JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on May 15, 2020, 02:16:18 PM
-
The Smell of Gunpowder and the Smell of Bigfoot
It is common in Bigfoot sightings to not only see some large dark shape, particularly at night but to also smell a very strong, unmistakable odor. This is strange because there are strong logical reasons to believe that Bigfoot does not exist.
No remains of Bigfoot have ever been found. No Bigfoot has ever been run over by a car or a logging truck. About a half dozen black bears get run over by cars each year in Yosemite Park alone, a tiny fraction of the Western Wilderness. But no Bigfoot. No hunter has ever killed a Bigfoot.
Science has made it much easier to find Bigfoot. With DNA testing. A blood sample, hairs, even stool samples, when found, will betray the presence of an unknown ape specie, must closely related to man, or maybe an orangutan.
Do bears go in the woods? Of course they do. Their scat is often found. Do Bigfoot go in the woods? Apparently not, as one would expect of a non-existent animal. Or one that makes extensive use of public restrooms.
Even mosquitoes can be enlisted. One can capture hundreds of mosquitoes, sequence the blood within them and get a good idea of what mammals live in the area. But it seems that even the mosquitoes can’t find Bigfoot.
Clearly Bigfoot does not exist. And yet its smell is very commonly associated with Bigfoot sightings? What is the explanation? People see a large dark shape moving in the dark. It is really a bear, or another person, or some other animal. There minds think it’s a Bigfoot. They remember hearing that Bigfoots have a very strong smell. They check for conformation and sure enough, they smell a very strong, unmistakable, foul, pungent odor. I would explain this by saying they are smelling what they expect to smell. But that there is, in most cases, no strong odor, no nearby skunk. just their imagination.
What is the most likely explanation of witnesses smelling gunpowder at Dealey Plaza? Something similar. They think they hear gunshots. Indeed, they have heard gunshots. They check for conformation. They find conformation. They can smell the gun smoke.
This is surprising. They are not next to any gunmen on a calm day. They are a long way from the sniper’s nest, on a day with the wind blowing at 10 to 15 mph. Even if one believes there were multiple gunmen, they should not be smelling any gun smoke.
This is further conformation of what skeptics have been saying all along. Eyewitnesses, Earwitnesses, Nose witnesses, are not reliable. Whether they are trained policemen, trained pilots or whatever, people are easily mistaken. They can see, hear or smell what the expect to see, hear or smell. Such evidence is unreliable.
-
Has the smokey cloud allegedly in Wiegman frames been debunked?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
-
Has the smokey cloud allegedly in Wiegman frames been debunked?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Another issue connected to this still frame is the Brake Lights we see on the National Press Pool Car. Why if the JFK Limo & the Queen Mary are Moving and going underneath the Triple Underpass well ahead of the cars behind them, do we see the Press Pool Car hitting the Brakes? What is STOPPING/Slowing Down the Press Pool Car and the cars in Front of it?
-
(https://cdn.quotesgram.com/small/40/43/2021862092-Sgt_Schultz2.jpg)
I smell nothhhing.
-
As usual, CTers are dodging the main point of my initial post. “The Smell of Gunpowder” has been used a lot to “prove” multiple gunmen. But, when challenged on this point, the response seems to be something like:
** The smell of gunpowder issue doesn’t matter because we have a clear picture of gun-smoke. You do?
Or:
** The smell of gunpowder issue doesn’t matter because the limousine braked, proving a conspiracy. Does it?
I would find it believable that a witness could smell gunpowder if they were in the same bunker or room a gunman fired from. Or they were outdoors and quite close to a gunman on a very calm and still day. But not believable that they would smell gunpowder from over 50 feet away on a day the wind was blowing 10 to 15 mph.
Basically, instead of just changing the subject, I would like the CTers to address two claims I make.
Claim 1: Witnesses who report seeing a Bigfoot and smelling the very strong pungent odor from it, did not actually smell a huge hairy ape but only smelled what they expected to smell.
Claim 2: Witnesses who report smelling gunpowder at Dealey Plaza did not actually smell gunpowder in the 10 to 15 mph breeze that was blowing that day but only smelled what they expected to smell.
Can anyone come up with a good argument against either claim?
Include a possible location, not the definitive location, but a possible location for the gunman that is favorable to the “smelling gunpowder” theory. Give the distance you think the witness was from the gunman whose gunpowder they smelled. The wind was blowing from the southwest, blowing northeast. The limousine was driving directly into the wind. Was the “gunpower” witness downwind from a possible location of the gunman?
