- Bullet from front at reduced velocity through windshield enters JFK's throat with insufficient power to emerge out the other side.
Couldn't a bullet from the back have an equal chance of penetrating the windscreen?Not hitting his throat and not going straight through
JohnM
John,
I am not disagreeing with Lee's basic premise, I just don't understand what he is saying about the direction of the shots and evidence of bullet and bullet fragments and the damage they caused to the vehicle.
"Couldn't a bullet from the back have an equal chance of penetrating the windscreen?"
Yes, it is possible. A bullet or larger bullet fragment traveling from the rear toward the front of the limousine could penetrate the windshield. Not sure how this proves more than one shooter.
There you have 2 different directions of shooting and more than 3 shots. This equals CONSPIRACY.
Lee,
No question that bullets coming from two different directions proves a conspiracy. I believe there were multiple shots from different directions but don't follow your logic here.
- "Bullet from front at reduced velocity through windshield enters JFK's throat with insufficient power to emerge out the other side."
- "Through and through windshield bullet hole requires high velocity round."
I am not sure what you are saying with these statements as they are incongruent. Please define what you believe to be the speed of "high velocity rounds" and what velocity you believe is necessary for a "through and through windshield bullet hole". Are you trying to say that a bullet passing through a car windshield must be traveling at a high velocity and the resistance of the windshield glass reduces the speed of the bullet to the extent that it would enter JFK's soft neck tissue but not exit?
Even pistol bullets traveling at the relatively low velocity of +/-800 feet per second [as compared to high velocity rifle bullets] can easily penetrate vehicle windshield glass. Bullets traveling at "high velocity" are not necessary for a "through and through windshield bullet hole".
"-Bullet through windshield denting top metal framing of windshield with fragments deflected down into Connally's thigh. Fragments were also found in Greer's seat, the foot well where Kellerman sat and under the jump seat"
The bullet or bullet fragment which dented the chrome strip at the "top metal framing of windshield" could not have come through the front of the windshield and then impacted the chrome strip above the drivers heads. This bullet or bullet fragment must have come from behind the limousine rather than through the front windshield.
"-Bullet that hit Connally in the back going through him and exiting low down on his suit coat possibly breaking his wrist too".
The bullet that entered Governor Connally's back and exited his chest just below his right nipple did not exit low down on his suit coat.
John,Oswald on the 6th floor fired 3 shots and that's that!
I am not disagreeing with Lee's basic premise, I just don't understand what he is saying about the direction of the shots and evidence of bullet and bullet fragments and the damage they caused to the vehicle.
"Couldn't a bullet from the back have an equal chance of penetrating the windscreen?"
Yes, it is possible. A bullet or larger bullet fragment traveling from the rear toward the front of the limousine could penetrate the windshield. Not sure how this proves more than one shooter.
There you have 2 different directions of shooting and more than 3 shots. This equals CONSPIRACY.
Lee,
No question that bullets coming from two different directions proves a conspiracy. I believe there were multiple shots from different directions but don't follow your logic here.
- "Bullet from front at reduced velocity through windshield enters JFK's throat with insufficient power to emerge out the other side."
- "Through and through windshield bullet hole requires high velocity round."
I am not sure what you are saying with these statements as they are incongruent. Please define what you believe to be the speed of "high velocity rounds" and what velocity you believe is necessary for a "through and through windshield bullet hole". Are you trying to say that a bullet passing through a car windshield must be traveling at a high velocity and the resistance of the windshield glass reduces the speed of the bullet to the extent that it would enter JFK's soft neck tissue but not exit?
Even pistol bullets traveling at the relatively low velocity of +/-800 feet per second [as compared to high velocity rifle bullets] can easily penetrate vehicle windshield glass. Bullets traveling at "high velocity" are not necessary for a "through and through windshield bullet hole".
"-Bullet through windshield denting top metal framing of windshield with fragments deflected down into Connally's thigh. Fragments were also found in Greer's seat, the foot well where Kellerman sat and under the jump seat"
The bullet or bullet fragment which dented the chrome strip at the "top metal framing of windshield" could not have come through the front of the windshield and then impacted the chrome strip above the drivers heads. This bullet or bullet fragment must have come from behind the limousine rather than through the front windshield.
"-Bullet that hit Connally in the back going through him and exiting low down on his suit coat possibly breaking his wrist too".
The bullet that entered Governor Connally's back and exited his chest just below his right nipple did not exit low down on his suit coat.
Oswald on the 6th floor fired 3 shots and that's that!
JohnM
Oswald on the 6th floor fired 3 shots and that's that!
JohnM
If you have proof that anyone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post it.
Look at my original post and cite some evidence that there were only three bullets from one direction. Then you can tell me about that new law of Physics you've discovered.A. About 95% of the earwitnesses said all the bullets came from one direction, meaning no crossfire.
Only one bullet was attributed to the MC and that was planted at Parkland with no loss of mass that would indicate it hit anything at all. Never mind caused the injuries that day.
Too much time and effort is wasted examining Oswald, Tippit et al just as the conspirators planned it. A simple analysis of the real evidence of shots fired proves it was a conspiracy. That information is already out there and is diminished by focussing in the wrong directions:
- Forget the number of audible shots; there were signallers and spotters to ensure some shots were simultaneous.
- Bullet to JFK's back near the right shoulder - not the back of the neck. No way that could have come out the front of his neck from he trajectory. JFK's suit coat and shirt show this.
- Bullet from front at reduced velocity through windshield enters JFK's throat with insufficient power to emerge out the other side.
- Bullet to JFK's head.
- Bullet that missed and hit the kerb causing consequential injury to James Tague on Main Street
- Bullet "found" at Parkland Hospital (only one attributed to the MC owned supposedly by LHO). No markings or loss in weight to support hitting anything substantial. A plant to frame LHO.
- Bullet that hit Connally in the back going through him and exiting low down on his suit coat possibly breaking his wrist too.
- Bullet denting top metal framing of windshield with fragments deflected down into Connally's thigh. Fragments were also found in Greer's seat, the foot well where Kellerman sat and under the jump seat
- Three shells lined up in TSBD sixth floor.
- Through and through windshield bullet hole requires high velocity round.
There you have 2 different directions of shooting and ore than 3 shots. This equals CONSPIRACY.
We may never have the names of the shooters but we know who the plotters had to be as there was a well orchestrated cover up. We know why wen we look at World and domestic events at that time.
Which earwitnesses said shots came from both ends of Elm street?
JohnM
Fact. All three shots were fired from the sixth floor south-east corner window of the TSBD by Lee Harvey Oswald using C2766. The first shot missed. The third struck Kennedy in the head.
The second shot, one bullet, caused seven wounds in JFK and GC. That's what the evidence shows. There is absolutely no evidence in existence which shows that there were shots from any other direction. What you have posted is more tired conspiracy hogwash that belongs in the twilight zone.
John,
In the interest of not getting this thread off the original track, what do you think about starting another thread focusing on the the ear and eye witnesses who said the shots came from some place other than the TSBD? I have a several page response with witnesses statements. Either way is fine with me and I am glad to start a separate thread and answer your question.
John,You don't need my permission, if you want to start another thread go ahead.
In the interest of not getting this thread off the original track, what do you think about starting another thread focusing on the the ear and eye witnesses who said the shots came from some place other than the TSBD? I have a several page response with witnesses statements. Either way is fine with me and I am glad to start a separate thread and answer your question.
Look at my original post and cite some evidence that there were only three bullets from one direction. Then you can tell me about that new law of Physics you've discovered.
Only one bullet was attributed to the MC
and that was planted at Parkland
with no loss of mass that would indicate it hit anything at all.
Oswald never fired a rifle that day as tests showed
and they didn't find his print on the rifle before the chain of evidence was broken.
Lee, your original post doesn't actually cite any evidence that there were more than three bullets from more than one direction.
You apparently are unaware of the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limo that were matched to Oswald's Carcano.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Planted by who and when? Why was it planted?
That is false. CE-399 was missing about 3 grains of mass.
You apparently are unaware of the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limo that were matched to Oswald's Carcano.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Tim,
When the FBI examined the limo, who actually found there bullet fragments?
Martin,
CE-567 was discovered by Thomas G. Mills, Chief Hospital Corpsman, assigned to White House doctor's office.
CE-569 was discovered by Paul Paterni, Deputy Chief of the Secret Service.
You don't need my permission, if you want to start another thread go ahead.
JohnM
I wasn't asking for your permission, just offering a fresh and uncluttered new thread to established that 95% of the witnesses to the assassination did not say the shots came from the direction of the TSBD as you say they did.
Again John you are incorrect about what the witnesses to the assassination actually heard and saw. I will start a new thread and post the actual witnesses statements made at the time as to what they say they witnessed and will try to get it up tomorrow or the next day.
At that point you can attempt to rebut the actual statements of the witnesses or post more misleading pie charts lacking the actual documented statements to back them up.
Again John you are incorrect about what the witnesses to the assassination actually heard and saw.
I will start a new thread and post the actual witnesses statements made at the time as to what they say they witnessed and will try to get it up tomorrow or the next day.
At that point you can attempt to rebut the actual statements of the witnesses or post more misleading pie charts lacking the actual documented statements to back them up.
More games. The majority of witnesses asked the simple question regarding their opinion on the origin of the shots said they were from the GK area.
We have gone over this many times with him, but he keeps repeating his falsehoods.
Again John you are incorrect about what the witnesses to the assassination actually heard and saw. I will start a new thread and post the actual witnesses statements made at the time as to what they say they witnessed and will try to get it up tomorrow or the next day.
At that point you can attempt to rebut the actual statements of the witnesses or post more misleading pie charts lacking the actual documented statements to back them up.
Who's "we"?
The Earwitnesses who thought the shots came from the Knoll thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll, but that's simply not possible and considering that Kennedy and Connally were both struck from behind, the only logical outcome is that all the shots were fired from behind by Oswald on the 6th floor.
JohnM
Oswald on the 6th floor fired 3 shots and that's that!
A. About 95% of the earwitnesses said all the bullets came from one direction, meaning no crossfire.
B. There were bullet fragments in the Limo that were exclusively matched to Oswalds rifle.
Wrong. Oswald's palm print was lifted off of the rifle on Nov 22, 1963 by Carl Day.
You apparently are unaware of the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limo that were matched to Oswald's Carcano.
One of the many interesting things about the witnesses to the JFK assassination is the evolving nature of many of their statements. Some witnesses originally made statements and even gave testimony which was opposite to the WC conclusions. Then over time they began to think they were mistaken and came to accept they must have been wrong. This is not an indication of something necessarily sinister or conspiratorial. The Newman's and Sam Holland are good examples.
While there is indisputable evidence from dozens of witnesses to the assassination that they were threatened or intimidated in an effort to get them to change their statements, still others appear to have changed their minds about what they saw and heard as a result of the psychological phenomena of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or psychological stress that comes from simultaneously holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of performing an action which contradicts widely held beliefs, ideals or values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts previously beliefs, ideals, and values.
Tim,
Good advice. Doing ten at a time will make it much easier to both post and discuss/debate.
One of the many interesting things about the witnesses to the JFK assassination is the evolving nature of many of their statements. Some witnesses originally made statements and even gave testimony which was opposite to the WC conclusions. Then over time they began to think they were mistaken and came to accept they must have been wrong. This is not an indication of something necessarily sinister or conspiratorial. The Newman's and Sam Holland are good examples.
While there is indisputable evidence from dozens of witnesses to the assassination that they were threatened or intimidated in an effort to get them to change their statements, still others appear to have changed their minds about what they saw and heard as a result of the psychological phenomena of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or psychological stress that comes from simultaneously holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of performing an action which contradicts widely held beliefs, ideals or values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts previously beliefs, ideals, and values.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or psychological stress that comes from simultaneously holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of performing an action which contradicts widely held beliefs, ideals or values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts previously beliefs, ideals, and values.
