read them again, carefully.
Altgens in his first press news bulletin read live on the air for NBC minutes after the assassination stated there was there was only two shots.Do you have a quote? In his WC testimony he was clear that his z256 photo was after the first shot and before any other. He could vouch for the first and the last but was not sure how many were in between. That to you means he heard only two?
The HSCA explained the timing of the echoes to the original shot. Maybe you were unaware of this.In the early sixties a firecracker that was very popular before it was banned was the cherry bomb. It was deafening. They were banned in 1966. By 1978 they had not been around for over a decade so when people were asked whether they thought the rifle sounded like a firecracker, they could only compare it to the firecrackers they knew, which were things that went "pop".
HSCA Accoustical analysis
All observers rated the rifle shots as very very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire. Only the pistol, which was subsonic, produced a moderate loudness.
I never, ever said or suggested that there was a z250 shot. You really need to read more carefully. z250 is simply the earliest one can place the midpoint between shots 1 and 3. The second shot as a perceptible time after the midpoint. There are many indicators that the second shot was between z272 and z273. Not only does JFK's hair lift,
but the sun visor over Greer's head that was damaged by a bullet fragment also moves between those frames.
| (http://i68.tinypic.com/2enclfn.jpg) | (http://i62.tinypic.com/3178bab.jpg) |
JBC's wrist changes appearance there and JBC starts to sail forward before falling back onto his wife.
?? If you are suggesting that I misrepresented what Hickey said in his statements, please read them again because you have not read them correctly:
November 22, 1963 statement:
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
In his November 30, 1963 statement Hickey explains in greater detail the shot sequence:
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
There is no material conflict between Hickey's two statements. Read them again, carefully.
In both he says there were three shots. In both he describes the first shot and then describes the next two. In his second statement he said the last two were in rapid succession. That does not conflict with what he said in his first statement. It just provides more detail. In his first statement he stated that as a result of those two shots, he observed JFK's hair to fly up and also observed an impact to his head. In his second statement he clarified which shot impacted his head and which one caused his hair to fly up. He was able to discern that they were separate and distinct shots.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z206.jpg) |
Do you have a quote? In his WC testimony he was clear that his z256 photo was after the first shot and before any other. He could vouch for the first and the last but was not sure how many were in between. That to you means he heard only two?
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) | Mr. ALTGENS - I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea where the sound came from when you were standing there at No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty. | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) |
To be clear, my "theory" is that what actually occurred is what a statistically highly significant proportion of the witnesses said they observed.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z206.jpg)
Hickey presents another problem for your theory.
You claim there was a first shot about Z200-or-so and that witnesses to that saw Kennedy react immediately.Yes, although the evidence suggests that the first shot was a bit earlier, likely z192-195.
Yet Hickey is facing forward in Z206 and reported no reaction by Kennedy to the first shot.Hickey never said that he looked at the President before turning rearward. He said he looked at the President only after turning to the front, which he estimated was 2 or 3 seconds after turning rearward. In z206 Hickey's face appears to be facing somewhat toward the right. I can't tell where his eyes are looking. So he may be just getting up and beginning his turn to the right and rear. He turned forward in response to a "disturbance" in the President's car (the only thing that fits that description is JBC shouting "oh, no, no, no" which Nellie said he uttered before the second shot. Hickey did say that when he turned forward and looked at the President he saw the President had "slumped forward and to his left". So he is yet another witness who recalled that the president had reacted to the first shot. Here is the full account of what he saw and heard as set out in his Nov. 30/63 report:
We know Hickey did not literally stand up during the shooting, at least from how he appears in the photographic record. Seems reasonable to assume that he remained seated.How does he turn completely around if he is sitting? His head is higher than others inside the car but not as high as the agents on the running board (see: Altgens 6 photo). He may have been crouching with one foot on the floor and a knee on the seat. But he was not sitting.
However, in Z162, for example, he is not seated vertically and is looking to his left. This could be the point where Hickey decided--upon hearing the first shot--to commence to "stand partially up" or "stand up", and to "turn to the right and rear".Except that he is nowhere close to turning rearward for at least another 44 frames. He said he turned rearward in response to hearing the first shot.
Also telling is when he talks about the shot (possibly the latter one of two by Z255) he heard before he took his photo. "Almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture" just doesn't work too well with your first shot at Z200-or-so, about three seconds before Altgens took his photo.Yes, but it is a much worse estimate of the time if the first shot was at z155 as you suggest. Witnesses are much better at observing the sequence of events and relative lapses of time than measuring absolute time. Altgens took his z256 photo a bit more than 3 seconds after the first shot if the first shot was around z195.
To be clear, my "theory" is that what actually occurred is what a statistically highly significant proportion of the witnesses said they observed.But when one investigates your witness pool, we find a few "two-shot" witnesses who place the "president slumping" as the first of the two shots they discuss (the second is usually the head shot). You interpret the "first" shot among those two shots as the first of your three-shot scenario with two to follow (although those witnesses don't support that), whereas I see their "slumping shot" as the second in a three-shot scenario and the one shot before the head shot. I only suggest they've failed to remember or place the first shot (which I believe missed), which was unexpected and which many witnesses took to be something that was not a gunshot.
Yes, although the evidence suggests that the first shot was a bit earlier, likely z192-195. Hickey never said that he looked at the President before turning rearward. He said he looked at the President only after turning to the front, which he estimated was 2 or 3 seconds after turning rearward.But the photographic evidence shows Hickey turned rearward near-to-or-just-after the moment of the "slumping" shot in the Z220s in which both Kennedy and Connally appear to react simultaneously. We don't see him in the Z220s but he is facing forward in Z206 (and appears to be similarly positions in Z213) so it's likely to me that he turned rearward only after the second shot at Z223.
In z206 Hickey's face appears to be facing somewhat toward the right.
I can't tell where his eyes are looking. So he may be just getting up and beginning his turn to the right and rear. He turned forward in response to a "disturbance" in the President's car (the only thing that fits that description is JBC shouting "oh, no, no, no" which Nellie said he uttered before the second shot.
Hickey did say that when he turned forward and looked at the President he saw the President had "slumped forward and to his left". So he is yet another witness who recalled that the president had reacted to the first shot.I doubt Hickey would have admitted to be being turned around from the President after he had heard the sound of the second shot (at Z223) and saw the President lurch forward in response to it ("the hair on the right side of his head flew forward"). I think he shifted the time he was turned around from after the second shot to before the second shot.
Here is the full account of what he saw and heard as set out in his Nov. 30/63 report:Hickey meant a disturbance in the Queen Mary followup car (679X) which he was riding in. Agent Landis claimed that after the first shot: "I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, 'What was it? A Fire Cracker?' I remarked, 'I don't know; I don't see any smoke.' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds."
- After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head . The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.
How does he turn completely around if he is sitting? His head is higher than others inside the car but not as high as the agents on the running board (see: Altgens 6 photo).Where do we see Hickey's body turned completely around?
He may have been crouching with one foot on the floor and a knee on the seat. But he was not sitting. Except that he is nowhere close to turning rearward for at least another 44 frames. He said he turned rearward in response to hearing the first shotA little fudge that sounds a lot better that him saying he turned around after hearing the second shot and having seen the President reacted to it.
Yes, but it is a much worse estimate of the time if the first shot was at z155 as you suggest. Witnesses are much better at observing the sequence of events and relative lapses of time than measuring absolute time.Witnesses had no reason to gauge the time-span (in a three-shot LN scenario) between the first shot and second shot. I would say most were dismissive towards the first shot ("firecracker", "backfire") and not expecting the loud report to repeat. Only after hearing the second loud report would they have any compulsion to begin gauging the span between the shots. By then, the time-span between shots one and two is no longer available to be gauged, and would seem to be further back in time than it really was.
Altgens took his z256 photo a bit more than 3 seconds after the first shot if the first shot was around z195.Altgens was pretty vague about the sounds he heard before the "shot" he was sure was "almost simultaneous" with his Z255 photo. "I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions?" The only other shot he was firm abnout was the head shot. Only when pressed, did he reluctantly place a thriod shot between the two shots he was sure of.
I made no claim. You are certain there was three shots. There is evidence of only two shots. Prove there was three shots. Explain the wound in Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You have said you have previous posts that prove it. Repost them.
You have offered Sen Russell as proof there was three shots and a jacketed bullet, which is basically designed to not deform like a soft core bullet, did not pass through two targets.
If you truly do not understand the ability of a bullet to pass through multiple targets call any state Fish and Game office and explain to them your theory about a bullet not being able to pass through multiple targets . When they are done laughing I am sure they can provide you with whatever information is required to help you understand how a bullet works, especially a jacketed bullet. If you would like to watch a graphic demonstration of the concept watch "Schindlers List", in the beginning of the movie men are lined up and single shot is used to kill multiple men. Steven Spielberg had no problem understanding the concept.
----------------------------------------------------
You mentioned the HSCA. Maybe these observations and statements from the HSCA will help. They obviously believed the number of shots reported by the witnesses was "Inflated" due to outside sources and media influence and they even offer the additional explanation of misinterpreting echoes as shots.
"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.
No, Rob thinks Sen Russell's statement somehow proves there is three shots and a second shooter------ there is evidence of two shots, prove there was three. Rob obviously can't, instead of insinuating there was three shots why don't you prove there was three shots? If there was in fact three shots it should be evident and easily shown.
No matter how many variations of this same theory evolve there is still some basic problems. Apparently the shot has now moved to Z250 from Z270 and it is now a shot that hit him in the back instead of just the leg? It appears you have abandoned the two shots closer together at the end to an even shot spacing? At least the cycle time of the carcano registered and you are trying to incorporate it in this new variation.
1) After viewing the Zapuder Film, Connally actually states he felt he was wounded by Z235.
2) Where is the bullet that hit JFK but supposedly missed JBC
3) Connally cries out after being wounded and Jackie always felt if her attention had not been diverted from JFK by JBC screaming she would have pulled JFK over on her lap. Remember JBC cries out after being wounded and both Nelly and Jackie reference that as having been after the first shot. Nelly even specifically states before the second.