-
As usual, CTers are dodging the main point of my initial post. “The Smell of Gunpowder” has been used a lot to “prove” multiple gunmen. But, when challenged on this point, the response seems to be something like:
** The smell of gunpowder issue doesn’t matter because we have a clear picture of gun-smoke. You do?
Or:
** The smell of gunpowder issue doesn’t matter because the limousine braked, proving a conspiracy. Does it?
I would find it believable that a witness could smell gunpowder if they were in the same bunker or room a gunman fired from. Or they were outdoors and quite close to a gunman on a very calm and still day. But not believable that they would smell gunpowder from over 50 feet away on a day the wind was blowing 10 to 15 mph.
Basically, instead of just changing the subject, I would like the CTers to address two claims I make.
Claim 1: Witnesses who report seeing a Bigfoot and smelling the very strong pungent odor from it, did not actually smell a huge hairy ape but only smelled what they expected to smell.
Claim 2: Witnesses who report smelling gunpowder at Dealey Plaza did not actually smell gunpowder in the 10 to 15 mph breeze that was blowing that day but only smelled what they expected to smell.
Can anyone come up with a good argument against either claim?
Include a possible location, not the definitive location, but a possible location for the gunman that is favorable to the “smelling gunpowder” theory. Give the distance you think the witness was from the gunman whose gunpowder they smelled. The wind was blowing from the southwest, blowing northeast. The limousine was driving directly into the wind. Was the “gunpower” witness downwind from a possible location of the gunman?
Have the Wiegman frames showing smoke hovering over the grassy knoll been debunked or not? you posted this topic: you should know the the facts concerning this topic. Now answer the question. Stop blathering your anti-conspiracy windbag theories and just address the question.
-
Have the Wiegman frames showing smoke hovering over the grassy knoll been debunked or not? you posted this topic: you should know the the facts concerning this topic. Now answer the question. Stop blathering your anti-conspiracy windbag theories and just address the question.
You keep dodging my questions. But even though you have changed the subject of this thread, I will answer yours.
No, I don’t believe the Wiegman frames show smoke. I think people see the things they want to see, like smoke.
Can you show me a picture of a modern rifle producing smoke from one shot? Even in a 10 to 15 mph breeze. Or are the Dealey Plaza pictures the only pictures where this phenomenon can be observed.
-
No, I don’t believe the Wiegman frames show smoke. I think people see the things they want to see, like smoke.
Excuse me? do you not see the alleged smoke in the photo? I have added alleged because even I am not convinced. But I could see why some might add this photo to the statements of witnesses that saw a puff of smoke lingering by the picket fence and conclude this is strong evidence of a shooter from that position.
-
Excuse me? do you not see the alleged smoke in the photo? I have added alleged because even I am not convinced. But I could see why some might add this photo to the statements of witnesses that saw a puff of smoke lingering by the picket fence and conclude this is strong evidence of a shooter from that position.
Again, you dodge my question about the smell of gun smoke. Are witnesses smelling bigfoot and gun smoke a reliable indicator of bigfoots and gun smoke? You dodge the question.
I see patches of light and darkness. But I do not see gun smoke.
When were these Wiegman frames with the smoke taken?
Were they taken before z313? Within a second after z313? Five seconds after z313? If they were taken too late, several seconds after z313, I cannot consider them to be gunshots. Were shots being fired after the JFK limousine had already left Dealey Plaza?
Do not dodge this question. What is a good estimate of when these frames were taken? They look like they were taken like 10 seconds or more after z313.
And again, don’t continue to dodge my original questions. Are witnesses smelling bigfoot and gun smoke a reliable indicator of bigfoots and gun smoke?
-
Witness accounts are not the most reliable form of evidence. So the answer to your question has to be no. That being said, I believe that it is possible that some witnesses did actually smell gunpowder. Mrs. Earle Cabell said that she looked up and saw the rifle immediately after the first shot. And smelled gunpowder shortly thereafter. Also, Rufus Youngblood said that he smelled gunpowder. Both of these witnesses were in the motorcade and very close to the front of the TSBD when the shots were fired. The wind tends to swirl when it hits the tall buildings. It is reasonable to believe that at least a portion of the wind hitting the front of the TSBD would be directed downward towards the motorcade participants and could have carried the gunpowder aroma from the muzzle of the rifle with it.
-
You keep dodging my questions. But even though you have changed the subject of this thread, I will answer yours.
No, I don’t believe the Wiegman frames show smoke. I think people see the things they want to see, like smoke.
Can you show me a picture of a modern rifle producing smoke from one shot? Even in a 10 to 15 mph breeze. Or are the Dealey Plaza pictures the only pictures where this phenomenon can be observed.
I think people see the things they want to see
Like there being no smoke..... What makes your opinion better than somebody else's?