Lloyd,
Someone else who quickly comes to mind is Mary Woodward. Her original statement places her in the Knoll column, but decades later she tried to explain that away.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,216.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,216.0.html)
Other psycological phenomena that may be considered.....
And the famous case in the RFK assassination.
In Mary Woodward's case, I think her change of opinion after 30 years as to the location of source
of the shots can likely be attributed to cognitive dissonance. This is just one statement she made about
the pressure and backlash resulting from her original statement where she said ??After acknowledging
our cheers he [President Kennedy] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to our right." [the grassy knoll area]
The same Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK and put on the Warren Commission by LBJ.
Amazing how people are so obsessed by this that they have nothing else to do with their lives only log in here 24-7 posting nonsense post after nonsense post. Do you people ever think about nothing else or talk about nothing else. This case was solved in 1963 - 64. Oswald the psychopath and cold blooded killer killed JFK all by himself. A blood thirsty malcontent murderer who had a taste for killing political figures. That's all there is to it. Now that's that.
This thread is a rehash of The evolution of CE 142 - what the flap?. Same subject, different name. The contention that the Dallas Police constructed CE-142 is absolutely absurd. It's right up there with Big-foot, The Abominable Snowman, The Loch Ness Monster, Crop Circles, UFO'S, Alien's, The Enfield Haunting, The Banshee, Moving Statues, etc, etc. Oswald constructed the bag. End of story. Sorry but that's the way it was. I would expect this thread to be a long one though. 8)
Amazing that people are sucked in by Doug Horne's tripe.
It doesn't take a genius or an expert to figure out that Horne hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. His assertions are completely outlandish conspiracy nonsense.
LOL. What a load of nonsense. No intelligent person is going to fall for this rubbish. You're really far out Tony. The fairytale continues.
Was Lee Oswald the passenger in Whaley's Taxi?
Of course he was, only a fool would believe otherwise.
Only a fool would believe that my opinion which is actually a fact is not supported by the actual evidence and only a fool would believe that I would make a statement of fact without actual evidence. Your good at making unsupported opinions by twisting the actual evidence from reality into the fantasy realm in which you reside sir.
How should I put this, oh, THERE WERE NO TWO OSWALD'S. The two Oswald theory is absolute hogwash. Amazing that people are sucked in by this nonsense.
Lloyd, Continuing from where you left off:
Allen Dulles was not fired by JFK.
Hahaha what's the new law of physics you just invented? Oswald never fired a rifle that day as tests showed and they didn't find his print on the rifle before the chain of evidence was broken. Read up on it
Forced resignation would probably be a better word. The White House released Dulles's resignation letter in the aftermath of the failed Bay of Pigs disaster. David Talbot who wrote an excellent biography of Allen Dulles The Devil?s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America?s Secret Government, does a very good job explaining this issue along with the forced resignations of Richard Bissell and General Charles Cabell [the brother of the Mayor of Dallas, Earl Cabell who has since been proven to be a CIA asset]
These are all excellent questions that need excellent answers and I am not sure I have them. To begin with I don't believe all the shots came from any one location.
If Mary Woodward was correct and the first shot missed [and likely hit James Tague near the triple underpass over a hundred yards away from the limousine carrying the President] then according to the WC, the second shot must have struck both JFK and Gov. Connelly [this is so called Magic Bullet or SBT depending on your point of view] and then the last bullet would have struck JFK in the head.
This would mean the Dallas doctors and nurses who thought the neck wound was one of entrance were wrong.
It would also require the three pathologists at the official autopsy to be incorrect when they probed and found JFK's shallow back wound did not exit JFK's body. They noted the end of this wound could be felt with their finger.
The three pathologists would also have to be wrong when they found the angle of the back would was 45 to 60 degrees downward [much steeper than the angle of approximately 19 degrees the FBI and WC concluded the angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD to the President at the time the bullet would have struck JFK and Connelly.] This would make it impossible for this bullet reverse course and then travel upwards to exit JFK's throat and then reverse course downward again and travel into Gov. Connally's back.
The list of things that would have had to occur for the Magic Bullet/Single Bullet theory to work is staggering to me.
From the official report of FBI Agents Sibert and O?Neill who documented the autopsy for the FBI:
"During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders [and obviously not JFK's neck] and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.
Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X?Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
If the entrance wound in JFK back was shallow [less than the length of the pathologist's finger] and did not exit or pass through JFK body to come out the front of the throat, how could this bullet strike Gov. Connelly?
And what caused the small [4mm to 7mm] round, well demarcated wound in JFK's throat that Dallas Emergency Room doctors clearly described as a wound of entry?
Interesting enough, even the FBI had decided on a completely different version of these three shots than what the WC would eventually decided had happened. The FBI stood by their original conclusions for several months until they were forced to confront and deal with the injury of James Tague in the summer of 1964.
Tim,
I will post a better reply tomorrow, we are just going out to dinner now.
Are you saying you really think JFK didn't fire Allen Dulles or the pathologists didn't probe JFK's back wound or James Tague wasn't hit by either pieces of curb or fragments of a bullet or that Tague's injury did not cause the FBI to change their original version of events to agree with the WC Magic Bullet/Single Bullet Theory?
Let me know if I am not understanding you correctly on all this.
Thanks,
Lloyd
Fact: Suspects have been arrested and sent to trial for murder ... even when there were no "prints" on the murder weapon. The perpetrator wiped the weapon of prints! The jury accepted other evidence--including ownership and possession of the weapon--and found the defendant guilty.
The test you refer to (paraffin) often produces false positives and false negatives.
Also: Oswald's movements are not fully known from the encounter with Officer Baker (TSBD) to McDonald (Texas Theater). Lee Oswald could have quickly ducked into the restroom at the Theater to cool-down by washing his face with cold water. This would produce a negative paraffin test on his right cheek. There's no proof but it could have been done. He then deposited nitrates on his right hand when he pulled his gun on Officer Baker. That explains the positive test for nitrates on his right hand. All within the realm of possibility.
Fact: Suspects have been arrested and sent to trial for murder ... even when there were no "prints" on the murder weapon. The perpetrator wiped the weapon of prints! The jury accepted other evidence--including ownership and possession of the weapon--and found the defendant guilty.
Also: Oswald's movements are not fully known from the encounter with Officer Baker (TSBD) to McDonald (Texas Theater). Lee Oswald could have quickly ducked into the restroom at the Theater to cool-down by washing his face with cold water. This would produce a negative paraffin test on his right cheek. There's no proof but it could have been done. He then deposited nitrates on his right hand when he pulled his gun on Officer Baker. That explains the positive test for nitrates on his right hand. All within the realm of possibility.
Tague wasn't hit until the third shot.
That's not what Tague said.
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely-
............
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
It being the second of third shot rules out it being the first shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I've yet to see anyone come close to providing a believable explanation for Tague being wounded by the second shot. You are welcome to try though.
Tague himself could merely speculate.... June 4, 1964:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Tague%20James/Item%2062.pdf
True. But I think we can safely rule out the first and second shots. If it had been the first shot striking the curb , the damage to the curb would be very apparent .
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely-
............
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
It being the second of third shot rules out it being the first shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I've yet to see anyone come close to providing a believable explanation for Tague being wounded by the second shot. You are welcome to try though.
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely-
............
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
It being the second of third shot rules out it being the first shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I've yet to see anyone come close to providing a believable explanation for Tague being wounded by the second shot. You are welcome to try though.
True. But I think we can safely rule out the first and second shots. If it had been the first shot striking the curb , the damage to the curb would be very apparent .
That's your opinion.
The case against Oswald in the murder of John F. Kennedy would have been so strong that any plea bargain attempt by the defense would have been rejected by the prosecution. Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced to be executed in the electric chair.
That's my opinion.
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely-
............
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
It being the second of third shot rules out it being the first shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I've yet to see anyone come close to providing a believable explanation for Tague being wounded by the second shot. You are welcome to try though.
Tague himself could merely speculate.... June 4, 1964:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Tague%20James/Item%2062.pdf
Thanks for pointing out my error John. Obviously the correct identity was: Office N.M. McDonald - "Captor of Oswald".
Exactly Tom, I defy anyone to unexpectedly hear gun fire feel a pain to the face and keep count of the number of shots!!
LOL Where do you get such nonsense?
Tague was there. He heard 3 shots. He felt a sting. An officer had to point out that he was bleeding Seems to me he was focussed more on what he was seeing and hearing.
The head shot was travelling in the opposite direction.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
ASSASSINATION Or PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Officer Buddy Walther_ Deputy Sheriff Dallas County Sheriff's Office
Date Nov 22, 1963
-snip-
"...I immediately went to the triple underpass
on Elm Street in an effort to locate possible marks left by stray bullets.
While I was looking for possible marks, some unknown person stated to
me that something had hit his face while he was parked on Main Street,
the next lane south from Elm, as the traffic had been stopped for the
parade. Upon examining the curb and pavement in this vicinity I found
where a bullet had splattered on the top edge of the curb on Main Street
which would place the direction of firing, high and behind the position
the Presidents car was in when he was shot..."
-snip-
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
On the other hand, you definitively stated that it was the third shot. What makes you more authoritative on this than the guy who was actually hit?
Only if you pre-assume that there was a "first shot" that missed everything else. This is a good example of making the evidence fit your argument.
A lead smear at best. Certainly not from a direct hit from full metal jacketed bullet at about 1800 f/s.
I'm only taking Tague at his word.
James Tague was a big problem to the WC.
How easy it would have been to have one non fatal shot each PREZ & GOV and then head shot as the third Tague destroys that and when his story is picked up by the AP in early summer 1964 the WC cannot ignore him
Tague was called July 23 1964..(WC on a scheduled timeline to be finished)
..and the below FBI memo (portion of pg. 3 unsigned) dated July 17th 1964
It references the photographers (Dillard & Underwood) that took the photos of the MH cover
But wait....The hit to the MH cover and turf has now turned into a hit to the curb and the "nick" cannot be found
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4111/34812429854_d57dfd29c1_z.jpg)
It could be the weather....
"...it should be noted that, since the mark was observed on November 23, 1963 there had been numerous rains which could have possibly washed away such a mark and also that the area is cleaned by a street cleaning machine about once a week which would also wash away such mark..."
But on August 05 1964 Shaneyfelt was able to find a mark [yeah..."Shadyguy"]
....so the initial mark on the MH cover & turf can now become the curb.....
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4094/34844559173_18a5f6e626_z.jpg)
Shaneyfelt comes up with a series of photos that have nothing to do with the original Dillard & Underwood subject
..and the record is left with the mark on the curb that had been the ricochet that hit Tague
Once again Shaneyfelt is called back as late as Sept 1st to clarify
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Yes.
Using photographs made by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard in November 1963, either the 22d or 23d, of this mark on the curb, I went to Dallas and was successful in locating a mark. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 contains the photographs used to locate the mark on the curbing on the south side of Main Street at the assassination site.
Photograph No. 1 of this exhibit is the photograph of the mark made by Mr. Underwood, the red arrow indicating the mark on the curb.
Photograph No. 2 is the photograph made by Mr. Dillard of the mark on the curb, and the red arrow again designates the mark.
Photograph No. 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 is a photograph that was made by Mr. Underwood by placing his camera on the mark and pointing it toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, and he stated he did this so that the resulting photograph could be used to relocate this mark on the curb should it ever be necessary.
Mr. Redlich.
I gather that without that photograph taken by Mr. Underwood it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have located this mark, is that correct?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
It would have been more difficult. Mr. Dillard's photograph actually contained some background that was of value, and we would have found it without this, but this made it much easier. Photograph No. 3, which was made by Mr. Underwood, allowed us to go immediately within a foot to a foot and a haft of, the actual mark.
Tague always knew his story was a problem and the WC had to explain his hit:
"They had to go back and rewrite the Warren Commission," Tague said. "That's where the magic bullet came from. That's the only thing they could come up with. That's the only thing they could come up with. That one bullet went through two people."