4) If you are going to quote the witnesses at least state when they made there statements and how they changed over time. This appears to be the same seriously flawed logic that is always presented.
5) A large number of the eyewitnesses state there was two shots and where the first shot occurred and JFK reacts to it. Maybe stop regurgitating McAdam's witness compilation it is basically flawed, using latter statements not the earliest and heavily weighted to earwitnesses and not eyewitnesses.
6) The witness compilation you are quoting refers to the last two shots as being very close, "almost as one", or statements similar to this. Speer's analysis of them was that they were really talking about one shot.
7) There is still the same problem of few witnesses describe the assassination as taking place the way you are describing. Specifically the Zapruder Film does not.
So you are claiming that all three shots that the WC claimed were fired struck JFK and JBC, right? How do you explain James Tague then?James Tague recalled three distinct shot sounds. He recalled that he was not hit on the first shot and was not hit on the last shot. So that means he was hit on the second shot.
My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.Again, if the second shot was just before Greer turned around at z280 (i.e z272), there is no need for a second shooter. Oswald could have fired all three shots.
So you are claiming that all three shots that the WC claimed were fired struck JFK and JBC, right? How do you explain James Tague then?
What other conclusion can be reached except a shot at Z250?Just to be clear, 132 witnesses (as compiled for the HSCA) said there were 3 shots. A total of 17 said there were only two shots. That is not "a very large number". Not all of them commented on the shot pattern. About 60 commented on the shot pattern.
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
132 witnesses all describing 3 shots with the last two being closer together is not a description of the Zapruder film or a shot at Z250 with LHO's carcano and its 2.3 second cycle time. So much for 132 witnesses. A very large number of eyewitnesses stated they heard just two shots. The sae eyewitnesses who state JFK reacted to the first shot and where that shot took place.
-----------------------------He is talking about the effect of TWO shots, not one. TWO shots is TWO events, not the same event. He was able to discern TWO separate shots.
Hickey
Wrong --- There is a huge difference in Hickey's Statements, in what universe is stating the passing bullet makes JFK's hair wave and a bullet impacting his head and making the hair detach the same event ?
There is little difference between Kinney and Hickey when it comes to their statements. Kinney has the head shot as being the second shot, the same as Kellerman and Greer. Hickey states the final two shots were so close together they sounded like one. That is not a description of a shot at Z250 or Z270.Greer not only described two distinct late shots but he said he turned back, forward and back again between those last two shots. You can see these turns at z277-280 (back), z290-292 (forward) and 302-05 (back).
Hickey 11/30 statement about rooming with Kinney. The only two witnesses to state the hair flew from his head. They obviously talked about what occurred and that is reflected in their statements.Or the similarity between their statements is the result of them both having observed what they said they observed.
"No time element between" the shots but yet he is describing two distinct shots as if they he could tell them apart. Originally he had just a bullet impacting and causing the hair to fly forward. The same as Kinney.You need to read the statements again. Originally Hickey said there were two shots and described two things that occurred. He never said that both things (impact to the head and hair flying forward) occurred on one shot while nothing occurred on the other, which is the way you seem to be interpreting it. He said there were two shots and two things happened. He did not clarify what happened on each shot until he gave submitted his report Nov. 30/63. In that report he said that hair flew forward on the second shot but there was NO IMPACT evident: it appeared to miss. He said that he saw that the third shot impacted the President.
Trying to match the testimony of individuals who are being shot or shot at to fractions of seconds on the Z film is largely futile. I don't see any way that the first bullet that struck JFK would not have hit JC given the known factors and recreations. It is simply a mathematical problem with a few variables.I don't disagree that it would be difficult for those being shot at to measure shot spacings/timings and locations.
But when one investigates your witness pool, we find a few "two-shot" witnesses who place the "president slumping" as the first of the two shots they discuss (the second is usually the head shot). You interpret the "first" shot among those two shots as the first of your three-shot scenario with two to follow (although those witnesses don't support that), whereas I see their "slumping shot" as the second in a three-shot scenario and the one shot before the head shot. I only suggest they've failed to remember or place the first shot (which I believe missed), which was unexpected and which many witnesses took to be something that was not a gunshot.I understand. You hypothesize that witnesses heard a loud noise and since they did not at that instant recognize it as a shot, they did not count it as a shot when they later heard more loud noises and realized that they were shots. So, if they could only recall two shots they were referring to the second and third shots. If that were the case then one would expect those who did hear three shots would have observed that JFK smiled and waved (for three seconds yet) after the first loud noise and that he did not react until the second shot. The problem is that there aren't any such witnesses. So your speculative hypothesis is not supported by evidence.
But the photographic evidence shows Hickey turned rearward near-to-or-just-after the moment of the "slumping" shot in the Z220s in which both Kennedy and Connally appear to react simultaneously. We don't see him in the Z220s but he is facing forward in Z206 (and appears to be similarly positions in Z213) so it's likely to me that he turned rearward only after the second shot at Z223.
So it's more likely to you that Hickey cannot see the President in Z206 but can detect a hair flutter that's out of his line-of-sight in Z276 a second after he is photographed in Altgens facing rearward.I did not say Hickey could not see JFK. Neither did Hickey. He was interested in finding the source of the sound, which appeared to have come from his right rear. So he was just not looking at JFK. He was looking at the crowd for possible threats. That was his job.
The second shot which you place near the early-Z270s. You also claim that the Governor yelled those words as well as "My God, they're going to kill us all" between the Z270s and the head shot.That's a better argument for there having been no second shot at z223. Besides, Hickey said that the second and third were in rapid succession -almost no element of time between them - hardly a description of a space of 5 seconds.
I doubt Hickey would have admitted to be being turned around from the President after he had heard the sound of the second shot (at Z223) and saw the President lurch forward in response to it ("the hair on the right side of his head flew forward"). I think he shifted the time he was turned around from after the second shot to before the second shot.
Hickey meant a disturbance in the Queen Mary followup car (679X) which he was riding in. Agent Landis claimed that after the first shot: "I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, 'What was it? A Fire Cracker?' I remarked, 'I don't know; I don't see any smoke.' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds.You're right. 679x was the QM. But the timing of the disturbance in the QM could be related to JBC's utterance. It caught Jackie's attention. Or it could be related to Clint Hill jumping off the runningboard. In any event, he was still turned rearward at z256. If he was turned forward at the time of the second and third shots, he must have turned around soon after z256.
I understand. You hypothesize that witnesses heard a loud noise and since they did not at that instant recognize it as a shot, they did not count it as a shot when they later heard more loud noises and realized that they were shots. So, if they could only recall two shots they were referring to the second and third shots. If that were the case then one would expect those who did hear three shots would have observed that JFK smiled and waved (for three seconds yet) after the first loud noise and that he did not react until the second shot. The problem is that there aren't any such witnesses. So your speculative hypothesis is not supported by evidence.
I did not say Hickey could not see JFK. Neither did Hickey. He was interested in finding the source of the sound, which appeared to have come from his right rear. So he was just not looking at JFK. He was looking at the crowd for possible threats. That was his job.Err. Doesn't Hickey say "possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last"? Your scenario has over two seconds for the last two shots, so by Hickey's measure, the three shots were roughly even-spaced.
That's a better argument for there having been no second shot at z223. Besides, Hickey said that the second and third were in rapid succession -almost no element of time between them - hardly a description of a space of 5 seconds.
You're right. 679x was the QM. But the timing of the disturbance in the QM could be related to JBC's utterance. It caught Jackie's attention. Or it could be related to Clint Hill jumping off the runningboard. In any event, he was still turned rearward at z256. If he was turned forward at the time of the second and third shots, he must have turned around soon after z256.
James Tague recalled three distinct shot sounds. He recalled that he was not hit on the first shot and was not hit on the last shot. So that means he was hit on the second shot.
That fits with:
1. CE399 being the first shot that struck JFK in the back/neck.
2. The second shot striking JBC in the right armpit exiting his chest and striking the back of the wrist that was pressed against his chest.
3. The evidence is consistent that the bullet striking the radius, a very hard bone, fragmented. There were many small specks of lead in the wrist wound. The bullet fragments would tend to deflect away from the point of contact with the hard radius. That would have been up.
4. Greer said he felt a "concussion" sound on the second shot. He reported no such sound on the first or third shots. His right ear was a foot or so from the point of impact of the bullet fragments that struck the windshield and windshield frame and sun visor.
5. Since a fragment struck and damaged the very top part of the windshield frame, it is not difficult to imagine that a fragment, or several fragments, may have been deflected a bit higher and then gone on to strike the pavement in front of Tague and deflected up to strike the curb and then Tague's cheek.
6. Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and saw JBC falling back. He is seen turning back around z278-z280.Again, if the second shot was just before Greer turned around at z280 (i.e z272), there is no need for a second shooter. Oswald could have fired all three shots.
Other than Tague, can you supply a witness that stated they seen the bullet strike the curb near Tague? The witnesses describing a bullet striking the street account for all the shots fired. What is interesting is their statements always seem to leave just two shots hitting both JFK and JBC.
Would it not be easier to just admit you can't prove there was actually three shots. Nobody else seems to be able to either. You have seen everyone's theory on three shots, is there one of them that seems remotely plausible? Mason's seems to be evolving on a minute by minute basis. The belief there was three shots is faith based, the fact nobody agrees when the extra shot occurred should be the first indication it never happened.
If you believe there was a separate shooter then you obviously do not believe the three shells found in the snipers nest were all fired that day.
You're making this complicated. You're also making claims that you cannot possibly support. It sounds like you are unable to support your beliefs.You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.
Just to be clear, 132 witnesses (as compiled for the HSCA) said there were 3 shots. A total of 17 said there were only two shots. That is not "a very large number". Not all of them commented on the shot pattern. About 60 commented on the shot pattern.
Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)
Here is the distribution of those shot pattern recollections:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_pattern_shots.jpg)He is talking about the effect of TWO shots, not one. TWO shots is TWO events, not the same event. He was able to discern TWO separate shots.
Greer not only described two distinct late shots but he said he turned back, forward and back again between those last two shots. You can see these turns at z277-280 (back), z290-292 (forward) and 302-05 (back).