-
Witness accounts are not the most reliable form of evidence. So the answer to your question has to be no. That being said, I believe that it is possible that some witnesses did actually smell gunpowder. Mrs. Earle Cabell said that she looked up and saw the rifle immediately after the first shot. And smelled gunpowder shortly thereafter. Also, Rufus Youngblood said that he smelled gunpowder. Both of these witnesses were in the motorcade and very close to the front of the TSBD when the shots were fired. The wind tends to swirl when it hits the tall buildings. It is reasonable to believe that at least a portion of the wind hitting the front of the TSBD would be directed downward towards the motorcade participants and could have carried the gunpowder aroma from the muzzle of the rifle with it.
And I think it would take a Louisiana blood hound to smell this from a couple hundred feet away.
-
I think people see the things they want to see
Like there being no smoke..... What makes your opinion better than somebody else's?
How many seconds after z312 was the Wiegman frames in question taken? 10 seconds? 30 seconds?
I don’t think they show gun smoke. I think you would have seen similar play of light and shadow on leaves or whatever 10 minutes before or 10 minutes after the assassination.
The timing of the Wiegman film makes me confidence that it is other people who are seeing what they want to see in those frames, not me.
-
And I think it would take a Louisiana blood hound to smell this from a couple hundred feet away.
Going by memory, it’s only about 63 feet from the sidewalk to the sixth floor southeast window sill. And the rifle uses a gunpowder charge that is proportionately higher than most rifles of a similar caliber. Which tends to create more than the average amount of spent gunpowder discharge. Also, there were three shots reported to have been fired in a relatively short time frame. So, I respectfully disagree.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Circled in the middle -- is JFK's limo 30ft from the approaching underpass.
So at an estimate, in the 3 to 6 seconds after the head shot.
Railway workers stood nearby said:
S. M. Holland -- ''I made it very clear to the Warren people one of the shots came from behind that picket fence. I heard the report and saw the smoke come out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground, right out from under those trees. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind . . .''
Richard Dodd -- ''all four of us, all railroad men, standing here, seen about the same thing. The smoke came from behind the hedge -- and a motorcycle policeman dropped his cycle in the street and run up the embankment''
There's a very good old thread about this on the ed forum
google -- "Witnesses who say a shot and smoke came from behind the picket fence"
Interesting Youtube clip re 'do rifles produce smoke when fired' from footage of Charles Whitman 'Texas Tower Sniper'
I asked if the Wiegman still has been debunked because some have said it's just branches from the nearby tree ... which it obviously could be. But it fits with Holland's description ''the smoke come out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground''. The Wiegman film is so brief and all over the place it's hard to conclude much.
If people smelt gun powder, plus we have a photo of what appears like a smokey cloud hovering around the picket fence as described -- nothing changes. Because the eye witnesses who saw smoke weren't taken seriously by the investigators at the time.
-
If this frame of the Wiegman was taken at z453, JFK would still be 40 feet from passing under the overpass. This is being generous. Likely this frame is a little later than z453. Z453 is not 3 or 6 seconds but is 7.6 seconds after z313.
Here is what Vincent Bugliosi and Richard Trask have to say, this is a quote from Reclaiming History:
Perhaps just as far out is a photograph, a frame from film shot by NBC’s Dave Wiegman, which Groden has put on page 204 of his book, The Killing of a President. Groden has circled a large, hazy image in the upper right of the photograph and says it “could well be a haze of gunsmoke fire from an assassin’s rifle. But this is ludicrous for several reasons. One, the smoke from a rifle would be a very small and, as indicated, would vanish immediately on this windy day. If what Groden encircled were smoke, it would appear to be smoke from a small smokestack. If that’s an exaggeration, what is not is that the image is probably fifty times larger than what could be expected from the muzzle of a fired rifle. Moreover, the large image is not anywhere along the stockade fence, being to the west of the fence near the Triple Underpass. And finally, Groden has also encircled the presidential limousine on the photo, and it is, as he acknowledges, “disappearing under” the Triple Underpass, meaning that Wiegman’s photo had to have been taken at least a few seconds after the shots were fired. What can Groden’s response to this be? That the smoke originally came from a rifle fired behind the picket fence, that instead of vanishing in the wind actually mushroomed into a large, cloudlike image that kept its form and was drifting west at the time of the frame from Wiegman’s film? We know the image in the Wiegman frame is not smoke from any rifle.
What is it? Richard Task and studied the Wiegman film and he says what Groden says is gunsmoke is nothing more than “the contrast between the light and dark of the background”. Perhaps most importantly, he said the “frames of the Wiegman film that show this white image don’t show any movement of it, which there would be if it was smoke, particularly on a windy day. The image is stationary.”
Some additional points I would like to make. Don Roberdeau’s map agrees with Bugliosi’s assertions. The cloud, if it is a cloud, and if it is hoovering in the air near the “Sniper’s position” and not much further to the west and part wall of the overpass, is 20 feet south of the wooden fence, where the assassination is theorized as shooting behind. In the seven seconds after the headshot, this cloud did not disperse but instead drifted twenty feet to the south, when it should be blown 110 feet to the northeast. A magic cloud if ever I heard of one.