..and the bullet that hit the MH cover becomes the missed shot that ricocheted off the curb and hit Tague
Did he or did he not say that he remembered a shot after he was hit?
Did I miss something? Who claimed it was a "direct hit from full metal jacketed bullet at about 1800 f/s"? Wouldn't this be a matter of what was fired and from where?
Again, you are more than welcome to present your case for Tague having been hit by the first shot. Knock yourself out.
When did I ever say that Tague was hit by the first shot? You stated as a fact that Tague wasn't hit until the third shot and had to ignore / minimize what Tague actually said in order to do it.
Jesse Curry's opinion actually!!
Perhaps you can cite this so strong case that you talk about and how you know more than the DPD did?
Jesse Curry wrote a book trying to make some money from his "connection" to the tragic events of 22 November 1963.
Curry was both incompetent and grandstanding on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of November 1963.
He knew well (from years of experience) that suspects are rarely "observed" by witnesses (at close distances) during the perpetration of their crimes. If Oswald had not been murdered by Jack Ruby: Curry would have been a witness for the prosecution and enjoyed the limelight. When interviewed by the press after Oswald's conviction: he would have expressed satisfaction at the jury's decision ... guilty.
If you disagree: explain what part Jesse Curry would have played in the defense's case to exonerate Oswald?
What Tague said really doesn't make any difference. I'm not entirely convinced that he was even hit at all. That's something that was made obvious in my reply to Lloyd. If Tague was hit all it was by the third shot. That is based on use of the evidence. But you don't give a damn about the evidence, and the reply was not directed at you anyway.
and what part is that?
pardon me...at the manhole cover
(https://riversong.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/manhole-cover-2011-2.jpg)
What Tague said really doesn't make any difference. I'm not entirely convinced that he was even hit at all. That's something that was made obvious in my reply to Lloyd. If Tague was hit all it was by the third shot. That is based on use of the evidence. But you don't give a damn about the evidence, and the reply was not directed at you anyway.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
On the other hand, you definitively stated that it was the third shot. What makes you more authoritative on this than the guy who was actually hit?
... Fired from the storm drain inlet opening? Atop the Underpass? From the wooden fence? Dealey Plaza infield? Bill Greer?
(https://i.imgur.com/oTpchEP.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/FcfbdZr.jpg)
A lead smear at best. Certainly not from a direct hit from full metal jacketed bullet at about 1800 f/s.
Jesse Curry wrote a book trying to make some money from his "connection" to the tragic events of 22 November 1963.
Curry was both incompetent and grandstanding on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the assassination weekend.
He knew well (from years of experience) that suspects are rarely "observed" by witnesses (at close distances) during the perpetration of their crimes. If Oswald had not been murdered by Jack Ruby: Curry would have been a witness for the prosecution and enjoyed the limelight. When interviewed by the press after Oswald's conviction: he would have expressed satisfaction at the jury's decision ... guilty.
If you disagree: explain what part Jesse Curry would have played in the defense's case to exonerate Oswald?
Mr. FOSTER - I moved down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit.
Mr. BALL - Find anything?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.
Mr. BALL - Hit the turf?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
* Officer Foster also reported that a bullet struck the concrete part of the above mentioned manhole cover. It is not known if this was the same missile that made the dug-out hole in the grass a few feet from the manhole cover. The bullet might have skipped off the manhole cover and then embedded itself in the grass. Or, the mark on the concrete could have been made by a separate bullet, and thus would represent another miss fired from the same approximate location. The sewer cover and the hole in the turf were about 3-5 feet apart, and the latter was farther down the side of Elm Street (that is, it was slightly farther away from the TSBD than was the sewer cover). EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA Michael T. Griffith 1996
Prove that Tague wasn't mistaken and that he really heard a shot after he was hit.
Prove that Tague wasn't mistaken and that he really heard a shot after he was hit.
You mean the way Tim proved that Tague's injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot?
You mean the way Tim proved that Tague's injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot?
I've said that if Tague was actually hit at all it was most likely by a fragment from the head shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I don't recall proving that Tague's injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot, or even claiming that I proved a fragment from the head shot caused his injury. If you would be so kind to direct me to where I proved that his injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot I'd be forever in your debt. Thanks in advance.
Tim, you're talking to a guy who posted a photo of the lineup participants (taken almost six months after the lineups were conducted) in an attempt to show that they had no visible bruises at the time they participated in the lineups.
No.
You seem to believe that since Tague was the "guy who was actually hit", that he is correct about when he was hit, related to which shot. Couldn't Tague be wrong, though?
I've said that if Tague was actually hit at all it was most likely by a fragment from the head shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I don't recall proving that Tague's injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot, or even claiming that I proved a fragment from the head shot caused his injury. If you would be so kind to direct me to where I proved that his injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot I'd be forever in your debt. Thanks in advance.
Tague wasn't hit until the third shot.
Could Tim?
Sure, Mr. Inverted Caret
Predictable.
I've acknowledged, after seeing a more high resolution photo of Hosty's notes, that the image is an ampersand.
You haven't acknowledged that it made absolutely no sense whatsoever to post a photo of the lineup participants taken in mid-May of 1964 in an attempt to show whether or not these men had visible bruises in November of 1963.
Not in November 1963 he didn't when he said the DPD didn't have a case against LHO.
Years of experience from an "incompetent" person.......nice you're really convincing with that one!!
Too many "woulds and ifs" in your post make it not worthy of a response from me anyway.
I acknowledge that it made absolutely no sense whatsoever to post a photo of the lineup participants taken in mid-May of 1964 in an attempt to show whether or not these men had visible bruises in November of 1963.
Tim provided the evidence. All you provided was bluster.
Years of experience does not guarantee competence in every instance. Jesse Curry was unquestionably incompetent during the assassination weekend. This involved grandstanding when the world's press was watching him and then pandering to them by permitting Oswald to be "paraded" on two occasions.
-- The midnight (so-called) press conference.
-- The jail transfer that caused Oswald's death.
I've said that if Tague was actually hit at all it was most likely by a fragment from the head shot. A fragment from the head shot is the most reasonable explanation. I don't recall proving that Tague's injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot, or even claiming that I proved a fragment from the head shot caused his injury. If you would be so kind to direct me to where I proved that his injury was caused by a fragment from the head shot I'd be forever in your debt. Thanks in advance.
Tim, what a load of absurd rubbish. The head shot came from the opposite direction.
Tagues injury was more likely caused by a small fragment of concrete or similar kicked u by the impact of one of the stray bullets.
It was a scratch but nevertheless The WC took it seriously as did the FBI rather than come up with an alternative scenario. In fact they had to come up with the unbelievable guff of the magic bullet or more like the fantasy bullet. This says to me that to have to resort to such a stupid story they knew for definite it could be proved one shot missed and that undid the whole lone shooter farce on its own.
LOL! How did that happen and from where?
Just as likely it was from the missile fragmentation at the time of the head shot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/tague/taguefragment-z313.png)
Not at all. That a CT "stupid story."
The Single-Bullet Theory arose out of the need to explain what happened to the bullet that exited intact from Kennedy's throat. There was no evidence an intact bullet struck anything in the limousine other than Connally.
No bullet path through back and neck was confirmed through dissection of JFK.
A full metal jacketed round from a bolt action rifle? A FMJ bullet means another rifle apart from the Carcano and you know what that means..............
No bullet path through back and neck was confirmed through dissection of JFK.
Sure, cutting JFK's neck halfway off would have pleased the Kennedy family upstairs, who wanted no unnecessary mutilation. While they're at it, why not dissect his face and ears into slices looking for potential fragment tracks?
When everything between the neck in-shoot and out-shoot signaled damage, it was obvious the wounds connected, but only after Humes learned there had been a bullet hole seen at the throat.
What is the purpose of an autopsy?
An autopsy is frequently performed in cases of sudden death, where a doctor is not able to write a death certificate, or when death is believed to result from an unnatural cause. These examinations are performed under a legal authority (Medical Examiner or Coroner or Procurator Fiscal) and do not require the consent of relatives of the deceased. The most extreme example is the examination of murder victims, especially when medical examiners are looking for signs of death or the murder method, such as bullet wounds and exit points, [...]
"My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. [...]"
Next step?
Showing?
Indicating?
Showing?
Yup. Is there a point that you were trying to make with that?
Look at the x-rays.
Can we get back on topic?
Evidence for the number of shots / bullet strikes which exceed three. If you disagree, fine, but cite evidence for all evidence of bullet marks, holes and injuries, finds.
Evidence for shots from other than the TSBD or ore than one location in TSBD
Evidence for full metal jacket rounds
Can someone with gun knowledge confirm in an FMJ can be fired from a bolt action rifle as opposed t a military automatic rifle?
How about this point Timbo, JFK's autopsy was illegal. His autopsy should have been carried out in Texas by law. His body was stolen in an armed robbery by the SS. Why? So it could be performed by the military with people involved having to obey orders. I wonder why?
Which set? The first or second set of x-rays?
His autopsy was not illegal. The Secret Service officers suspected that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. A conspiracy would have made it a Federal crime. They were justified under Title 18 , Part 1, Chapter 19 of the US Code in removing the body from Dallas.
Lee, if you really want to get back on topic you can start by properly replying to my original response to your OP.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,233.msg4917.html#msg4917
His autopsy was not illegal. The Secret Service officers suspected that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. A conspiracy would have made it a Federal crime. They were justified under Title 18 , Part 1, Chapter 19 of the US Code in removing the body from Dallas.
And the purpose of that would would be?
Hahahahaha so a LNer uses a conspiracy when it suits him hahaha
They didn't suspect they knew, they drove him into the ambush, slowed down and removed protection and ignored rules about vehicle speed and high rise buidings with windows open.
Suspicion was not enough t lawfully do what they did that's why they had to threaten and aim to draw weapons
I've got a better way Tim, ignore your nonsense and discuss with others who can produce evidence and answer questions in the OP
The above is laughable. Unless the assassination occurred inside Germany during Hitler's reign, the SS did Not have the authority to deem themselves Judge/Jury and take possession/steal the body of JFK.
As I understand it the FMJ ammo was designed to inflict minimum damage to the victim (Hague Convention ). Oswald (ex-marine) would have known that. That was not his objective.
Are you actually referring to this?
but I don't see a date before 1971
U.S. Code ? Title 18 ? Part I ? Chapter 18 ? ? 351
Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties
(f) If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.
(Added Pub. L. 91?644, title IV, ? 15, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1891; amended Pub. L. 97?285, ?? 1, 2(a), Oct. 6, 1982, 96 Stat. 1219; Pub. L. 99?646, ? 62, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 100?690, title VII, ? 7074, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4405; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXII, ? 320101(d), title XXXIII, ?? 330016(1)(K), (L), 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2108, 2147, 2150; Pub. L. 104?294, title VI, ? 604(b)(12)(C), (c)(2), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3509; Pub. L. 112?87, title V, ? 506, Jan. 3, 2012, 125 Stat. 1897.)
Oh! I see; he was only incompetent on the assassination weekend. That makes your argument so much more robust. NOT.
I really don't understand the point you're trying to make
You're welcome, Lee.
I know their MO, no worries.
As I understand it the FMJ ammo was designed to inflict minimum damage to the victim (Hague Convention ). Oswald (ex-marine) would have known that. That was not his objective.
EDIT: Following the LN narrative that is...
You're being idiotic. There wasn't a conspiracy but they didn't know that shortly after 1 pm.
Childlike simplication.
Minimal damage was for soft tissue, not hard tissue. I don't think they can do much even today to make a metal bullet leave behind a clean contained pencil-like missile path through the skull.
from Conspiracy of Silence,
Dr. Charles Crenshaw [Parkland Doctor]
When the entourage had moved into the main hall, Dr. Earl Rose, chief of forensic pathology, confronted the men in suits. Roy Kellerman, the man leading the group, looked sternly at Dr. Rose and announced, ?My friend, this is the body of the President of the United States, and we are going to take it back to Washington.?