Mary Woodward also commented on the closeness of the last two shot sounds. In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: ?The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.? ? ?and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one?.
So, it may be that overlapping of sounds that Hickey was describing: the sound of the third shot was heard while the reverberation of the second continued.
So the evidence not inconsistent with a shot at z272-273. In fact, the evidence excludes a second shot much later than that. JFK's hair does not fly up between z276 and z312. Greer would not have time to react by z277 or 278 if the second shot was as late as z276.
Or the similarity between their statements is the result of them both having observed what they said they observed.
You need to read the statements again. Originally Hickey said there were two shots and described two things that occurred. He never said that both things (impact to the head and hair flying forward) occurred on one shot while nothing occurred on the other, which is the way you seem to be interpreting it. He said there were two shots and two things happened. He did not clarify what happened on each shot until he gave submitted his report Nov. 30/63. In that report he said that hair flew forward on the second shot but there was NO IMPACT evident: it appeared to miss. He said that he saw that the third shot impacted the President.
Can you support the SBT or not?
I see the problem, somehow you have managed to convince yourself that your analysis is correct and JBC could view the Zapuder film and not know that he was wounded, or ever question how the HSCA arrived at their conclusions. It is apparent you went through the witness tabulation looking for the words "three shots" and then claimed that meant a shot supporting this theory about a shot at Z250 or Z270 or in a place different than what the Zapruder film shows or the witnesses actually stated.I have no idea what you are talking about.
Unfortunately for this theory, the HSCA dismissed their own report as being faulty due to media influence. They determined the witnesses inflated the number of shots. If the HSCA did not support their own Witness Analysis why would you?The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots. The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot. That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory. So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots. It was the HSCA.
"'While recognizing the substantial numberI agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots. That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears. That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is. If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left. If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from.
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
A number of the eyewitnesses changed the number of shots from two to three. Again the HSCA had an opinion about the confusion over the number of shots and why the number would be inflated:If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot. Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I didn't go through the witness testimony to find the persons who reported 3 shots. DM Green did that for the HSCA. He reviewed all the witness evidence and found that there were 178 who reported on the number of shots. Of those 178 he found 132 who reported hearing exactly 3 shots.
Those 132 witnesses neither support nor conflict with a shot at z272. To be clear I never suggested there was a shot at z250. I am not aware of anyone who suggested such a shot.
The Zfilm unequivocally, by itself, shows the impact of the head shot. It does not unequivocally by itself show the impact of any other shot. You need additional evidence to determine where those shots occurred.
The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots. The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot. That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory. So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots. It was the HSCA.
I agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots. That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears. That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is. If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left. If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from.
But I don't agree that one cannot use witnesses to count the number of shots. While some witnesses may be influenced by news reports of the number of shots, many would not Besides, many gave their statements regarding the three shots within hours of the events, before hearing any media reports. There are too many witnesses who heard 3 shots for this to be explained away as influenced by hearing the reports of others. And it in no way explains the shot pattern 1.......2...3 that many reported. There was virtually no reporting of the shot pattern at all.
If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot. Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.
What other conclusion can be reached except you stating there was a shot at Z250?No, that is not a conclusion you can draw. You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250. You also have to read what I said in context. I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250". I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
---------------------------------------------
Now you have a shot at Z270 again. This theory lacks continuity from one thought to another.You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity. I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250. I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.
This theory is in direct contradiction with what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated occurred.I have to disagree. The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.
Clint Hill rode on the back of the car to Parkland and was the only SS Agent to react. He stated there was only two shots. Instead of quoting Hill and his statement there was two shots, SA Hickey is quoted to promote the theory of a shot at Z250Again you are wrong. I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276.,
the SS Agent with no view of the car is misquoted as proof of something that never occurred.Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.
Hickey has to ask Kinney what happened because Kinney is front and center. Kinney reports the headshot as the second shot. Actually it is nothing short of incredible this is even going on.What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?
You yourself cannot possibly believe this. Paul Landis also states there was two shots as does Glen Bennett.Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear. In his Nov 22 notes (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0280b.htm) it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:
It doesn't matter if you agree with the witnesses being influenced by media reporting. Both the WC and the HSCA included language in their conclusions stating it as a problem. The report you are promoting as all encompassing contains 2 shot witnesses listed as three shot witnesses because of the failure of the report to include all the statements these people made early on. The first reports of the assassination were made to the media. The reporters did not run to the earwitnesses and ask what did you hear. The report is basically flawed and a waste of time and that is what the HSCA is stating in their conclusion.Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter. You have to look at all the witness statements. There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds. You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo. If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?
You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.
Sure, there is only evidence of a total of two bullets and a very large group of witnesses stated there was only two shots.
-------------------------
Your turn. You stated there was three shots. Prove there was three shots.
It should be easy given you did so numerous times in the past.
Caprio: " ....... I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred. "
Explain the trajectory and wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not pass through JFK first.
You have been asked numerous times and no answer. This thread appears to be all talk and no walk.
No, that is not a conclusion you can draw. You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250. You also have to read what I said in context. I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250". I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity. I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250. I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.
I have to disagree. The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.
Again you are wrong. I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276., Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.
What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear. In his Nov 22 notes (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0280b.htm) it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:
"At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.
In his November 23 report he definitely refers to three shots:
"At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/ and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limosine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."
Without the Nov. 23 report one could easily conclude from the Nov. 22 notes that Bennett recalled only two shots, although it is an odd way to say it. He hears a first loud noise THEN looks at the President and at that time sees a shot "that hit him in the back". That would be two shots. Or he could be saying that he looked at the President and saw where the first shot had hit him.
But with the Nov. 23 report, in which he again refers to the head shot as the second shot, it is clear that he means it was the second of the last two shots because he has already referred to the first and second shots.
It is also possible that he recalled hearing only two shots for sure, the first one striking JFK, not recalling another shot until the head shot, but after writing his notes and hearing people talk about three shots, he convinced himself that there was a second shot struck JFK in the back and the third shot (which he still calls "a second shot") hit JFK in the head. Unfortunately, Bennett was never questioned by the WC or HSCA.
Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter. You have to look at all the witness statements. There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds. You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo. If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?
Saying that there were only two shots is NOT supporting the SBT. Can you support it or not?
Do you believe that the shots came from the TSBD?No. They came from Oswald's rifle. The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Earwitness testimony is a waste of time. Recalling sounds that someone else has to explain to them what they heard and in a sequence that isn't within in the capabilities of the carcano or what is visually seen on the Zapuder Film negates their statement unless it is looked at in the context of echoes. Which is what the HSCA attempted to do.So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent? If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.
LHO fired the first shot with the rifle retracted inside the building, unless you want to believe he hoped he would be seen. Several witnesses inside the building stated there was only one shot. The only witnesses to do so.To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!
--------------------------------------------------------------------Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.
Bennett is a two shot witness.
Bennett was looking to the right at Z210 and was still looking to the right at Z255, He has the only distinction of being the only eyewitness to not see JFK react to the first shot. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.
First quoting only the second statement of Hickey and ignoring his statement that the bullet impacted his head to claim the bullet made his hair wave, and now Bennett.You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!
The only problem with Bennet is he never looks at JFK. That Bennett supposedly saw a bullet hit JFK in the back is nonsense. If you look at him in the Willis (Z210) and Altgens (Z255) photos, it is clear how obstructed his view of JFK was from the back seat of the follow up car, sitting behind both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts. In both photos, Bennett is looking to his right and not at JFK. He has the distinction of being the only eyewitness not to see JFK react to the first shot obviously he wasn?t looking at JFK. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.
So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent? If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.
To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!
Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.
I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.
You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!
You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.
No. They came from Oswald's rifle. The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
You believe LHO only fired two shots. So do I.
R Caprio: "Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."
No. They came from Oswald's rifle. The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Both the WC and HSCA stated the witnesses were influenced by the media. This ever evolving theory proves that is true.I am not sure you even read what I write, but I'll say it again: there was no shot at z250. I have never said there was a shot then. The second shot was CLOSER to the third shot than to the first. If it was at z250 it would have been equally close to 1 and 3.
1)Earwitness statements conflict with initial eyewitness statements.
2)Earwitness statements conflict with the known mechanical operation of the carcano.
3)Subsequent statements from eyewitnesses, conflict with initial statements from eyewitnesses.
4)A shot at Z50 conflicts with what is seen on the Zapruder Film
5)A shot at Z250 conflicts with JBC's review of the Zapruder Film.
6)A shot at Z250 does not mean a shot at Z270.
7)A shot at Z250 is an attempt to explain the assassination with the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano.You obviously have as much difficulty with arithmetic as you have with reading. The time between z250 and z312 is 3.5 seconds not 2.3 sec.
8)A shot at Z270 is an attempt to explain earwitness statements with their explanation of shots two and three being closer together than shots one and two.
Same fantasy belief. It was shown that a shot from the alleged SN could never strike near where Tague was standing. You would have to add a magic ricochet to your fantasy theory.I agree that the missile that struck the curb near Tague was not a complete bullet. But a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer. What evidence excludes as a possibility that another fragment travelling just above the windshield could not have struck Tague?
I am not sure you even read what I write, but I'll say it again: there was no shot at z250. I have never said there was a shot then. The second shot was CLOSER to the third shot than to the first. If it was at z250 it would have been equally close to 1 and 3.You obviously have as much difficulty with arithmetic as you have with reading. The time between z250 and z312 is 3.5 seconds not 2.3 sec.There is no reasoning out how you could come up with this thought, but nothing else can be concluded but you advocating a shot at Z250 in an attempt to have an evenly spaced shot pattern to coincide with the carcano cycle time. Force fitting a theory to match the earwitness statements or the cycle time of the carcano seems to be the goal. Maybe you need to explain the significance of Z250.
If you really think that I support the notion that LHO fired two shots then you are really not paying attention.
Can you support the SBT or not? It would seem not.
There is no reasoning out how you could come up with this thought, but nothing else can be concluded but you advocating a shot at Z250 in an attempt to have an evenly spaced shot pattern to coincide with the carcano cycle time. Force fitting a theory to match the earwitness statements or the cycle time of the carcano seems to be the goal. Maybe you need to explain the significance of Z250.I don't want to critcise your reading skills if it is a language problem, so if English is not your first language I apologize: Jack, you need to improve your reading comprehension. (https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-to-improve-reading-comprehension).
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
----------e-------------------------------------Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250.
Quote from: Rob Caprio on December 08, 2018, 05:17:31 AM
"Except the SBT is false. So how do you explain seven wounds in two men with one bullet?"
A Mason Replied:
"Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK."
A decent-quality/size version frame-by-frame* shows JFK reacting just as he emerges from behind the sign.No question that JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the sign. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us when he starts reacting. It does not tell us that he is not reacting before he emerges.
I'd say the twofer hit him a fraction of a second before he emerged.I agree completely. We just disagree on the fraction and what part of JBC it hit. I would say the fraction is 30/18ths of a second and it struck JBC on the left thigh.
I don't want to critcise your reading skills if it is a language problem, so if English is not your first language I apologize: Jack, you need to improve your reading comprehension. (https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-to-improve-reading-comprehension)."Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250."
The significance of z250 is that it marks the earliest possible midpoint between shots 1 and 3 so if the second shot was closer to the last shot than to the first, it was after z250.Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250.
I agree that the missile that struck the curb near Tague was not a complete bullet. But a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer. What evidence excludes as a possibility that another fragment travelling just above the windshield could not have struck Tague?
Broheim, Brother Rob, welcome to reality. You have managed to stumble around in the dark until you accidently became correct about LHO firing just two shots. Relax and take a deep breath. You have never been right about any aspect of the JFK Assassination before and it is probably making you light headed. Loose the second shooter, you have been unable to prove there was three shots anyway, and you are there.
-----------------------------------------------
The WC, including SEN Russell, concluded with reservations about there having been two maybe three shots and no more.
It is just basic math. Three shots and two shooters. Someone fired two shots and someone fired one shot.
Caprio: "My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter."
Rob Caprio OP
"The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty. I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film. (Two other of the seven members of Commission shared Russell's doubts about the SBT; thus, nearly half the Commission questioned the theory.) These same reasons have been mentioned for 54 plus years in regards to why the SBT is not valid by researchers."
"Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."
WC Report Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired
You have made a big leap forward with your understanding LHO only fired two shots. I look forward to further posts on your journey of discovery Brother Rob.
Where did the fragment come from? Explain how a bullet that has a metal jacket can fragment.
No question that JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the sign. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us when he starts reacting. It does not tell us that he is not reacting before he emerges.
"Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250."It takes two to make a useless discussion. In any event, your theory that the overwhelming evidence of three shots and a 1......2...3 shot pattern being wrong is no less goofy than my "theory" that the evidence is not wrong.
So is a bullet at Z251 and Z313 and everything in between. This is bar none the most ridiculous explanation that could have been offered. You are just trying to cover all the options because even you realize the implausibility of this theory.
All in all this appears to be the same useless discussion that it always is. Start with a goofy theory about a shot at Z270 and now an added "after" Z250 shot coupled with an inability to support either shot. Then add in the usual tortured witness analysis and use the HSCA report to support the analysis. Ignore the fact that the people who wrote the HSCA report stated it was wrong and why.
a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer.Google "fragmentation metal jacketed bullet". Are you asking me how a jacketed bullet can be fired at something hard and fragment? It is a matter of what the bullet is made of, what the target is made of and how fast it is going. The jacket on Oswald's ammunition was copper and inside it was lead. Neither are particularly strong metals. Do you have any idea of the force that such a bullet moving at 2000 fps experiences in striking bone?
Where did the fragment come from? Explain how a bullet that has a metal jacket can fragment.
The dent in the chrome molding does NOT appear to have been made by a fragment.... I've seen a few bullet strikes and that dent appears to have been made by a large, heavy, low velocity, soft lead, projectile.....My guess would be; that the dent was created by a 45 caliber bullet.... The 45 ACP travels at subsonic velocity and has very poor penetrating ability....When it strikes a man or animal it packs a hell of a wallop ( like a baseball bat ) but usually doesn't penetrate very deeply.Ballistic experts who understand the physics of bullets don't have to guess. As far as I can tell, no ballistic expert has opined that the dent was created by .45 caliber bullet. They have all said that it is consistent with having been made by a fragment from one of the MC bullets.
And Rob seems to be on the right track.... A FMJ bullet fired from a carcano traveling at about 2000 fps, probably would have penetrated that chrome molding. ( I have one of those molding from a Lincoln convertible and it is not heavy sheet metal)Your doubt, serious as I am sure it is, is not evidence.
I seriously doubt that an FMJ carcano bullet would have fragmented on impact with that sheet metal molding.
Google "fragmentation metal jacketed bullet". Are you asking me how a jacketed bullet can be fired at something hard and fragment? It is a matter of what the bullet is made of, what the target is made of and how fast it is going. The jacket on Oswald's ammunition was copper and inside it was lead. Neither are particularly strong metals. Do you have any idea of the force that such a bullet moving at 2000 fps experiences in striking bone?
Ballistic experts who understand the physics of bullets don't have to guess. As far as I can tell, no ballistic expert has opined that the dent was created by .45 caliber bullet. They have all said that it is consistent with having been made by a fragment from one of the MC bullets.
Your doubt, serious as I am sure it is, is not evidence.
Andrew... you're FOS....Thank-you. But you really ought to deal with the evidence. While I certainly appreciate your recognition of the healthy state of my digestive system, one cannot rely on one's gut to determine what happened.
Andrew... you're FOS....
Why are you so angry all of the time? Try to calm down before you post.
It takes two to make a useless discussion. In any event, your theory that the overwhelming evidence of three shots and a 1......2...3 shot pattern being wrong is no less goofy than my "theory" that the evidence is not wrong.No useless is accurate. Regurgitating the figures from a report the people who wrote it stated is faulty is pointless. You would think the fact that so many of the eyewitness's early statements changed would be a clue, but time and time again you quote Hickey's and Bennett's later statements not because they are informative but because they somehow in your mind support this whole bizarre shot pattern. A shot pattern that is contradicted by the cycle time of the carcano, the Zapruder Film, eyewitness statements and even the description of the shots in the statement. What is amazing is you never question the fact that the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their original statements and their statements in no way prove what you are advocating, yet are mindlessly quoting very specific witnesses as if their statements represent all witnesses.
The HSCA did a lot of useful things. But their comment about the supposed general unreliability of witnesses was a poor attempt to justify why none of the witnesses heard a phantom 4th shot that they concluded was fired. In fact, there was no such shot.
You have a long way to go to show that the witnesses, all 132 of them, thought they heard a phantom 3rd shot that did not exist. BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?
Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT.
It is clear that you just believe whatever the authorities tell you to believe.
No useless is accurate. Regurgitating the figures from a report the people who wrote it stated is faulty is pointless. You would think the fact that so many of the eyewitness's early statements changed would be a clue, but time and time again you quote Hickey's and Bennett's later statements not because they are informative but because they somehow in your mind support this whole bizarre shot pattern. A shot pattern that is contradicted by the cycle time of the carcano, the Zapruder Film, eyewitness statements and even the description of the shots in the statement.The zfilm does not tell you by itself when the first two shots occurred, so the zfilm does not contradict the 1.......2....3 pattern. The shot pattern itself: 1......2....3 does not conflict with the cycle time of the Carcano. The MC was fired 3 times in 4.6 seconds by an FBI agent with aimed shots. Oswald had a strap and boxes to make it easier to keep the gun from moving during reloading. So unless the last two shots were much less than 2.3 seconds there would not be a problem.
What is amazing is you never question the fact that the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their original statements and their statements in no way prove what you are advocating, yet are mindlessly quoting very specific witnesses as if their statements represent all witnesses.I see that you have not read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The fact is, very few dramatically altered their original statments on the number or pattern of the shots. The only one I can recall off hand was Emmett Hudson: in his FBI made a few days after the assassination he recalled the 1.....2...3 pattern and said the last two were about as fast as one could fire with a bolt action; in his WC testimony 8 months later he said they were about evenly spaced over a 2 minute period. If you disagree, give us some examples, don't just wave your hands and say "the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their statements". I have given you ALL the witness evidence bearing on the shot pattern ... but you have to read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).
-----------------------------------I have answered it - for myself and for others because I have actually provided a detailed paper and analysis. I have taken the time to study what the witnesses originally stated. Read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).
" BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?"
Maybe that is a question you need to answer for yourself. If you actually took the time to study what the witnesses originally stated happened instead of what they stated later, you would know the answer to that question. The problem will be it contradicts how many years of posting this nonsense?
The zfilm does not tell you by itself when the first two shots occurred, so the zfilm does not contradict the 1.......2....3 pattern. The shot pattern itself: 1......2....3 does not conflict with the cycle time of the Carcano. The MC was fired 3 times in 4.6 seconds by an FBI agent with aimed shots. Oswald had a strap and boxes to make it easier to keep the gun from moving during reloading. So unless the last two shots were much less than 2.3 seconds there would not be a problem.
Nor does it conflict with the witnesses: there were witnesses who recalled the 1.......2....3 pattern who said there was about 2 seconds between the last two shots e.g. Robert Jackson 2H159; Roger Craig 6H263) or 2-3 seconds (Sweatt 19H531;Decker ) or 3 seconds (A. Rowland 19H494) or 2:1 (Ralph Yarborough 7H439; Earl Cabell 7H478). Emmett Hudson stated to the FBI that the last two were 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' or words that effect (CD5 (http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0067a.gif)).
Several others recalled three shots that were evenly spaced (Clifton Carter, Delores Kounas, James Romack, Jack Watson) or "almost/approximately/pretty well" evenly spaced (James Altgens, Marrion Baker, Thomas Dillard, Ronald Fischer, Phil Willis).
I see that you have not read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The fact is, very few dramatically altered their original statments on the number or pattern of the shots. The only one I can recall off hand was Emmett Hudson: in his FBI made a few days after the assassination he recalled the 1.....2...3 pattern and said the last two were about as fast as one could fire with a bolt action; in his WC testimony 8 months later he said they were about evenly spaced over a 2 minute period. If you disagree, give us some examples, don't just wave your hands and say "the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their statements". I have given you ALL the witness evidence bearing on the shot pattern ... but you have to read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).I have answered it - for myself and for others because I have actually provided a detailed paper and analysis. I have taken the time to study what the witnesses originally stated. Read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf).