Dr. Rose bristled and replied, ?No, that?s not the way things are. When there?s a homicide, we must have an autopsy.?
?He?s the President. He?s going with us,? Kellerman barked, with increased intensity in his voice.
?The body stays,? Dr. Rose said with equal poignancy.
Kellerman took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready position. The other men in suits followed course by draping their coattails behind the butts of their holstered pistols. How brave of these men, wearing their Brooks Brothers suits with icons of distinction (color-coded Secret Service buttons) pinned to their lapels, willing to shoot an unarmed doctor to secure a corpse.
"My friend, my name is Roy Kellerman. I am special agent in charge of the White House detail of the Secret Service. We are taking President Kennedy back to the capitol.?
?You are not taking the body anywhere. There?s a law here. We?re going to enforce it.?
Admiral George Burkley, White House Medical Officer, said, ?Mrs. Kennedy is going to stay exactly where she is until the body is moved. We can?t have that ? he?s the President of the United States.?
?That doesn?t matter,? Dr. Rose replied rigidly. ?You can?t lose the chain of evidence.?
For the second time that day, there was little doubt in my mind as to the significance of what was happening before me.
?Goddammit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt,? screamed another one of the men in suits. Another snapped, ?We?re taking the body, now.?
Strange, I thought, this President is getting more protection dead than he did when he was alive.
Had Dr. Rose not stepped aside I?m sure that those thugs would have shot him. They would have killed me and anyone else who got in their way. Dr. Kemp Clark wanted to physically detain the coffin, but the men with guns acted like tough guys with specific orders. A period of twenty-seven years has neither erased the fear that I felt nor diminished the impression that that incident made upon me.
They loaded the casket into the hearse, Jacqueline got into the backseat, placed her hand on top of the coffin, and bowed her head. As they drove off, I felt that a thirty-year-old surgeon had seen more than his share for one day.
Giving effect to this intention, it is our opinion that the term ?offi?cer? appearing in 18 U.S.C. ? 372 includes both permanent and tempo?rary, full-and part-time officers and employees of the United States.
are you calling the POTUS an "officer"? [that is what provides "The Honorable" in the title he appoints to others]
where is that he is an officer? or better yet where does the code say President?
...or that Federal jurisdiction supersedes
"IF two or more persons"? "...imprisoned not more than six years?"
yea so?
also
or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both."
The President is NOT an officer of the United States
and so how does any of this allow them to take the body?...
Officer of the United States
An officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is delegated some part of the country's sovereign power. The term "officer of the United States" is not a title, but a term of classification for a certain type of official.
With a limited number of exceptions, all officers of the United States are appointed by the President and are subject to the approval of the Senate unless it chooses not to require such approval. Civilian officers of the United States are entitled to preface their names with the honorific style "the Honorable" for life; though in practice, this rarely occurs.
Officers of the United States should not be confused with employees of the United States; the latter are more numerous and lack the special legal authority of the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States
US Code Title 18 is very specific throughout when referring to
"....Officers, Employees, and Elected Officials of the Executive and Legislative branches.." [esp Pres. & VP]
And are not referring to the POTUS in 18 U.S. Code ? 372 - Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
or that Federal jurisdiction supersedes TX State law in the removal of this body in 1963...
The POTUS is all three.
Haha and the SS knew it was a conspiracy because they were part of it Tim. They even had an officer at the DPD why was that then?
What do you say to all the so called errors the SS made that day that they didn't make on preceding days? And don't say JFK requested he be driven at too low a speed past high buildings with the windows open!! For example!!
His autopsy was not illegal. The Secret Service officers suspected that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. A conspiracy would have made it a Federal crime. They were justified under Title 18 , Part 1, Chapter 19 of the US Code in removing the body from Dallas.
Try all you want but you'll never get around the fact that the Feds were legally justified in removing JFK's body under 18 U.S. Code ? 372.
You're blowing smoke. 18 U.S. Code ? 372 doesn't say anything about seizing evidence. Nor have you shown any evidence that federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction was ever asserted.
Conspiracy to assassinate the President was a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code ? 372. That gives the Feds the authority to seize evidence. The Feds asserted their investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction when they removed JFK's body from Dallas.
Talk about a circular argument.
What statute gave the feds the authority to seize evidence from a state investigation? 18 U.S. Code ? 372 doesn't.
18 U.S. Code ? 372
RHVB
It's not possible to drive though a city avoiding high buildings with open windows.
They had an officer at the DPD? What does that even mean?
What errors did the Secret Service make that day that they didn't make on preceding days?
You're blowing smoke. 18 U.S. Code ? 372 doesn't say anything about seizing evidence. Nor have you shown any evidence that federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction was ever asserted.
Conspiracy to assassinate the President was a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code ? 372. That gives the Feds the authority to seize evidence. The Feds asserted their investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction when they removed JFK's body from Dallas.
Tim,
I would be interested in you looking back to my OP and later attempts to get back on topic and stating how all the evidence of bullet damage, wounds, finds, fragments in and out of bodies an be attributed to 3 bullets.
There are 2 rules to this task:
1. There's no such thing as magic
2. The laws of physics must be adhered to
Look at my original post and cite some evidence that there were only three bullets from one direction. Then you can tell me about that new law of Physics you've discovered.
Only one bullet was attributed to the MC
and that was planted at Parkland
with no loss of mass that would indicate it hit anything at all.
In Dallas they could of voided Elm Street altogether. You are correct though but the SS should be ensuring no windows are open and no one on roofs. Shame they forgot that rule on that particular day
Fantasy.
Fantasy.
Ok Lee, let's start with this;
Lee, your original post doesn't actually cite any evidence that there were more than three bullets from more than one direction.
You apparently are unaware of the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limo that were matched to Oswald's Carcano.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Planted by who and when? Why was it planted?
That is false. CE-399 was missing about 3 grains of mass.
Nope! Incorrect! Its called carrying out their duty. Do you like living on fantasy island?
In Dallas they could of voided Elm Street altogether. You are correct though but the SS should be ensuring no windows are open and no one on roofs. Shame they forgot that rule on that particular day
Says the fantasy man who thinks all the windows in a city should be closed. Simple minded BS.
You just can't get your head around reality man. A President, or anyone else for that matter can't be safe from a would be killer if they mingle with the public in public.
Those incompetent SS agents
(http://williamlanday.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/JFK-in-Dallas.jpg)
(http://dallas1963book.com/images/gallery/1-JFK-dallas-motorcade-1960.jpg)
My post was to ask how the "3 bullets" can account for all the damage, wound, fragments and finds from the events in DP on 11/22/63.
My subsequent posts contain links to cited evidence just as you state your links do.
How about suggesting how 3 bullets could possibly cause what was found.
Oh and its 2.4 grains.
The plant was because it matched the carcano and they didn't want to start adding up weights of all the fragments in and out of bodies for obvious reasons
There you go again raving on about open windows in high buildings.
To conclude the SS should have ensured all windows in high buildings were shut is fantasy.
Lee,
I'm not sure what it is that you're looking for.
One bullet missed. Second bullet passed through Kennedy's neck and upon exiting began to tumble. It went on to strike Connally in the back somewhat side on. It passed through his torso shattering about 4 inches of his fifth rib and exited below the right nipple. It struck Connally's wrist bone base first, fracturing the bone and then passed through and entered his left thigh.
The third bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the head. The pressure created by the passage of the bullet caused the massive rupture of the right side of the skull. Several large bullet fragments exited at the right front of the skull. Two of those fragments were found in the limo. The third one exited over the windshield .
Actually, if we use the average of the three WCC bullets weighed by Robert Frazier, the amount missing would be 2.55 grains.
Planted by who? How logical would it be to plant a bullet like CE-399 before knowing the extent of Connally's wounds or whether large fragments, or even another bullet, would be found inside of Connally?
Tim, please tell me what law of physics allows a bullet hitting JFK in the shoulder area of the back exit out the throat and drop with enough energy to hit connally so low whilst moving in an upwards trajectory? See links below.
How about the throat wound was an entrance wound as the doctors stated originally and it came through the windshield bullet hole but had insufficient energy to pass right through the neck.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jfk+assassination+shirt&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt287J88DZAhXHLsAKHR9DAXAQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=588#imgrc=zBiUt13cIKkk2M:&spf=1519556094390 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jfk+assassination+shirt&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt287J88DZAhXHLsAKHR9DAXAQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=588#imgrc=zBiUt13cIKkk2M:&spf=1519556094390)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1366&bih=588&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AZaSWpLnGMHwgAaX7674Cg&q=jfk+assassination+connallys+jacket&oq=jfk+assassination+connallys+jacket&gs_l=psy-ab.12...61937.67895.0.71148.21.14.0.5.5.0.125.1097.11j3.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.10.565...0j0i67k1j0i24k1.0.hVkGkWcfk58#imgrc=AjMDjPSNRsSy9M:&spf=1519556166478 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1366&bih=588&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AZaSWpLnGMHwgAaX7674Cg&q=jfk+assassination+connallys+jacket&oq=jfk+assassination+connallys+jacket&gs_l=psy-ab.12...61937.67895.0.71148.21.14.0.5.5.0.125.1097.11j3.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.10.565...0j0i67k1j0i24k1.0.hVkGkWcfk58#imgrc=AjMDjPSNRsSy9M:&spf=1519556166478)
Lee, you really need to be specific about what you want me to see in the two links.
The bullet was not moving in an upward direction at any time.
The throat wound was not an entrance wound , as the doctors later admitted.
There wasn't a hole in the windshield.
What a tit.
Go away and figure out who shot Kennedy.
What a tit.
Doing my best, John. Trying to decide who was in on the conspiracy.
Ray thanks for your post. What's your views on my OP regarding how 3 bullets can account for all the injuries, finds, fragments and bullet damage etc?
Its interesting looking at the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and Connally's jacket. Trying to see if the shooters discovered a new law of physics?
If the bullet wasn't moving upwards how did it enter through the hole in his shirt and exit his throat??
Read my earlier post with the link to the White House garage inspection of the limo.
You haven't answered my question about the WC ??
You should try to be more specific Lee. I assume that you are referring to the hole in the shirt being 5 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket . Photos of JFK in the limo show that the jacket had bunched up. Since the hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket, that means that the shirt had bunched up as well.
Don't tell me he's one of those tits who wants it to be "proven" that the shirt was bunched up.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg)
Don't tell me he's one of those tits who wants it to be "proven" that the shirt was bunched up.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg)
Don't tell me he's one of those tits who wants it to be "proven" that the shirt was bunched up.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg)
Bunched or not, doesn't change the location of the bullet holes.
So we have Humes whom saw the bullet hole below the shoulders.
We have Rankin who said they had photos of the hole in the back.
We have Dr Ebersole "As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula."
We have Glen Bennett, S.S. who saw a shot hit the boss about 4" down from the right shoulder.
We have James Jenkins who saw a wound 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck.
We have Paul O'Connor "Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound-an entrance wound-in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that's the seventh cervical vertebra."
We have the autopsy sheet which shows the wound in the back not the neck, We have the jacket and shirt where the holes show the bullet wound in the back.
We have the President's death certificate which places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."
We have Tom Robinson from the Funeral home " There was "wound in the back 5 to 6inches below the shoulder, to the right of the backbone."
We have Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck .
We have Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back".
We have former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment.
We have Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who climbed aboard the President's car after the shooting, described the back wound to Hale Boggs under oath. ?I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right hand side of the spinal column.?
We have Sibert and On'Neill "Dr Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the spinal column.
And to counter all the above the Feluccas have only the jacket and shirt bunched up exactly the same amount. ROTFLMAO
That's right Gary.
"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."
http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)
Does Bennett mean the shoulder line?
C7 sounds pretty good.At least we agree on something.
Brainless question.
Not buying the bunching stuff?
If Robinson meant the shoulder line, OK. If he meant below the shoulder body mass, then there's a problem.