This is exactly the point. You have no idea what these people first stated.In his Nov 22/63 dispatch Altgens twice referred to the "second burst of noise" but never said the burst contained a single shot. Other witnesses said that the sound of the last two overlapped. In his WC testimony he said (7H518):
Altgens is a two shot witness as is Decker.
Kounas and Hudson are both witnesses who state the head shot as the second shot.In her first statement Nov. 24/63 she stated 3 shots and did not comment on which one hit the President in the head. In her March 23/64 statement she mentioned people reacting after the second shot. Of course the third shot is after the second shot. Aren't you going against your own principles in preferring her much later statement over her earlier one? As far as Hudson is concerned, in his signed Nov 22/63 statement he said "I definitely heard 3 shots" (19H481). In neither of his FBI statements did he state that the head shot was the second shot. It was only in his July/64 deposition that he said for the first time that he thought the second shot was the head shot. He also said in that deposition, contrary to his earlier recollection, that the shots were evenly spaced over 2 minutes, that he did not see the president did not react to any other shots. So at that time he did not remember what he said in his FBI statement: that he saw JFK's head slump to one side in reaction to the first shot.
Willis defers to his wife's statement as to what happened because he could not see the car and she could. Marilyn Willis described a"red halo" after the second shot.She doesn't exactly help your "only two shot" theory, does she?
Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."
--------------------------------------------I am not "choosing" Jackson. I listed all the witnesses who commented on the shot pattern or shot spacing. Jackson was one of those witnesses. Darnell gave a statement on Nov 29/63 in which he states that after the second shot he left the press car and ran toward the president's car. He noted a lot of confusion. He doesn't say what he did after the third shot - presumably still running toward the scene. He did not say there were only two shots.
Why choose Jackson instead of Darnell, who stated there was two shots, Darnell was in the same car as Jackson?
I am not "arbitrarily" interpreting their statements to mean 2.3 seconds. I am presenting their recollections of the last two shots fired in rapid succession. That gives us the general timing of the second shot. I am using specific evidence to more accurately place the second shot. A key observation was Hickey seeing JFK's hair fly forward on the second shot but missing his head. That occurs in only one place: z273-276. This also corresponds to Greer's first turn (z278-280) which he said he did immediatly after the second shot. It also fits with the change in appearance of JBC's wrist (z271-72) and the movement of the sun visor (z271-72). It just so happens that a shot at z271-72 is 2.3 seconds from z313.
You are arbitrarily interpreting the earwitness statements to mean 2.3 seconds between the last two shots. Not because that is what they stated but that is what you want them to have stated.
Brehm and Bill Newman are excellent examples of medias influence. Jackie actually refers the media reports.Hudson is a better example. There was no media influence on his first statement taken a few hours after the assassination.
What evidence? Who fired the two shots you are alluding to from the TSBD if not LHO?
-----------------------------------
Brother Rob, as you know, at the core of SBT is the number of shots. Obviously two shots automatically indicates one of the bullets accounts for all seven wounds. You have already stated LHO -excuse me- someone fired two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD and another unknown assassin fired another shot from somewhere else. The two shots fired from the TSBD account for which wounds? 1-3? 1-4?, 1-6? Why do you think the third shell found on the 6th floor wasn't fired that day?
Will this be another "Statements that Sinks the WC" topic? That series was so informative. If the authorities are wrong what is right? You were going to post the proof there was three shots? That also would be very interesting because two shots does prove SBT. You have to wonder did Sen Russell really believe there was only two shot. Was he responsible for the language in the WC conclusion about there only being two shots and the medias influence of the witnesses?
In his Nov 22/63 dispatch Altgens twice referred to the "second burst of noise" but never said the burst contained a single shot. Other witnesses said that the sound of the last two overlapped. In his WC testimony he said (7H518):
"I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell
you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after
the President was struck in the head."
Sorry about including Decker. I didn't intend to suggest Decker commented on shot spacing. I was copying the cite from my paper and intended to erase the reference to the Decker exhibit for the Sweatt cite and I guess I got sidetracked. But while we are on the subject of Decker (who as far as I can tell never mentioned shot spacing) was in the lead car and in an undated report done at least several days after the event said "I distinctly remember hearing two shots". He did not say there were only two shots. He just distinctly remembered hearing two. Decker was a very busy fellow and recalling the number of shots may not have been the most important detail on his mind. He also did not get much sleep in those days after the assassination.
In her first statement Nov. 24/63 she stated 3 shots and did not comment on which one hit the President in the head. In her March 23/64 statement she mentioned people reacting after the second shot. Of course the third shot is after the second shot. Aren't you going against your own principles in preferring her much later statement over her earlier one? As far as Hudson is concerned, in his signed Nov 22/63 statement he said "I definitely heard 3 shots" (19H481). In neither of his FBI statements did he state that the head shot was the second shot. It was only in his July/64 deposition that he said for the first time that he thought the second shot was the head shot. He also said in that deposition, contrary to his earlier recollection, that the shots were evenly spaced over 2 minutes, that he did not see the president did not react to any other shots. So at that time he did not remember what he said in his FBI statement: that he saw JFK's head slump to one side in reaction to the first shot.
She doesn't exactly help your "only two shot" theory, does she?
I am not "choosing" Jackson. I listed all the witnesses who commented on the shot pattern or shot spacing. Jackson was one of those witnesses. Darnell gave a statement on Nov 29/63 in which he states that after the second shot he left the press car and ran toward the president's car. He noted a lot of confusion. He doesn't say what he did after the third shot - presumably still running toward the scene. He did not say there were only two shots.
I am not "arbitrarily" interpreting their statements to mean 2.3 seconds. I am presenting their recollections of the last two shots fired in rapid succession. That gives us the general timing of the second shot. I am using specific evidence to more accurately place the second shot. A key observation was Hickey seeing JFK's hair fly forward on the second shot but missing his head. That occurs in only one place: z273-276. This also corresponds to Greer's first turn (z278-280) which he said he did immediatly after the second shot. It also fits with the change in appearance of JBC's wrist (z271-72) and the movement of the sun visor (z271-72). It just so happens that a shot at z271-72 is 2.3 seconds from z313.Hudson is a better example. There was no media influence on his first statement taken a few hours after the assassination.
Putting words into other peoples' mouths is a dishonest thing. I have NEVER said that only two shots were fired or that they came from the TSBD. Why do you lie about what I have said?
This is a distraction since you CANNOT support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse.
Appears to be a lot of drama and indignation. That must mean you see the flawed logic too. Apparently you have never thought this theory through. Unless the shooters were standing shoulder to shoulder, the problem is the logic about the number of shooters, number of shots, and the number of shells does not work. Three shots fired, two shooters. with three shells matched to the carcano but being found in just one location. Were they passing the rifle between them?
Brother Rob, you made this statement about Sen Russell. It seems fairly straight forward. Sen Russell believed JBC was struck by a seperate shot and then you added that meant a second shooter. There is nothing in the wording to indicate Sen Russell believed there was four shots. Given the WC conclusion and your belief that there was two shooters, it would mean one assassin fired two shots and the other fired just one. The fragments and one bullet were matched to the Carcano found on the 6th floor and the carcano was matched to the three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
R Caprio: "Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."
It appears there is a very serious logic problem. In fact there is nothing logical about it. If there was three shots and a seperate shot from a seperate assassin and then three shells being found on the 6th floor. In the end you are right, LHO--excuse me-- someone only fired twice. A long way around the issue but you stumbled onto the truth.
------------------------------
Prove there was three shots instead of just state there was. Did you ever call a state Fish and Game office? They will help you understand one bullet going through multiple targets. Seems no one on the forum can help you.
What it means is that you lie about what other people say AND that you cannot support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse.
You don't need all those words for that.
The first statement from Altgens was read by Don Pardo. You are referencing the second bulletin he wrote 7 hours later. He went from stating two shots to two "bursts of noise."Cite?
Hudson sounds definite and never made a contradictory statement to it. Why would you who claim the head shot to be the last shot and yet quote Hudson?Hudson's WC deposition is not reliable by itself because he contradicted his earlier statements in material particulars. And the problem is there is abundant other evidence that contradicts his statement that the head shot was the second shot.
---------------------------------------It doesn't. It just tells you that they were close together and after the midpoint - ie. after z250.
You chose Jackson. Two shots is a pattern with a time interval. Since when does "rapid succession" and all the other ways witnesses refer to how close the last two were equate to 2.3 seconds?
Hickey seen the bullet impact his head and the hair flew forward. Completely different.If Hickey was incorrect in his observation that the hair flew up but there was no impact, do you not find it rather strange that such an event is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said the second shot occurred (ie. after he turned forward - he is still looking rearward at z256 in Altgens #6) - and that this fits with Greer's turn, the forward uniform motion of JBC from z272-278, the change in appearance of the wrist (z271-72) and forward movement of the sun-visor (z271-72). How does the wind make the sun visor move forward into it?
-----------------
Altgens states it best. You yourself believe the headshot is the final shot.I agree.
Altgens:"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
-----------------------------------What evidence do you have that media reports of 3 shots influenced all people who gave statements on Nov 22/63? Why did some others say 2 or 3 shots? Why did Merriman Smith say 3 shots if he didn't hear 3 shots? What influenced him?
The influence was immediate. Within minutes, while on the way to Parkland, Merriman Smith issued a bulletin stating "three shots fired at the motorcade" and was that message was broadcast over the airwaves eight minutes later. Before the hour was up Jay Watson was already correcting Bill Newman that there was three shots. Altgens stated there was two. But like the WC stated:
WC: "....Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press.
The press had already been reporting three shots long before the shells were found. They had been reporting it within minutes of the assassination and anybody with a radio or within earshot of a radio heard it.
Cite?
----------------------------------------------Hudson's WC deposition is not reliable by itself because he contradicted his earlier statements in material particulars. And the problem is there is abundant other evidence that contradicts his statement that the head shot was the second shot. It doesn't. It just tells you that they were close together and after the midpoint - ie. after z250.
If Hickey was incorrect in his observation that the hair flew up but there was no impact, do you not find it rather strange that such an event is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said the second shot occurred (ie. after he turned forward - he is still looking rearward at z256 in Altgens #6)
- and that this fits with Greer's turn, the forward uniform motion of JBC from z272-278,(http://i57.tinypic.com/10qb7h5.jpg)
the change in appearance of the wrist (z271-72)
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z271.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z272.jpg) |
and forward movement of the sun-visor (z271-72). How does the wind make the sun visor move forward into it?
Hickey didn't say that. You're saying he said that.??. Hickey said (18H762):
No. You have to subtract the apparent motion due to the changing angle of the car to Zapruder. There is less apparent motion as the angle approaches 90 degrees. I have provided the analysis for you (click here) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/272_278_2.PDF)if you are having trouble seeing that JBC is sailing foward uniformly away from JFK and Jackie from z272-278.
Connally sails forward before the Z270s, doesn't he?
A corner of the Stetson below the wrist comes into view and has a sunspot.The appearance does change and it is not because of changing shadow. The amount of visible cuff increases by about an inch between these frames and continues. That cannot be because of a shadow. And it fits exactly with the movement of the sunvisor at z271-72. You can see the changes to both at the same time here:
Maybe air flow creates ebbs and flows that make objects buckle in the wind? Anyway, that visor is rocking back-and-forth long before the Z270s.Find another two successive frames where the visors move anywhere close to what occurs between z271 and z272. You can tell that the visor moves because of the angle change. If it is wind, how does it come from behind and why does it only affect the visor that was struck by a bullet fragment?
I started watching "The Making of a Murderer" (Part 2) last night. I can see already from the first chapter how sleezebag defense attorney Kathleen Zellner is conducting "tests" and consulting "experts" in such a way that the prosecution version is "impossible". When it comes to your pet theory, you're the same way.Why is she a sleaze-bag (check your spelling)? Because she is trying to provide every available defence that the law permits? Because she is putting forward every available argument on the evidence that the law permits? Because she represents someone accused of a horrific crime? Because she is arguing reasonable doubt, though the evidence may be fairly strong? What is she supposed to do if the evidence is strongly against her client but there are good defences? Is she supposed to judge her client and not provide a defence? Your freedom and my freedom depend on defence counsel upholding these principles in the criminal justice system to ensure that no-one, guilty or not, is convicted if the admissible evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
??. Hickey said (18H762):
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair
on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be
any impact against his head . The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and
to his left again."
Are you suggesting I said something that is materially different?
No. You have to subtract the apparent motion due to the changing angle of the car to Zapruder. There is less apparent motion as the angle approaches 90 degrees. I have provided the analysis for you (click here) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/272_278_2.PDF)if you are having trouble seeing that JBC is sailing foward uniformly away from JFK and Jackie from z272-278.
The appearance does change and it is not because of changing shadow. The amount of visible cuff increases by about an inch between these frames and continues. That cannot be because of a shadow.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z271_272_visor.gif)
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z272.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z273.jpg) | |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z274.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z275.jpg) |
And it fits exactly with the movement of the sunvisor at z271-72. You can see the changes to both at the same time here:
Find another two successive frames where the visors move anywhere close to what occurs between z271 and z272.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z256.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z257.jpg) | |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z263.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z264.jpg) | |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z271.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z250-z299/z272.jpg) |
You can tell that the visor moves because of the angle change. If it is wind, how does it come from behind and why does it only affect the visor that was struck by a bullet fragment?
Why is she a sleaze-bag (check your spelling)? Because she is trying to provide every available defence that the law permits? Because she is putting forward every available argument on the evidence that the law permits? Because she represents someone accused of a horrific crime? Because she is arguing reasonable doubt, though the evidence may be fairly strong? What is she supposed to do if the evidence is strongly against her client but there are good defences? Is she supposed to judge her client and not provide a defence? Your freedom and my freedom depend on defence counsel upholding these principles in the criminal justice system to ensure that no-one, guilty or not, is convicted if the admissible evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just so you are aware, lawyers have to abide by very stringent ethical standards and can face serious discipline if they don't. In my experience, defence lawyers are extremely careful in maintaining ethical standards. There are a few who don't and they usually get disciplined or disbarred. Defence counsel represent all sorts of accused persons. They do not do that because they agree with what the client may have done. They take on cases without judging their client. They take a beating in the press from reporters at time like this recent case I had. (https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/littlecrow-family-press-conference) Defence lawyers do what they do because it is their profession and their profession requires it.
Cite?Cite?
----------------------------------------------Hudson's WC deposition is not reliable by itself because he contradicted his earlier statements in material particulars. And the problem is there is abundant other evidence that contradicts his statement that the head shot was the second shot. It doesn't. It just tells you that they were close together and after the midpoint - ie. after z250.
If Hickey was incorrect in his observation that the hair flew up but there was no impact, do you not find it rather strange that such an event is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said the second shot occurred (ie. after he turned forward - he is still looking rearward at z256 in Altgens #6) - and that this fits with Greer's turn, the forward uniform motion of JBC from z272-278, the change in appearance of the wrist (z271-72) and forward movement of the sun-visor (z271-72). How does the wind make the sun visor move forward into it?
I agree.What evidence do you have that media reports of 3 shots influenced all people who gave statements on Nov 22/63? Why did some others say 2 or 3 shots? Why did Merriman Smith say 3 shots if he didn't hear 3 shots? What influenced him?
Hickey can't be referring to the hair flutter in the Z270s because he can't see it. Furthermore, per your theory, Hickey has to turn his head completely around and locate the President then and observe some incidental thing as a hair flutter, all in one second.He said he saw it. He was there. Unless you were in his position in the QM you really have no idea what he could see. He has a second to turn to see the President after the Altgens #6 photo. There is his evidence that he made that turn and nothing to contradict it. The fact that the hair on JFK flies forward from z273-276 at exactly the time that JBC's cuff changes appearance and the visor over Greer moves and Greer begins his turn (immediately after the second shot), all fits together very well with what Hickey said he saw. How could he make that up without studying the zfilm? Or are you suggesting he studied the zfilm prior to Nov. 30/63?
The sailing forward began in the Z260s. It could have increased in intensity simply because his center of gravity is more upright. Doesn't have to be from a bullet impact.JBC appears to raise his head and shoulders but I don't see any increase in separation between JFK's face and JBC's face prior to z272. After z272 the increase in separation is rather dramatic (see below).
Your animation adds forward momentum to Connally's body that isn't there.Watch from z271-279 the relative positions of Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman and then look at JBC's position to all three. If I was adding momentum to JBC I would be adding it to all four. But JBC's position relative to the other three changes noticeably but the relative positions of the other three does not change:
And the "change in appearance of the wrist" seems downgraded to "amount of visible cuff increases".The cuff of the jacket was penetrated by a bullet, as was the shirt. One might expect the jacket cuff to move more than the french cuff because it would not be as tight. z271-273 is the only place such relative motion is seen. That is not light and shadow. It may be that hand motion could cause that kind of relative motion, but we don't really see the wrist move much, although if you watch the lower part of the hand there appears to be a slight change there with the fingers:
Was that visor struck by a bullet fragment.There is nothing that I have found that comments on damage to the sunvisor. But looking at the damage to the windshield frame and the glass indicating several fragments struck inside, plus the fragment that struck Tague. It would be surprising if the visors were missed. There does appear to be small hole-like marks in the left visor in the only photo I have found of the visors:
Too bad the particular visor you choose to indicate a fragment strike happens to be the same one that's rocking back-and-forth as the car approaches the Z270s. Obviously the air pressure.It doesn't move afterward. It only moves from z271-272 and then goes back to its z271 position. How can that be by air pressure? It wasn't flopping around. Sun visors are designed to stay where they are set.
No I think you are a little like a squid and you want to ink the waters and escape in the murk. This as a thread you started about three shots and two shooters and you are being asked to defend your theory and you cannot. Making claims and assertions about me doesn't change that fact. I think it is safe to say that this whole idea that the SBT isn't possible is just so much fluff and nothing more. You can't even prove there was three shots. You said you have but as it turns out that was what was not true.
Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there.Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard - and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:
To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.
Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?
It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6% attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.
Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard - and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:
One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.
Still no evidence showing that the SBT occurred. Pure distraction.
You are claiming two shooters and no SBT because of your interpreation of Sen Russell's statements.
Still no evidence there was three shots. Still no explanation of the two shooters. Pure avoidance.
Almost surreal is the fact LNer's are trying to help you with the belief in three shots. Everyone needs there to be three shots for whatever theory. Except no one can prove there was three shots.
Quote me claiming one thing that *you* have attributed to me. Go ahead.
I have done nothing but tell you what the WC claimed. Why do you misrepresent what others have said?
Pure snow job.
There is no evidence that there was three shots having been fired. Giving up on the Z250+ shot theory? If it ever was a theory.It is apparent that you do not understand what the term "evidence" means. There are witnesses who recalled three shots. Harold Norman said he heard three shots being fired and heard the bolt action 3 times. That is all evidence. So when you say there is "no evidence" of three shots having been fired, you are not speaking the same language that the rest of us are speaking.
"One"--- whose "One?" Are you "One?" Just prove there was three shots "One" and stop claiming evidence that does not exist. Obviously the WC wasn't convinced. The WC stated the only reason they concluded there was three shots was the discovery of three shells in the SN. That is it. They definitely felt it was likely there was only two shots. Probably because that is all the evidence shows there was ever fired. Evidence of two bullets and numerous eyewitness accounts. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean the WC members didn't.Perhaps you missed the part on page 111 of the WC Report where the WC concluded:
Maybe evaluating witness statements isn't really your strong suit. You obviously should not be quoting Norman when there was two others beside him that give a more detailed explanation immediately following the assassination not four days later. Nor would you be quoting him if you really had read his testimony.Why is that? He not only recalled three shots, he heard three operations of the bolt action and heard three shells drop.