The wound occurred near the boundary of different body masses and people use the terms shoulder, neck and back interchangeably.Nice graphics, Jerry. Pity they are immaterial.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/neckentry-anatomicsites.jpg)
Diana Bowron didn't mention the back wound in her WC testimony or contemporaneous newspaper articles.
That she "remembered" it nearly two decades later with the assistance of kook Livingstone and an autopsy photo of the back--and then claimed the photo was wrong--suggests arm-twisting.Just your opinion.
Neckline? Is that the hairline?
Are they talking about the shoulder line? Or below the shoulder mass? The critics never bother to figure it out. As long as it sounds like it's real low, so they just brainlessly go with it.You mean the same brainless way you accept the Specter's single bullet theory?
If you can show a good-resolution picture (that excludes the Willis and Betzner photos) from the motorcade showing clearly the nape area of the jacket that doesn't show a bunch, be my guest.
Problem is the wound wasn't dissected at the original autopsy. In fact they initially missed the wound
in the front of JFK's throat.
And, as Clark explained to LBJ in this 1-21-67 recorded phone call, the autopsy photo that would have
shown the direction and path of the bullet was missing.
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html (http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html)
Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon
Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation
Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos
-snip-
"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission
that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."
-snip-
"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the
neck and exited the front part."
-snip-
"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that]
we don't have."
-snip-
You kooks keep on ignoring the fact that the Parkland doctors did not see JFK's back and therefore did not see the neck/back entry wound. Therefore they initially (and prematurely, as it turned out) announced that the frontal throat wound was one of entry.
They weren't doing any damn autopsy, they were entirely focussed on reviving the POTUS.
You should try to be more specific Lee. I assume that you are referring to the hole in the shirt being 5 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket . Photos of JFK in the limo show that the jacket had bunched up. Since the hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket, that means that the shirt had bunched up as well.
I did and I clicked on the link. It seems that, if you actually read the article there, you never understood the content within it. Pamela Brown put to rest the claim that the windshield had a hole in it.
If you are asking me whether I agree with everything in the 888 page Warren Report, then the answer is No.
You should try to be more specific Lee. I assume that you are referring to the hole in the shirt being 5 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket . Photos of JFK in the limo show that the jacket had bunched up. Since the hole in the shirt lined up with the hole in the jacket, that means that the shirt had bunched up as well.
I did and I clicked on the link. It seems that, if you actually read the article there, you never understood the content within it. Pamela Brown put to rest the claim that the windshield had a hole in it.
If you are asking me whether I agree with everything in the 888 page Warren Report, then the answer is No.
Don't tell me he's one of those tits who wants it to be "proven" that the shirt was bunched up.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg)
I'm guessing they wouldn't have connected the 2 wounds without dissecting the bullet track like the
autopsy Dr.'s did.
And how would seeing the back wound change the appearance of the entrance wound in the front of JFK's
throat?
C7 sounds pretty good.
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.
"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission
that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."
"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that]
we don't have."[/i]
Did Connallys acket and shirt temporarily detach from their collars and bunch down? Maybe a magic jacket and shirt??
"There may be a photo missing" is not the same thing as "there is a photo missing".
Highlight the part of Humes' testimony in which he refers to the existence of a photo that is currently missing.
(https://i.imgur.com/meyMlD1.gif)
The document from November 1966 says one thing.
Finck's after action report and Clark's taped phone call from January 1967 say something else.
Finck notes in his after action report that photos of the EOP wound in JFK's head, outside shot and inside
shot, which he requested be made, are not among the autopsy photos.
Odd don't you think that photos of the 2 wounds that were moved around are missing?
But you're Egyptian so that won't matter to you. You spend a lot of time in de-Nile.
Brainless question
Why wouldn't he have said below the shoulder body mass?
Nice graphics, Jerry. Pity they are immaterial.
She was talking about how she saw the body in the car in her WC testimony.
Just your opinion.
Another brainless question
You mean the same brainless way you accept the Specter's single bullet theory?
If you can show a good resolution photo of JFK's shirt bunching up whilst he was in the limo, be my guest.
You kooks keep on ignoring the fact that the Parkland doctors did not see JFK's back and therefore did not see the neck/back entry wound.
I'm not familiar with Finck's after action report. If photos that he requested be made are not among the existing photos then either the photos were never taken or ,if they were, they never turned out.
Brainless when you have no curiosity as to whether Bennett meant below the shoulder line or below the shoulder body mass. And it's brainless when one believes the clothing bunching didn't compromise the level of the wound in the the base of the back of the neck, but instead thinks the clothing on a near flat plane and hanging from a hanger is a better indication of the wound level.It's a brainless question because we can't ask him what he meant.
Because 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder body mass would mean the bullet struck the kidney. But if you're alright with that, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the wounds.
No surprise you didn't take anything away from it.Posting immaterial illustrations is your usual MO.
If she mentions seeing the back wound there, let us know.
Sure. Could be other reasons why Bowron got "inspired".
Seems pertinent to explore what Hill meant by "about six inches below the neckline".
Of course you are that's all you have.
Given that the serious 3D studys and ballistics re-creations (you know, the kind of forensic analysis that critics can't and won't do) tend to support the salient features of the theory,
"Dale Myers" RONTFLMAO. I'm going with that for now.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/apg2vb.jpg)
What on earth are you rambling about now? You been at the Jack Daniels again?
"Err" Dummkopf can't even figure out how to get the rifle out the window.
Probably the same way you want answer to the questions about Bennett and Hill. Try a seance.
How we gonna do that, Ray? X-ray specs?
The jacket bunch is the only visible indication we have that the clothing was raised up at the nape area. You can figure that one out, can't you?So typically of a Felucca you say just because we can't prove the shirt bunched up, means it did, because it must have!
"There may be a photo missing" is not the same thing as "there is a photo missing".
Highlight the part of Humes' testimony in which he refers to the existence of a photo that is currently missing.
(https://i.imgur.com/meyMlD1.gif)
You know how stupid that sounds in English?
Have you posted one piece of evidence since you showed up last month?
The joke on you characters is that Kennedy knew it would be easy to get to him, and the irony is that he used the example of 'a nut in a tall building with a high-powered rifle'
Does that scenario ring a bell, Rob?
Finck thought (wasn't sure) that they had photographed the inside and outside of the skull showing the hole of entry from both sides. He seemed to think that the two blank 4 x 5 color sheets would have been those photos.
"My conclusion is that the photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify our conclusions stated in the autopsy report."
::)
No
That's your interpretation of what Finck wrote.
Surprise, Surprise your interpretation keeps your LNer fantasy intact.
::)
No
That's your interpretation of what Finck wrote.
Surprise, Surprise your interpretation keeps your LNer fantasy intact.
How would the existence of photos showing the inside and outside of the entry wound in the skull have any impact at all on my "LN fantasy"?
Well it's your "LN Fantasy", but let me see if I can help you out.
The WC conclusion is based on the original autopsy opinions. - The entry wound in JFK's shull was
slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP.
Critics said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD,
doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds.
The Clark Panel was formed to re-examine the autopsy materials in response.
The panel said there is a entry wound in the cowlick of JFK's skull - 4 inches above the EOP wound.
All subsequent official investigations including the HSCA agree with the Clark Panel.
The photos of the gunshot inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull is a second wound.
If I have to explain what that means, you are lost.
Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound. It would be the wound. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report. Critics who said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD , doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds were wrong.
"Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound."
:o
The Clark Panel and HSCA both said there is a wound in JFK's skull 4 inches above the EOP.
A wound at the EOP and one 4 inches above.
That 2 wounds here on Earth.
In LNer fantasyland it might be something else.
A wound slightly above the EOP would mean that the Clark Panel and the HSCA were wrong. Which they probably were. They primarily used the defect in the scalp seen in the photo to make their placement of the wound in the skull. The x-rays themselves were not of good enough quality to make such a determination. There was only one entry wound in the back of the skull. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report. Finck said so himself.
"A wound slightly above the EOP would mean that the Clark Panel and the HSCA were wrong. Which they probably were. They primarily used the defect in the scalp seen in the photo to make their placement of the wound in the skull. The x-rays themselves were not of good enough quality to make such a determination."
You = FOS.
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK?S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
~snip~
II. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES JFK?s AUTOPSY
Introduction ? The Government?s Private Response to Public Doubts
~snip~
JFK?s Entire Autopsy Team Swears Autopsy Photographs Are Missing
"The upshot is that there is reason to doubt that the signers really believed no autopsy photographs were missing when they signed ?their? affidavit. Instead, as we will see, it appears that Justice arranged for the principals to falsely affirm the integrity of autopsy evidence they knew to be incomplete. From both public and once-secret files, we have learned that each of JFK?s threepathologists and both autopsy photographers later repeatedly testified under oath that photographs they took on the night of the autopsy were missing from the official inventory they had signed off as complete in 1966.[149]
For example, in a once-secret memo, HSCA counsel, D. Andy Purdy, JD, reported that during an interview, chief autopsy photographer, "(John) STRINGER (sic) said it was his recollection that all the photographs he had taken were not present in 1966 (when Stringer saw the photographs for the first time.) [150] Among the missing pictures are those taken of the interior of JFK?s chest. None survive in the current inventory. Yet every autopsy participant who was asked recalled that photographs were taken of the interior of JFK?s body, as indeed they should have been to document the passage of the non-fatal bullet through JFK?s chest:"
? John Stringer told the HSCA he recalled taking ?at least two exposures of the body cavity.? A. Purdy.[151]
? James Humes, MD was reported in an HSCA memo to have, "... specifically recall(ed photographs) ... were taken of the President's chest ... (these photographs ) do not exist."[152] As already discussed, Humes had told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he had taken pictures of the interior of Kennedy?s chest.[153]
? J. Thornton Boswell, MD, the second in command, backed up Stringer and Humes. The HSCA recorded that, "... he (Boswell) thought they photographed '... the exposed thoracic cavity and lung ...' but (he) doesn't remember ever seeing those photographs."[154]
? Robert Karnei, MD, a Navy pathologist who assisted but was not a member of the official autopsy team, told the HSCA, "He (Karnei) recalls them putting the probe in and taking pictures (the body was on the side at the time) (sic)."[155]
"Finally, regarding JFK?s still-controversial skull wound, In formerly secret testimony taken 24 years ago, Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone to prove that the low wound in occipital bone was an entrance wound. In the following exchange, Dr. Finck was being asked by the Select Committee?s forensic consultants whether the official images were those Dr. Finck had claimed were missing."
Charles Petty, MD: "If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull."
Finck: "Absolutely."
Petty: "Did you ever see such a photograph?"
Finck: "I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967... and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs."
Petty: ?All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this??
Finck: ?Yes.?
Petty: ?Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia (sic - meant ?fossa?)??
Finck: ?I don?t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside ? the skull had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.?[156]
~snip~
~snip~
Aguilar is a prevaricator. Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body.
"Aguilar is a prevaricator."
No, Tim Nickerson is a prevaricator.
"Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body."
Of course he didn't.
He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
He was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds, not to take photographs.
He did however requests photos to be taken during JFK's autopsy, including ones of the inside and outside
of JFK's skull at the EOP wound.
You know, the photos that weren't among the autopsy materials he examined in January 1967.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/finck2_1.jpg)
Finck wanted photos to be taken to show the beveling in JFK's skull bone and asked for them to be taken but he never said that he actually saw them being taken, let alone that he took them himself. When Aguilar said that "Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone" he was not telling the truth.
The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image00.htm
"The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken."
::)
They can't exist in the mind of any hardcore LNer.
They would destroy the fantasy.
The top government missile wound expert is called in to help examine the wounds of the assassinated
POTUS.
And according to you he doesn't ask for photos, or if he did they weren't taken, of the fatal wound.
Photos that indicate the direction the bullet came from.
Sorry, that's nothing more than your biased opinion.
Humes and Boswell weren't the best choices.
They were mainly administrators, and had little actual hands
on experience in autopsies.
Finck on the other hand was eminently qualified.
"The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken."
::)
They can't exist in the mind of any hardcore LNer.
They would destroy the fantasy.
The top government missile wound expert is called in to help examine the wounds of the assassinated
POTUS.
And according to you he doesn't ask for photos, or if he did they weren't taken, of the fatal wound.
Photos that indicate the direction the bullet came from.
Sorry, that's nothing more than your biased opinion.
Humes and Boswell weren't the best choices.
They were mainly administrators, and had little actual hands
on experience in autopsies.
Finck on the other hand was eminently qualified.
Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.
The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.
Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.
"Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
Stringer: Yeah. There were some views that we - that were taken that were missing.
Q: Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
Stringer: We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
body that weren't there.
A signed inventory 3 years after the fact vs a 33 year old recollection. The former trumps the latter any day. The autopsy photos are what they are. Why not just deal with them?
From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB: (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
Mr. Gunn: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...
From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
Q: Okay. If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]
Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?
A: Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures. I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.
Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.
The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.
Indeed he was.
"I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry."
----------
"there was only one wound'of entry in the back of the head."
----------
"It was above the external occipital protuberance....2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline." -- The eminently qualified Pierre Finck
Timbo's answer for everything is that "They are lying"!!!!!
Apparently he knows more than the doctors and witnesses and when his version doesn't suit his LN fantasy they are lying.
The photos were missing plain as that.
Whoever heard of a ballistics expert at an autopsy not having photos taken of bullet wounds to the head and ensuring they are taken and viewing them to ensure he can provide the expertise he has been asked for.
You are so deranged Tim you are not even thinking like a human being. You are obsessed an obsessed LN. Get some help.
;D
In 1966 the person who took the photos, Stringer, doesn't notice any missing.
In 1967 the missile wound expert who examined the body and bullet holes at the autopsy and requested the photos be made, Finck, notices there are some missing.
They disappeared sometime between 1966 when Stringer reviewed them and 1967 when Finck reviewed them.
CorrectIf you think the photo above is genuine, Tim, you should have gone to Specsavers.
Incorrect.He notices that a couple of photos that he recalls asking to be taken were never taken.
They never disappeared because they never existed in the first place. However, here are a couple of photos that were taken:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)
No.
(https://i.imgur.com/RgkPjye.jpg)
Now, excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no.
CTer answer for everything: Everything's faked! There's no evidence!
Discrediting witnesses is inevitable regardless of which conclusion one reaches. The witnesses can't all be right.
(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)
And there we have it. Instead of determining the location of a wound by looking at a photograph folks just want to argue about where it might have been and conclude the photo is fake if it doesn't fit their narrative.
Where is the end of the stick located?
How do you explain the solid black hair at the back of the head, John?
Where is the end of the stick located?
OK, let's back up: What is the purpose of the measure in the photo?
Correct
Incorrect.He notices that a couple of photos that he recalls asking to be taken were never taken.
They never disappeared because they never existed in the first place. However, here are a couple of photos that were taken:
~snip~
Now, excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no.
Maybe some context and explain what you're getting at?
"Incorrect.He notices that a couple of photos that he recalls asking to be taken were never taken."
Right, the POTUS is assassinated.
The fatal wound(s) are to his head.
The missile wound expert at the autopsy requests photos be taken of the fatal wound(s).
"However, here are a couple of photos that were taken:"
So what?
They have nothing to do with the photos Finck had taken of the underlining bone.
Sorry that you can't follow, Jerry. What causes the solid black area at the back of the head (as shown by yellow arrow)?
(https://s19.postimg.org/o9lksyzov/Back_of_head..jpg.png) (https://postimg.org/image/o9lksyzov/)
Let's back up further...
My question was directed to John Anderson, and you injected yourself claiming the question was stupid obviously without knowing the context, since you have to ask. What a rookie mistake.
If the picture is genuine the context should be obvious even to you, so what is the purpose of the ruler?
The area is oblique and receiving less direct light."The area is oblique and receiving less direct light." :)
Now what are you getting at?
"The area is oblique and receiving less direct light." :)
Not very good at understanding photos, are you, Jerry.
So the measurements were?
Like I say, Ray, you're getting at something specific with that question. Why not cut to the chase and share it in the original question?
How do you explain the solid black hair at the back of the head, John?
How do you explain the solid black hair at the back of the head, John?
The back of JFK's head is in shadow.
Simply not enough light in that area of the head to reveal hair.
(https://s17.postimg.org/sdp7smvin/Screen_Shot_2018-03-05_at_2.18.34_AM.png)
Closest I could (quickly) find to similar lighting and head angle
This is the official back of the head photo, black area bucket filled.
(https://s19.postimg.org/run0g41dr/Autopsy_photo3_Afilled_in.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/run0g41dr/)
Try the same with your back of the head photo, Bill, and see the difference.
| (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oysbjGcLmUg/TyijKQGRjqI/AAAAAAAAEMo/_z9grR3IHIs/s530/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-BOH-Composite.jpg) |
David Von Pein |
| (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4pYEPUZIDdc/Us6eZPsnELI/AAAAAAAAxls/1w1LhRIoUpA/s1600/00.+JFK+Autopsy+Photos+(Animated+GIF+Montage).gif) |
John Mytton |
I see Ray is persisting with this zany claim, so here's something to consider ...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oysbjGcLmUg/TyijKQGRjqI/AAAAAAAAEMo/_z9grR3IHIs/s530/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-BOH-Composite.jpg)
Also this morph-animation shows detail in the "blacked out" area.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4pYEPUZIDdc/Us6eZPsnELI/AAAAAAAAxls/1w1LhRIoUpA/s1600/00.+JFK+Autopsy+Photos+(Animated+GIF+Montage).gif)
(https://s19.postimg.org/at8f2khvj/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/at8f2khvj/)
Ray has bucket fulled the one photo where the back of the head area is most compromised by flash shadow and the surface being oblique.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE5_HI.jpg)
This one of the photos Mytton included in his gif.
Note the "filled in hair" at the back of the head. No flash problem here.
(https://s19.postimg.org/at8f2khvj/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/at8f2khvj/)
(https://s19.postimg.org/at8f2khvj/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/at8f2khvj/)
The same missile wound expert who reported that there was only one entry wound in the back of the skull and that the wound was slightly above the EOP and 2.5 cms to the right of the midline. Deal with it.
They have everything to do with what we were discussing before you decided to divert away.
~snip~
Excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no.
Ray, what are you talking about?
Ray,
Aren't those the Dox renditions?
I always find it interesting when someone says that a shot came through the front windshield of the Limo. Let's look at that.
1. None of the people in the car that day reported a shot coming through the windshield. Not Greer, Kellerman, Nellie, Gov. Connally, or Jackie said so.
2. The investigation of the windshield showed the glass was struck from the inside and had lead residue from the bullet on the inside.
3. There was no through hole to the windshield.
4. Jim Altgens famous photo from the front of the car shows the President reacting to the shot in his back and through his throat but there is no hole in the windshield.
5. The chip in the windshield is high on the glass. There were two police officers on the triple underpass and no shots were reported from that area.
6. In order for a shooter to shoot through the windshield based on the position of the car and the angle and incline of Elm street, a shooter would have to had been right out in the open lying prone on either Commerce or Main street.
7. From the angle needed to produce that shot, Governor Connally obstructed the view of the president.
8. No trained shooter in his right mind would lie in the open and risk missing his target by shooting through a safety glass, especially when said target is as important as the president of the United States.
9. Where did the bullet go and where is the exit wound for that shot? Full body x-rays were performed on the president and no bullets or fragments were found in his body.
I have studied the assassination for decades now and been to Dealy Plaza several times and gone over all the ground and angles. There was no shot from the front through the windshield. We can discuss the so called magic bullet later. I also have years experience in shooting and hunting. No shots came from the front that day.
"I also have years experience in shooting and hunting. No shots came from the front that day."
That's convincing! ::)
The same missile wound expert who reported that there was only one entry wound in the back of the skull and that the wound was slightly above the EOP and 2.5 cms to the right of the midline. Deal with it.
Bottom line, the description of the location of the hole in JFK's back was changed in the final draft of the
WCR to accommodate Arlen Spector's theory about a Magic Bullet causing seven wounds in JFK & JBC.
When public criticism of the WC caused the government to re-examine the autopsy photos , x-rays etc,
a photo of JFK's right lung and chest cavity, that would have showed the direction and path of that missile,
was nowhere to be found.
The same criticism noted the entry point low on the back of JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the
6th floor SE corner TSBD, doesn't jibe with the official account of the damage. Another
government re-examination of the autopsy materials found the photos of the hole in JFK's skull at the
EOP were not in the archive. Those photos, of the inside and outside of the skull bone,
where the bullet entered, were taken specifically to show cratering.
Cratering indicates the direction the missile was fired from.
Not long after, the Clark Panel decided the original autopsy had got it wrong. It determined the photos and
x-rays show the entry point was 4 inches higher, at the cowlick. The x-rays show a trail of metal
particles high on JFK's skull. Caused, apparently, by the path of a disintegrating projectile.
Two seperate government investigations, two seperate wounds to JFK's head.
Deal with it.
"They have everything to do with what we were discussing before you decided to divert away.
~snip~
Excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no."
LOL
And by "slightly", he meant 4.5 inches?
Bottom line, the description of the location of the hole in JFK's back was changed in the final draft of the
WCR to accommodate Arlen Spector's theory about a Magic Bullet causing seven wounds in JFK & JBC.
When public criticism of the WC caused the government to re-examine the autopsy photos , x-rays etc,
a photo of JFK's right lung and chest cavity, that would have showed the direction and path of that missile,
was nowhere to be found.
The same criticism noted the entry point low on the back of JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the
6th floor SE corner TSBD, doesn't jibe with the official account of the damage. Another
government re-examination of the autopsy materials found the photos of the hole in JFK's skull at the
EOP were not in the archive. Those photos, of the inside and outside of the skull bone,
where the bullet entered, were taken specifically to show cratering.
Cratering indicates the direction the missile was fired from.
Not long after, the Clark Panel decided the original autopsy had got it wrong. It determined the photos and
x-rays show the entry point was 4 inches higher, at the cowlick. The x-rays show a trail of metal
particles high on JFK's skull. Caused, apparently, by the path of a disintegrating projectile.
Two seperate government investigations, two seperate wounds to JFK's head.
Deal with it.
I always find it interesting when someone says that a shot came through the front windshield of the Limo. Let's look at that.
1. None of the people in the car that day reported a shot coming through the windshield. Not Greer, Kellerman, Nellie, Gov. Connally, or Jackie said so.
2. The investigation of the windshield showed the glass was struck from the inside and had lead residue from the bullet on the inside.
3. There was no through hole to the windshield.
4. Jim Altgens famous photo from the front of the car shows the President reacting to the shot in his back and through his throat but there is no hole in the windshield.
5. The chip in the windshield is high on the glass. There were two police officers on the triple underpass and no shots were reported from that area.
6. In order for a shooter to shoot through the windshield based on the position of the car and the angle and incline of Elm street, a shooter would have to had been right out in the open lying prone on either Commerce or Main street.
7. From the angle needed to produce that shot, Governor Connally obstructed the view of the president.
8. No trained shooter in his right mind would lie in the open and risk missing his target by shooting through a safety glass, especially when said target is as important as the president of the United States.
9. Where did the bullet go and where is the exit wound for that shot? Full body x-rays were performed on the president and no bullets or fragments were found in his body.
I have studied the assassination for decades now and been to Dealy Plaza several times and gone over all the ground and angles. There was no shot from the front through the windshield. We can discuss the so called magic bullet later. I also have years experience in shooting and hunting. No shots came from the front that day.
3. There was no through hole to the windshield.
4. Jim Altgens famous photo from the front of the car shows the President reacting to the shot in his back and through his throat but there is no hole in the windshield.
Stavis Ellis, H. R. Freeman, Richard Dudman, Evalea Glanges, George Whitaker, Sr, and Charles Taylor, Jr. beg to differ.