Norman? Giving up on Hickey and Hudson? BRW stated there was two shots and Jarman stated the headshot was the second shot. Norman makes no statement until four days later. You apparently do not know anymore about the statements of Norman than you did the other witnesses you have quoted. What to Hudson and the second shot being a headshot, or what happened to Hickey and the hair waving? Seems that is where you disappeared earlier.Hudson's first statement is very different from his testimony in July/64 to the WC. Why do you prefer his later statement? As far as Hickey is concerned, he said the second shot appeared to miss JFK because all he saw was his hair flew forward at the time of the second shot and there was no impact. He saw the impact of the third shot.
Hickey's statement: A passing cartoon like bullet making JFK's hair wave, followed up with the idea that the bullet would then have had to nosedive to inflict a wound near JBC's armpit instead of hitting JBC in the head.That just shows you have not analyzed the trajectory. The trajectory at z271 was downward from the SN at an angle of 15 degrees. So over the 24 inches between JFK and JBC the bullet would have dropped 6.3 inches. So if the bullet had passed just over JFK's right shoulder and dropped 6 inches by the time it reached JBC, where do you think it would have struck him?
Hudson: Second shot the head shot.Read his first statement.
How could this misconception have occurred? Two shooters with one leaving three shells. Caprio: "The SBT is false"..... OP: "if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."
Brother Rob OP: Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT. In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.
Brother Rob: "The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter."
Brother Rob: "My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.
"
Brother Rob: "What it means is that you lie about what other people say AND that you cannot support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse."
Bother Rob: "Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT. "
It is apparent that you do not understand what the term "evidence" means. There are witnesses who recalled three shots. Harold Norman said he heard three shots being fired and heard the bolt action 3 times. That is all evidence. So when you say there is "no evidence" of three shots having been fired, you are not speaking the same language that the rest of us are speaking.
Perhaps you missed the part on page 111 of the WC Report where the WC concluded:
"Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".
How does that mean that the WC definitely felt it was likely that there were only two shots?
Why is that? He not only recalled three shots, he heard three operations of the bolt action and heard three shells drop.
-----------------------------------Hudson's first statement is very different from his testimony in July/64 to the WC. Why do you prefer his later statement? As far as Hickey is concerned, he said the second shot appeared to miss JFK because all he saw was his hair flew forward at the time of the second shot and there was no impact. He saw the impact of the third shot.
That just shows you have not analyzed the trajectory. The trajectory at z271 was downward from the SN at an angle of 15 degrees. So over the 24 inches between JFK and JBC the bullet would have dropped 6.3 inches. So if the bullet had passed just over JFK's right shoulder and dropped 6 inches by the time it reached JBC, where do you think it would have struck him?
Read his first statement.
Still true. Without the SBT there had to be another shooter. If you disagree then show how ONE bullet caused multiple wounds in TWO people. Go ahead "brother" Hogan.Brother Rob, we both know there is no convincing you. The bullet exited JFK's throat at 2000fps. Where do you think it went? JBC was directly in front of JFK.
No, no, and no.To what??
Hudson stated the second shot was the headshot.Right. But he said that only in his July 1964 statement. In his two earlier statements he did not say this. In his FBI statement on Nov 25/63 he said that the last two shots were in rapid succession, about as fast as one could operate a bolt action rifle. He did not comment on what they hit. He did note that the President slumped to one side on the first shot.
According to you, JFK's hair moved not his lapel. Add another 8 inches to the 6 inches.Why? The bullet pushes air aside when it travels. Are you saying that a 2000 fps 6.5 mm bullet cannot cause hair to fly up 6-8 inches away from its path?
Exactly, Particularly the shells.What they did not say is that it was likely there were only two shots. You said that they did.
"in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".
Brother Rob, we both know there is no convincing you. The bullet exited JFK's throat at 2000fps. Where do you think it went? JBC was directly in front of JFK.It went to the left side of JBC's midline. Where was JBC struck on the left side?
To what??Right. But he said that only in his July 1964 statement. In his two earlier statements he did not say this. In his FBI statement on Nov 25/63 he said that the last two shots were in rapid succession, about as fast as one could operate a bolt action rifle. He did not comment on what they hit. He did note that the President slumped to one side on the first shot.Why? The bullet pushes air aside when it travels. Are you saying that a 2000 fps 6.5 mm bullet cannot cause hair to fly up 6-8 inches away from its path? What they did not say is that it was likely there were only two shots. You said that they did.
Same old Mason Dog and Pony Show. One legless, tail less, nose less dog and an imaginary pony.Not exactly an answer to a simple question: the trajectory shows that the bullet exiting from JFK's midline goes to the left side of JBC's midline, so where on JBC left of his midline was he struck by a bullet?
Not exactly an answer to a simple question: the trajectory shows that the bullet exiting from JFK's midline goes to the left side of JBC's midline, so where on JBC left of his midline was he struck by a bullet?
The true trajectory of the bullet has it exiting from just to the right of Jfk's midline and then traveling to the point entry on JBC'S back, which was most definitely to the right of his midline.According to the HSCA it exited .5 cm left of JFK's midline.
According to the HSCA it exited .5 cm left of JFK's midline.
Your trajectory only works if JBC's right armpit was left (by about 4-6 inches depending on when you think the neck shot occurred) of JFK's midline because the bullet was trajectory was right to left. That means his midline had to have been at least 11" left of JFK's midline. All I am saying is that if JBC was not that far left of JBC then he must have been hit at some other point on his body, which means it was necessarily on his left side.
So, what part of his body on his left side was hit by a bullet? Simple question.
Did they now? I'd like to see that. Because they have it entering JFK at 2 inches to the right of his midline, traveling right to left at 10 degrees.The HSCA (at 6 HSCA 43) found it was up to .5 cm to the left of the midline (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0025a.htm). The HSCA said that JFK could have been turned by 5 degrees at the time he was hit.
My trajectory works using the numbers given by the ITEK photo and film analysis together with Connally's right rotation of about 30 degrees. Surely, you haven't forgotten that?To be fair, ITEK said that JBC's midline was between 10.2 and 20.3 cm left of JFK based on an analysis of all the film frames and photos. That is where his midline was, so that takes into account everything that can be measured, including any movement of the midline by turning (which is entirely your notion because when I turn my shoulders, my spine does not move sideways). Neither puts JBC's right armpit anywhere close to 4 inches left of JFK's midline. If we use the maximum of 20.3 cm (8 inches) and had the spine magically (ie. not seen by ITEK) moved farther to the left by 3-4 inches due to the 30 degree right turn (I don't know why the spine would move at all) you might barely make it for the SBT to work. On the other hand, JBC's midline could have been 10.2 cm (4 inches left of JFK) and if the shot was at z195, the trajectory angle was 13-14 degrees to the car direction which means that after exiting JFK it moved farther left by 5.5 inches (24tan13) to 6 (24tan14) inches. That would mean the bullet path was to the left side of JBC's spine. Now, if his torso was turned so that the plane of the back was somewhat aligned with the bullet path, as we see JBC at z195, it could miss the spine and torso on the left by a couple of inches. The question then is: what could it have hit?
The HSCA (at 6 HSCA 43) found it was up to .5 cm to the left of the midline (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0025a.htm). The HSCA said that JFK could have been turned by 5 degrees at the time he was hit.
To be fair, ITEK said that JBC's midline was between 10.2 and 20.3 cm left of JFK based on an analysis of all the film frames and photos. That is where his midline was, so that takes into account everything that can be measured, including any movement of the midline by turning (which is entirely your notion because when I turn my shoulders, my spine does not move sideways). Neither puts JBC's right armpit anywhere close to 4 inches left of JFK's midline. If we use the maximum of 20.3 cm (8 inches) and had the spine magically (ie. not seen by ITEK) moved farther to the left by 3-4 inches due to the 30 degree right turn (I don't know why the spine would move at all) you might barely make it for the SBT to work. On the other hand, JBC's midline could have been 10.2 cm (4 inches left of JFK) and if the shot was at z195, the trajectory angle was 13-14 degrees to the car direction which means that after exiting JFK it moved farther left by 5.5 inches (24tan13) to 6 (24tan14) inches. That would mean the bullet path was to the left side of JBC's spine. Now, if his torso was turned so that the plane of the back was somewhat aligned with the bullet path, as we see JBC at z195, it could miss the spine and torso on the left by a couple of inches. The question then is: what could it have hit?
In case you haven't noticed, your spine, being made up of separate articulated vertebrae, allows parts of the body connected to the spine to turn independently. God designed us that way so we could play baseball and golf. So we can turn our shoulders one way and our head the other. We can keep the hips facing forward on a downswing while the shoulders rotate. The upper back/shoulders can turn alot, and below the shoulders to the lower back to the hips gradually less. The spine is the centre of all thoracic and cervical rotations. This is especially easy to see with the rotation of one's head: the head rotates by rotation of the cervical vertebrae.
My spine moves laterally when I rotate my upper torso. It seems that you have a rather odd physique. But I'm not focused on how much the spine moves laterally. By midline, I'm referring to his longitudinal axis. In rotating to his right, Connally rotates about that longitudinal axis. The axis does not move laterally but the shoulder does. The point of entry on Connally's back moves more than 3 inches to the left with a 30 degree right rotation.
Not exactly an answer to a simple question: the trajectory shows that the bullet exiting from JFK's midline goes to the left side of JBC's midline, so where on JBC left of his midline was he struck by a bullet?It was answered, this is a toothless clawless dog and rainbow colored pony show with two seperate shots that both strike JBC but only one bullet is ever found. Apparently, shot one goes through JFK and exits his throat at 2000fps passes by a contorted JBC on his left side looses all of its energy between the two men and only penetrates the skin on his leg. Requires the belief that JBC was contorted into a position he was not.
In case you haven't noticed, your spine, being made up of separate articulated vertebrae, allows parts of the body connected to the spine to turn independently. God designed us that way so we could play baseball and golf. So we can turn our shoulders one way and our head the other. We can keep the hips facing forward on a downswing while the shoulders rotate. The upper back/shoulders can turn alot, and below the shoulders to the lower back to the hips gradually less. The spine is the centre of all thoracic and cervical rotations. This is especially easy to see with the rotation of one's head: the head rotates by rotation of the cervical vertebrae.