Or is there?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/nebula.png)
Or is there?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/nebula.png)
Why are you avoiding answering the question. What are you afraid of?
~snip~
Are those autopsy photos authentic? Yes or no.
I don't deal with BS.
The WC played a shell game and you want me to guess if the shells are real.
Why would any rational person try to determine if a copy of a copy of a copy of a photograph reproduced
in low resolution on the internet is authentic?
Unless they are trying to divert the conversation from the missing photos.
Pahahahaha lets talk about the magic bullet later hahahahaha It is getting on for 55 years later hahahaha
"I also have years experience in shooting and hunting. No shots came from the front that day."
That's convincing! ::)
I don't deal with BS.
Right on Wesley. Welcome to the forum.
Tell me where the shooter was for the shot through the windshield.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594#relPageId=4&tab=page
Do you accept the autopsy photos (#1 to #52) inventoried in 1966 by James Humes, Thornton Boswell, John Ebersole, and John Stringer as being authentic? Yes or no.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594#relPageId=4&tab=page
Do you accept the autopsy photos (#1 to #52) inventoried in 1966 by James Humes, Thornton Boswell, John Ebersole, and John Stringer as being authentic? Yes or no.
How about you tell me the evidence for your long list and maybe describe to me the path of your magic bullet?
That's so much more convincing thanks for that clarification.
The whole point of my statement on having shooting experience Gary is that I have shot a lot of things from targets to bodies. How much experience do you have with firearms? No trained sniper is going to be out in the open and then risk a shot through safety glass. It is ridiculous to even discuss. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? Convince me by telling me where this shooter would have been to make that shot. Now tell me where is the exit wound for that shot and where did the bullet go? Now you have another problem. Tell me where the exit wound for the shot to the president's back was and where that bullet went? Simple questions that you should have no trouble answering if your theory is correct. Talk about magic bullets! ;D Rifle bullets go through things Gary. They don't just penetrate a couple of inches and then disappear. Very funny.
No, how about you tell me where the shooter was to put a bullet through the windshield? Why don't you tell me the path you think the magic bullet had to travel?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594#relPageId=4&tab=page
Do you accept the autopsy photos (#1 to #52) inventoried in 1966 by James Humes, Thornton Boswell, John Ebersole, and John Stringer as being authentic? Yes or no.
The whole point of my statement on having shooting experience Gary is that I have shot a lot of things from targets to bodies. How much experience do you have with firearms? No trained sniper is going to be out in the open and then risk a shot through safety glass. It is ridiculous to even discuss. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? Convince me by telling me where this shooter would have been to make that shot. Now tell me where is the exit wound for that shot and where did the bullet go? Now you have another problem. Tell me where the exit wound for the shot to the president's back was and where that bullet went? Simple questions that you should have no trouble answering if your theory is correct. Talk about magic bullets! ;D Rifle bullets go through things Gary. They don't just penetrate a couple of inches and then disappear. Very funny.
This is the official back of the head photo, black area bucket filled.
(https://s19.postimg.org/run0g41dr/Autopsy_photo3_Afilled_in.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/run0g41dr/)
Try the same with your back of the head photo, Bill, and see the difference.
Because this is my post and you've made a long list of statements that is no more than your opinion without evidence and I'm not interested in your opinion
This is the official back of the head photo, black area bucket filled.
(https://s19.postimg.org/run0g41dr/Autopsy_photo3_Afilled_in.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/run0g41dr/)
Try the same with your back of the head photo, Bill, and see the difference.
I'm not concerned whether or not they're authentic.
I'm pointing out that critical photos of the wounds don't exist in the archive.
That's contradictory. You're not concerned about whether the existing photos are authentic or not but you're troubled over photos that might be missing? You hold two conflicting views and don't even know it. The photos don't matter but they matter? ???
Missing autopsy photos are just the tip of the CT fantasy iceberg. Finck never stated that there were autopsy photos missing.
All aboard the Lone Nutter Merry Go Round.
"Those photos are missing because they were never taken"
"How do you know that they were never taken?"
"Because they are missing!"
I guess Humes forgot what he said in 1964.
"The area of discoloration on the apical portion of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in greatest diameter, and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung.
Once again Kodachrome photographs were made of this area in the interior of the President's chest."
Forgot what he said in 1964 or came to the realization that such photos were never actually taken. I'm going with the latter. Photos showing discoloration on the apical portion of the right upper lung measuring five centimeters in greatest diameter would support the single bullet theory. I really wish that such photos would have been successfully taken. They obviously were not.
Jerry Ford moved the back wound to the neck in the final draft of the WCR.
The Clark Panel moved a EOP bullet hole on JFK's skull an incredible 4 inches to the cowlick.
You're making it sound like he just willy-nilly shifted the wound site to be as far away as possible from the back. But what he actually did was better-describe its true position as at the base of the back of the neck.
And you're making it sound like the Clark Panel had literally seen an "EOP bullet hole" on the skull bone. But what they actually did was truthfully describe the back-of-the-scalp bullet hole seen in autopsy photograph and where they interpreted it on a lateral X-ray.
You're making it sound like he just willy-nilly shifted the wound site to be as far away as possible from the back. But what he actually did was better-describe its true position as at the base of the back of the neck.
And you're making it sound like the Clark Panel had literally seen an "EOP bullet hole" on the skull bone. But what they actually did was truthfully describe the back-of-the-scalp bullet hole seen in autopsy photograph and where they interpreted it on a lateral X-ray.
Bottom line, the description of the location of the hole in JFK's back was changed in the final draft of the
WCR to accommodate Arlen Spector's theory about a Magic Bullet causing seven wounds in JFK & JBC.
When public criticism of the WC caused the government to re-examine the autopsy photos , x-rays etc,
a photo of JFK's right lung and chest cavity, that would have showed the direction and path of that missile,
was nowhere to be found.
The same criticism noted the entry point low on the back of JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the
6th floor SE corner TSBD, doesn't jibe with the official account of the damage. Another
government re-examination of the autopsy materials found the photos of the hole in JFK's skull at the
EOP were not in the archive. Those photos, of the inside and outside of the skull bone,
where the bullet entered, were taken specifically to show cratering.
Cratering indicates the direction the missile was fired from.
Not long after, the Clark Panel decided the original autopsy had got it wrong. It determined the photos and
x-rays show the entry point was 4 inches higher, at the cowlick. The x-rays show a trail of metal
particles high on JFK's skull. Caused, apparently, by the path of a disintegrating projectile.
Two seperate government investigations, two seperate wounds to JFK's head.
Deal with it.
"They have everything to do with what we were discussing before you decided to divert away.
~snip~
Excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no."
LOL
If you are not interested in people's opinions why start the post? Now tell me where that shooter was for the shot through the windshield and where did the bullet go? Full body x-rays were made of the president's body and no bullet was found. How do you know your non-magic bullet was a hollow point? Talk about no evidence.
Missing autopsy photos are just the tip of the CT fantasy iceberg. Finck never stated that there were autopsy photos missing.
So you've been to Dealey Plaza, studied the assassination for decades and have years of hunting and
shooting experience. Based on that resume your of the opinion no shots came from the front.
There were witnesses in Dealey Plaza with plenty of hunting and shooting experience and most of them
headed for the Grassy Knoll because they thought the shots came from there..
And guess what? I find the ear witnesses who were there and heard the shots from the Knoll more
believable. ;D
You don't get it do you? So I won't waste any more time on you. My post was for opinions backed up with ome form of cited evidence not your life story of you impersonating Elmer Fudd with your hunting rifle. That's plain pitiful.
Full body X rays? ok great show me the one of JFK's right lung then Einstein
Lee I'm going to overlook your petty attempt at insulting me. It is what you CT buffs always resort to when you can't answer questions. You have admitted that you think a shot from the front lodged in the president's windpipe. Where did that bullet go? Where was the shooter physically at to pull off that shot? You admitted there was no "magic bullet" and that the shot that hit the president in the back went through the president's body and also struck Connally. Where is the exit wound on the president's body for that shot and where did the bullet go?
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz...................
What no lame insult this time Lee? You admitted that you think a shot hit the president in the throat from a shot through the windshield and that the bullet lodged in his windpipe. Where is that bullet and where was the shooter physically at in Dealy Plaza? You claimed the shot that hit the president in the back went through his body and hit Connally. Where was the exit wound for that shot and where is the bullet?
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Formatting: Tell us why you hit the Return key while still on the same sentence. It seems you have used typewriters at some point. Keep in mind that the size of this panel expands/shrinks as opposed to an actual sheet of paper.
Good posts, Gary.
Great posts Gary
Okay Gary, forget that I have experience with firearms and been to Dealy Plaza. You said "most of them headed for the grassy knoll". How many and who are they? Kindly tell me where the shooter was for putting a shot through the windshield and hitting the president in the throat? Given the layout of the Plaza, the angle and incline of Elm St., the position of the limo at the time the president reacted to that shot, physically where was that shooter? Can you name the ear witnesses that heard a shot come from the area of the triple underpass? Where did the bullet go to?
Okay Gary, forget that I have experience with firearms and been to Dealy Plaza. You said "most of them headed for the grassy knoll". How many and who are they? Kindly tell me where the shooter was for putting a shot through the windshield and hitting the president in the throat? Given the layout of the Plaza, the angle and incline of Elm St., the position of the limo at the time the president reacted to that shot, physically where was that shooter? Can you name the ear witnesses that heard a shot come from the area of the triple underpass? Where did the bullet go to?
Okay Gary, forget that I have experience with firearms and been to Dealy Plaza. You said "most of them headed for the grassy knoll". How many and who are they? Kindly tell me where the shooter was for putting a shot through the windshield and hitting the president in the throat? Given the layout of the Plaza, the angle and incline of Elm St., the position of the limo at the time the president reacted to that shot, physically where was that shooter? Can you name the ear witnesses that heard a shot come from the area of the triple underpass? Where did the bullet go to?
Well it was pretty easy to shut you up. That's weak. Once again. You admitted that you think a shot hit the president in the throat from a shot through the windshield and that the bullet lodged in his windpipe. Where is that bullet and where was the shooter physically at in Dealy Plaza? You claimed the shot that hit the president in the back went through his body and hit Connally. Where was the exit wound for that shot and where is the bullet?
"Kindly tell me where the shooter was for putting a shot through the windshield and hitting the president in the throat?"
I don't claimed a bullet went through the windshield and hit JFK in the throat. Although it is a possibility.
"Given the layout of the Plaza, the angle and incline of Elm St., the position of the limo at the time the president reacted to that shot, physically where was that shooter?"
TESTIMONY OF (some of the) EYE-WITNESSES WHO THOUGHT SHOTS CAME FROM OTHER THAN The TSBD
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40392&relPageId=44 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40392&relPageId=44)
1. Danny Garcia Arces - Shots came from railroad track yards.
2. Mrs. Donald Sam Baker - Shots came from railroad yards;not possible to come from the TSBD.
3. Mrs. A. G.(Jane)Berry- Thought shots came from west of her position.
4. O. V. Campbell - Thought shots came from railroad yard to west of the TSBD.
5. Mrs. Charles Thomas (Avery) Davis - Thought shots came from triple underpass.
6. Mrs. John T. (Elsie) Dorman) - She was on the 4th floor of TSBD and thought shots came from Records Building.
7. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Franzen - Thought shots came from area adjacent to TSBD.
8. Buell Wesley Frazier - Thought shots came from railroad overpass.
9. Dorthy Ann Garner - Thought shots came from west of TSBD (she was on 4th floor or TSBD)
10. Bobby W. Hargis - Believes shot came from right front (grassy knoll area) - from overpass
11. Mrs. John Hawkins - Thought shots came from railroad yards adjacent to TSBD.
12. Mrs. Jean Lollis Hill - Thought shots were coming from the knoll, just west of the TSBD.
13. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes - Thought shots came from crowd.
14. Mrs. Yola D. Hopson - Did not think the sound (of the shots) came from the TSBD.
15. Emmet Joseph Hudson - Shots came from behind and above him; from rear, high. (He was on steps leading up knoll)
16. Mrs. George Andrew Kounas - Thought shots came from the west.
17. Secret Service Agent Paul E. Landis Jr. - 1st shot came from behind and over right shoulder; 2nd shot came from right front and hit President's head.
18. Billy Nolan Lovelady - Thought shots came from the knoll of from across the street.
19. Judith L. McCully - From right side of arcade building.
20. Austin Lawerence Miller - Shots came from his left (he was standing on the triple underpass).
21. A. J. Millican - Shots came from the pergola.
22. Joe R. Molina - Shots came from west side (he was on steps of TSBD.
23. Thomas J. Murphy - Shots came from spot just west of TSBD.
24. Mrs. P. E. Newman - Shots came from her right (west). She was halfway from TSBD to Stemmons Freeway sign.
25. William E Newman, Jr. - Shots came from "garden" directly behind Newman (he was standing at east end of pergola)
26. Mrs. William V. Parker - First shot came from pergola.
27. J. C. Price - Assumed shots from Triple Underpass.
28. Frank E. Reilly - Shots came from trees at west end of pergola on north side of Elm. (He was standing on Triple Underpass).
29. Mrs. A. L. Rowland - Shots came from railroad yard.
30. W. H. (Bill) Shelly - Shots came from west (he was on TSBD steps)
31. Police Officer Edgar Leon Smith, Jr. - Shots came from railroad yard or grassy knoll area.
32. Officer Joe Marshall Smith - Thought shots came from Elm St.extension, bushes of the overpass.
33. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels - Shots came from knoll;'top of terrace to my right.
34. James Thomas Tague - Shots came from bushes at pergola.
35. Roy S. Truly - Shots came from west of TSBD.
36. Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford - Shots came from railroad yard.
37. County Surveyor Robert M. West - Shots came from northeast quadrant of Dealy Plaza.
38. Lupe Whitaker - Shots came from west of TSBD.
39. Otis Neville Williams - Came from direction of Triple Underpass.
40. Steven F. Wilson - Shots came from west end of building or pergola; not above.
(He was on 3rd floor of TSBD)
41. Mary Elizabeth Woodward - Possibly came from overpass.
42. Abraham Zapruder - Shots came from in back of him.
43. Deputy Sheriff Harold Elkins
Gary, I could insert a big long list of people who said they heard three shots from the TSBD, as well, but that would be droll. Good job of inserting all that though. That must have been tedious. I do not dispute that people said they heard the shots from the TSBD or the Knoll, merely the "majority" part. If you relied, at all, on Josiah Thompson's work then you might want to rethink it. Here's the problem Gary. The vast "majority" of ear witnesses and eye witnesses at Dealy Plaza that day said they heard only (3) shots. And even authors like Thompson will tell you that. Depending on what source you cite most of the time the "majority" of witnesses claimed (3) whether they say from the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll or somewhere else. When you take into account the statements made by witnesses like Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were right below the 6th floor window and the witnesses who saw "a gunman" in the 6th floor window of the TSBD then the argument for the grassy knoll becomes more difficult. The original thread here, Lee is claiming more than (3) shots which is not supported by the "majority" of witnesses. Do you agree? How many shots do you think there were? By the way, just a trivia note on Zapruder. When asked about where the shots were fired from, he said he assumed they came from behind him. When asked further if he had formed an opinion on the direction of the shots he said, "No there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of ---it had a sound all over." Interesting.
"When you take into account the statements made by witnesses like Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were right below the 6th floor window and the witnesses who saw "a gunman" in the 6th floor window of the TSBD then the argument for the grassy knoll becomes more difficult.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=304
Mr. Hargis: I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential Limousine.
Mr. Stern: Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. Hargis: Right.
"....Well at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't
anyway in the world I could tell where they were coming from but at the time there
was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the
railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered with blood-I was just
a little back and left of-just a little back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know.
I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository. and these places
was the primary place that could have been shot from....
....I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered
seeing people scattering and running and then I looked--...
.....and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that
was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or
anything like they knew where the shots were coming from, so.....
.....Well, then, I thought since I had looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some
people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on,
but none of them were looking towards or near anywhere the shots had been fired from....."
Gary, how many shots do you say were fired? Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico both said, after they found out the autopsy results that the throat wound was probably an exit wound. Come on Gary, you seemed informed on the subject, so you know this.
Q. Where was the entrance wound?
Dr.Perry: There was an entrance wound in the neck, in regards the one on the
head, I cannot say.
Q. Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
Dr.Perry: It appeared to be coming at him.
-snip-
Q. Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?
Dr.Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,
that is correct.
Gary, you wrote in a previous post that you didn't say a shot came through the windshield and yet you are putting Dr. Perry's statement in here. You know that the fibers of the presidents jacket, shirt and tie were analyzed and the fibers were all pointing in the direction of the bullet which was consistent with a shot from the back. Now if you don't think a shot came through the windshield and hit the president's throat, yet you have inserted Dr. Perry's statement of the wound being an entrance wound, then tell me where the shooter was for that shot and where was the exit wound for that shot and if it didn't exit then where is the bullet? Now tell me where the exit wound for the wound to the president's back was and if it didn't exit then where is the bullet?
"A unobstructed shot from behind the picket fence on the knoll from the spot the HSCA said their acoustic tests said one was fired from."
"And I just posted several witnesses who saw bullets hitting pavement."
Come on Gary, you are dodging the questions. You said, you didn't say a shot came from through the windshield. If a shot did hit the president from through the windshield, the angle from the knoll is all wrong. I've been there. It doesn't work Gary. The majority of the ear witnesses, (even from CT authors) claimed only three shots. Josiah Thompson said only (4) witnesses said more than three shots, no matter from what direction. Now, how many shots do you believe were fired? Do you believe a shot came through the windshield? If not, where was the shooter for the throat shot CT'ers claim? Where is the exit wound for that shot? Where was the shooter for that shot? If it didn't exit, then where is that bullet? If the president was shot from the front, then where is the exit wound for the wound in the presidents back? If the back wound did not exit, where is the bullet for that wound? "These are straight forward questions Gary, and I don't need to copy and paste to answer them."
"These are straight forward questions Gary, and I don't need to copy and paste to answer them."
We're done.
You bring nothing to the table.
Then post this?
Where did the bullet go to?
The open mike recording they used was found to have been on a police motorcycle parked at the Trade Mart and idling. ;D
Do you believe there was a first missed shot? Where did the bullet go to?
That's the overstatement of the year. Found by whom to have been on a police motorcycle parked at the Trade Mart and idling? Based on what evidence?
First off do you concur with HSCA findings? The HSCA tried to say the open mike was on H. B. McLain's motorcycle, and that he was only 120 ft behind the limo. That is not true. "Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[21][not in citation given] showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area.[22]"
Do you cuncur with the HSCA?
"After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization operating with a Title 36 congressional charter.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study.[26] The NAS panel unanimously concluded that:
The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."[27]
Sure I do. It ricocheted and a chip of the sidewalk hit James Tague. He is one reason I know a shot did not go through the windshield. A gunman would have had to be in that area to produce a shot like that. Tague never said he saw anyone down there or hear a shot from there.
Sure I do. It ricocheted and a chip of the sidewalk hit James Tague. He is one reason I know a shot did not go through the windshield. A gunman would have had to be in that area to produce a shot like that. Tague never said he saw anyone down there or hear a shot from there.
First off do you concur with HSCA findings? The HSCA tried to say the open mike was on H. B. McLain's motorcycle, and that he was only 120 ft behind the limo. That is not true. "Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[21][not in citation given] showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area.[22]"
Do you cuncur with the HSCA?
"After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization operating with a Title 36 congressional charter.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study.[26] The NAS panel unanimously concluded that:
The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."[27]
Nope. It was the first shot that missed. Tague said that he was hit on either the the second or third shot.
As for where the missed shot went, how could anyone be expected to know that? It missed the limo completely.
How do you know there was a first missed shot then?
From viewing the Zapruder film and from John Connally's testimony.
First off do you concur with HSCA findings? The HSCA tried to say the open mike was on H. B. McLain's motorcycle, and that he was only 120 ft behind the limo. That is not true. "Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[21][not in citation given] showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area.[22]"
Do you cuncur with the HSCA?
"After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization operating with a Title 36 congressional charter.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study.[26] The NAS panel unanimously concluded that:
The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."[27]
You really are not very good at answering simple questions, are you now?
Nothing you have written comes even close to being an answer to John's question.
However ... Jesse Curry did not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK while he was Chief of Police in Dallas (until 1966).
Mr. RANKIN....When did you learn of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - While I was out at Parkland Hospital.
Mr. RANKIN - Do you know about what time that was, the day?
Mr. CURRY - It was on the 22d and the best I recall it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little after 1 o'clock.
[The report of the Tippit shooting didn't get out until when exactly?? Horrible preparation there..Oswald wasn't even known about until much later after he was arrested @2:00 PM]
Mr. RANKIN - How did that come to your attention?
Mr. CURRY - Some of my officers came to me and said they had arrested a suspect. in the shooting of our Officer Tippit.
Mr. RANKIN - What else did they say?
Mr. CURRY - They also told me a little later, I believe, that he was a suspect also in the assassination of the President.
Mr. RANKIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CURRY - I didn't do anything at the time.
Mr. CURRY - And I returned to the city hall.
Mr. DULLES - Did I understand correctly, how long were you at Love Field after the plane of the President left?
Mr. CURRY - As I recall it was approximately an hour.
Mr. DULLES - That is what I thought. [why did Dulles say that?]
Mr. CURRY - We waited there until the casket bearing the President, and then the cars bearing Mrs. Kennedy arrived, and it was, I would judge an hour perhaps.
Mr. RANKIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. CURRY - I returned to my office at city hall.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you do anything about Lee Harvey Oswald at that time?
Mr. CURRY - No
Quote
Mr. CURRY - No. As I went into the city hall it was overrun with the news media.
Mr. RANKIN - What did you do about that?
Mr. CURRY - I didn't do anything.
Mr. RANKIN - Did anyone of the police department give them permission [TV news cameras etc] to do this?
Mr. CURRY - I noticed--well, I don't know who gave them permission because I wasn't there. When I returned they were up there.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you inquire about whether permission had been given?
Mr. CURRY - No; I didn't.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you have anything to do with the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir; I did not. I was in the office once or twice while he was being interrogated but I never asked him any question myself.
Mr. RANKIN - Do you know who did?
Mr. CURRY - Captain Fritz principally interrogated him, I believe.
Mr. RANKIN - Was that his responsibility?
Mr. CURRY - Yes; it was. There were several people in the office. It seems to me we were violating every principle of interrogation, the method by which we had to interrogate.
Mr. RANKIN - Will you explain to the Commission what you mean by that?
Mr. CURRY - Ordinarily an interrogator in interrogating a suspect will have him in a quiet room alone or perhaps with one person there.
Mr. RANKIN - Is that your regular practice?
Mr. CURRY - That is the regular practice.
Mr. RANKIN - Tell us how this was done?
Mr. CURRY - This we had representatives from the Secret Service, we had representatives from the FBI, we had representatives from the Ranger Force, and they were--and then one or two detectives from the homicide bureau. This was, well, it was just against all principles of good interrogation practice.
Mr. RANKIN - By representatives can you tell us how many were from each of these agencies that you describe?
Mr. CURRY - I can't be sure. I recall I believe two from the FBI, one or two, Inspector Kelley was there from Secret Service, and I believe another one of his men was there. There was one, I recall seeing one man from the Rangers. I don't recall who he was. I just remember now that there was one. Captain Fritz, and one or two of his detectives--this was in a small office.
Mr. RANKIN - Did you do anything about this when you found out there were so many, did you give any instructions about it?
Mr. CURRY - No; I didn't.
Oswald on the 6th floor fired 3 shots and that's that!
JohnM
If it doesn't agree with the Report....just ignore it :-\