Let's say the entrance wound on JBC's back was 7 inches from his spine. When he turns his shoulders 30 degrees, the plane of his back turns 30 degrees. The entrance wound projected to its original position is now cos(30) from the spine or .867 x 7 = 6 inches from the spine. So it has moved 1 inch. left from where it was.
But you did not deal with my point, which is that the trajectory at z195 using JBC inboard of JFK by 10.2 cm or even 14-15 cm would allow the bullet exiting JFK's neck to go to the left side of JBC. Where was he wounded on his left side?
According to the HSCA it exited .5 cm left of JFK's midline.
Your trajectory only works if JBC's right armpit was left (by about 4-6 inches depending on when you think the neck shot occurred) of JFK's midline because the bullet was trajectory was right to left. That means his midline had to have been at least 11" left of JFK's midline. All I am saying is that if JBC was not that far left of JBC then he must have been hit at some other point on his body, which means it was necessarily on his left side.
You are looking at it wrong. It's an axial rotation that you need to consider. That being around the central axis of the body. Connally's center axis is where his sagittal and coronal planes meet. The spine facilitates the rotation, along with the hips, but the rotation itself is around that longitudinal axis.I don't know who rotates their torso other than from their spine. If the spine rotates around some notional body axis, then the spine would have to physically move laterally every time we turned, which means that the hips would have to move. I can easily turn my torso sitting down without moving my hips at all. Perhaps this golf video may help you see how the spine turns. It is called: THE GOLF SWING MADE SIMPLE - TURN AROUND YOUR SPINE:
Nope. When he rotates so that his upper torso is 30 degrees right of center, he moves the entry point on his back more than 3 inches to the left. Here's what it looks like with the entry wound at 7.5 inches to the right of the midline of his back:
Assuming the thickness of Connally's torso to be 9 inches from anterior to posterior. Using that number we get a distance of 4.5 inches from the center axis of his upper torso measured straight to the midline of his back. If the wound is 7.5 inches to the right of the midline of the back then the distance from his center axis to that point is about 8.75 inches.
You don't have a point. The point that you are attempting to make is invalid.It is at least as valid as your point. You are cherry-picking the ITEK data and saying that it means JBC was 20.3 cm inboard of JFK. ITEK really said that they could not tell for sure but his midline was somewhere between 10.2 and 20.3 cm inboard.
But at z195, JBC was turned so the plane of his back was aligned generally in the same direction as the right to left bullet path so the bullet would not necessarily have struck his back. We know it didn't. But that was not the only part of his body that was on the left side of the middle of his jumpseat. And there was a wound on his left side. What is "invalid" about that?
It would be valid if your 3D study was legitimate but it's a total conceit.So show us yours. I showed you all the dimensions. If you have a problem with the dimensions tell us what they should be:
You see, the more things in a 3D analysis that actually relates to what is seen in the Zapruder film, the more confidence can be placed in it. I think I'm doing pretty good for someone on a consumer HP Pavilion trying to do something with SketchUp.You are very good at doing graphics but in order for me to assess your 3D accuracy I would need to see it. Your 3D picture sure looks like a bullet through JFK's neck to JBC's right armpit goes left to right. Show me that I am wrong
The Select Committee, Myers and NOVA (2013) studies weren't perfect (neither is mine, of course). But the best 3D studies just aren't finding that Connally was turned as much towards the car rail as you portray. Now it could be that you alone know more than these graphics experts or can see body positions on film that others cannot.So tell us how much he is turned in your graphic and why. I'll go with your graphic.
You won't admit to it, but to make your theory work, you were forced to move Kennedy away from the car rail more than he is ...I was going by the sightlines from Zapruder that puts JFK between the left handhold and the spare tire enclosure in z193. One can also see the top right corner of the rear seat back behind JFK's right shoulder, so he is not as far right as possible. But I stand to be corrected if you can show otherwise.
... and you stretched out the distance between the two men.The distance from JFK's throat exit to the jumpseat back is 19 inches if I recall correctly. I will check it. What do you say it is? You should be able to do that from your 3D model. You just draw a couple of arrows between different points at different angles and say there is a problem. Show us the numbers and how you arrive at them.
I don't know who rotates their torso other than from their spine.
If the spine rotates around some notional body axis, then the spine would have to physically move laterally every time we turned,
which means that the hips would have to move.
What you need to do is show us a video of someone turning right 30 degrees from forward and show us how their right shoulder moves left 3 inches.
I am just saying that:
1. suppose he was closer to 10.2 cm inboard, say 13 cm (5.1 inches). and say
2. the first shot struck JFK in the neck at z195 (which, unlike the phantom missed shot at z155 or so which no one observed and which conflicts with at least 3 large bodies of mutually consistent evidence, fits the evidence) when the angle from the SN to the car direction was about 13 or 14 degrees.
Then the bullet through JFK's neck crossed the plane of JBC's jumpseat an additional 14-15 cm further left. If JBC's spine was 13 cm left of JFK's then the bullet would have passed to the left of JBC's spine by 1-2 cm. But at z195, JBC was turned so the plane of his back was aligned generally in the same direction as the right to left bullet path so the bullet would not necessarily have struck his back. We know it didn't. But that was not the only part of his body that was on the left side of the middle of his jumpseat. And there was a wound on his left side. What is "invalid" about that?
The SBT tries to drive a square peg into a round hole. No one said it had occurred and many said it didn't. There is another explanation that does not conflict with the evidence but is still consistent with the overwhelming evidence that all shots were fired using Oswald's MC.
Not this again? You think I'm would use a left-to-right trajectory?
Your 3D picture sure looks like a bullet through JFK's neck to JBC's right armpit goes left to right.
So tell us how much he is turned in your graphic and why. I'll go with your graphic.
I was going by the sightlines from Zapruder that puts JFK between the left handhold and the spare tire enclosure in z193. One can also see the top right corner of the rear seat back behind JFK's right shoulder, so he is not as far right as possible. But I stand to be corrected if you can show otherwise.
The distance from JFK's throat exit to the jumpseat back is 19 inches if I recall correctly. I will check it. What do you say it is? You should be able to do that from your 3D model. You just draw a couple of arrows between different points at different angles and say there is a problem. Show us the numbers and how you arrive at them.
Not this again? You think I'm would use a left-to-right trajectory?I can't tell. It sure looks like JBC's right armpit would be right of JFK's midline in your drawing.
Connally is turned so as to reflect his appearance in the Zapruder film.I agree if you are using z224 positions. So show how that puts his right armpit left of JFK's midline. The angle of a shot from the SN was about 9 degrees right to left at z224. I was showing the position at z197.
(https://www.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/KennedyDallas.jpg)
I think that's shadow fall onto the seat top, not a portion of the seat-back between Kennedy and the car's interior. So that doesn't justify moving Kennedy inboard more than he was.So how far from the inside of the car was his midline? I can't measure that on your drawing.
Whatever you're using, it's not helping your 3D work to match what's seen in the film.I'm still waiting for your numbers or measureable views. Show us the overhead view with the angle to the SN through JFK and JBC.
Brother Rob, we both know there is no convincing you. The bullet exited JFK's throat at 2000fps. Where do you think it went? JBC was directly in front of JFK.
A second shooter fired from where? The trajectories of the wounds tell you somewhere in this theory is an assassin firing two shots with three shells on the floor.
Brother Rob, we both know there is no convincing you. The bullet exited JFK's throat at 2000fps. Where do you think it went? JBC was directly in front of JFK.
2000 f/s is at near muzzle velocity (2100 f/s). That's too fast. The bullet exited JFK's throat at about 1700 f/s. It yawed upon exiting and then struck Connally at that velocity relatively sideon. It struck his rib at about 1400 f/s.
Could you please cite your source for it exiting at "about 1700 f/s"?
I was wrong. It was actually closer to 1800 f/s.
Tim, Isn't it nice to occasionally be 'in error' when the actual evidence strengthens your position.
Thumb1:
The true trajectory of the bullet has it exiting from just to the right of Jfk's midline and then traveling to the point entry on JBC'S back, which was most definitely to the right of his midline.I am just pointing out that it is only true if you use ITEK's maximum distance that JBC was left of JFK's midline and add at least 3 inches. And you still have a problem fitting that to the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot. An alternative explanation that does not conflict with consistent and well corroborated witness observations is available. It has the first bullet going to JBC's left side.
Give me time to get used to the feeling, since this is the first time I've ever been in error. ;D ;)
Damn, I miss the old emoticons.
Give me time to get used to the feeling, since this is the first time I've ever been in error. ;D ;)
Damn, I miss the old emoticons.
I was wrong. It was actually closer to 1800 f/s. From the WC testimony of Dr. Alfred Olivier:
Dr. OLIVIER. We determined the distance on various people by locating this anatomical region and using people of various sizes we found that regardless of general body build, the distance penetrated was around 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 cm. As a consequence, I used gelatin blocks 20 percent gelatin cut at 13 1/2 cm lengths and also used horsemeat and goatmeat placed in a box so that--this was a little harder to get the exact length but that varied between 13 1/2 and 14 1/2 cm. of muscle tissue.
Mr. SPECTER. Did that simulate, then, the portion of the President's body through which the bullet is reported to have passed, as closely as you could for your testing purposes?
Dr. OLIVIER. As closely as we could for these test purposes; yes.
..................
Mr. SPECTER. What measurement was obtained as to the entrance velocity of the bullet at the distance of 60 yards which you described?
Dr. OLIVIER. The striking velocity at an average of three shots was 1,904 feet per second.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the average exit velocity on each of the substances used?
Dr. OLIVIER. For the gelatin the average exit velocity was 1,779 feet persecond. The horsemeat, the average exit velocity was 1,798 feet per second. And the goatmeat the average exit velocity was 1,772 feet per second.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Give me time to get used to the feeling, since this is the first time I've ever been in error. ;D ;)
Damn, I miss the old emoticons.
Actually, now you have been in error at least twice.... :)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwX0SDsJ/singing.png)
Cite the evidence that shows the bullet "exited JFK's throat at 2000fps". Go ahead. I'll wait.
It is not my job to figure out from where. Only to point out that it happened based on the evidence.