And you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the gunsmoke held together for seven seconds, long enough for Wiegman to film it and at the same time the cloud disperses enough that witnesses more than 20 feet from the “Sniper’s” fence were able to smell it.
-
(https://i.gifer.com/GcsB.gif)
It would be much more likely that much smoke [if it is indeed smoke] came from a bar-b-que grill in the parking lot rather than lingering from a rifle.
Here is some youtube rifle firing for comparison----
-
Has the smokey cloud allegedly in Wiegman frames been debunked?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
I'm inclined to believe it was smoke.
After all, the Russians had very primitive rifles back then.
Either that, or Gilberto Policarpo Lopez and Miguel Casas Saez were smoking celebratory cigars before heading back to Habana, via Mexico.
-- MWT ;)
-
OP said: "Eyewitnesses, Earwitnesses, Nose witnesses, are not reliable."
They ARE reliable so long as their 'evidence' jibes with the Warren Report.
-
OP said: "Eyewitnesses, Earwitnesses, Nose witnesses, are not reliable."
They ARE reliable so long as their 'evidence' jibes with the Warren Report.
Does your pineal gland tell you every night when you go to bed that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA and FBI-controlled Deep State?
-- MWT ;)
-
How many seconds after z312 was the Wiegman frames in question taken? 10 seconds? 30 seconds?
I don’t think they show gun smoke. I think you would have seen similar play of light and shadow on leaves or whatever 10 minutes before or 10 minutes after the assassination.
The timing of the Wiegman film makes me confidence that it is other people who are seeing what they want to see in those frames, not me.
As I said, people see what they want to see..... and they will argue accordingly. And that includes you.
-
As I said, people see what they want to see..... and they will argue accordingly. And that includes you.
... and you
-
I'd like to see a CTer 'smoking gun' (if you will) re-creation of the (alleged) cloud of smoke hanging around the grassy knoll. You know, where the shooters were all camo'd up as trees, foliage and whatnot.
See, all y'all would have to do is use the ammo and weapon that caused said smoke and.. oh, wait...
-
I'd like to see a CTer 'smoking gun' (if you will) re-creation of the (alleged) cloud of smoke hanging around the grassy knoll. You know, where the shooters were all camo'd up as trees, foliage and whatnot.
See, all y'all would have to do is use the ammo and weapon that caused said smoke and.. oh, wait...
They still make muskets, don't they?
-- MWT ;)
-
I'd like to see a CTer 'smoking gun' (if you will) re-creation of the (alleged) cloud of smoke hanging around the grassy knoll. You know, where the shooters were all camo'd up as trees, foliage and whatnot.
See, all y'all would have to do is use the ammo and weapon that caused said smoke and.. oh, wait...
I would like to see that. And a few more things.
1. Richard Trask said that the image on the Wiegman film is “frozen”. It does not move. If this is false, this would be easy to prove. One could show a brief snippet of the Wiegman film, or something like the following:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
showing consecutive frames of the Wiegman film, showing the “cloud” moving like a real cloud, possible a smoke cloud. I suspect the CT failure to come up with such is a strong indication that the image is frozen.
2. There has been good video of small smoke clouds produced by a single shot rifle. Can CTers show a video where such a smoke cloud hangs around for a few seconds? They can choice as calm a day as they like, as long is the film is taken outdoors. Can a “frozen cloud” be recreated or is the Wiegman film the one and only example that has and can ever be produced?
-
Speaking of my favorite website:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
it is interesting that CTers can look at the large picture alternating between z312 and z313 and say its just too blurry to tell if JFK’s head moves forward relative to Jackie’s head. And since frame z313 is too blurry that z314 and z315 should be considered too blurry as well. So there is no evidence that JFK’s head moved forward at all just after z312.
But they can look at a still frame of the Wiegman film, and see a smoke cloud. Why it’s not too blurry at all. Not only is it a smoke cloud it is clearly a gun smoke cloud. People who can’t see that are just seeing what they want to see.
-
Does your pineal gland tell you every night when you go to bed that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA and FBI-controlled Deep State?
-- MWT ;)
Yes, back in 63. Why is that far-fetched? Did JFK authorize the Bay of Pigs invasion? No, Dulles and Angleton were full steam ahead with that fiasco. They represented the Deep State back then, which included Hoover and Johnson. Only they could have set up the Big Event, not the KGB. And when JFK threatened to dismantle the CIA and fired Dulles he sealed his fate. The Soviets wouldn't dare get into the mix because they didn't have to. They were alerted so WWIII didn't ensue. But you will never agree to that because you are all in with your KGB theory. And what's all this about bigfoot not existing? :o
-
Yes, back in 63. Why is that far-fetched? Did JFK authorize the Bay of Pigs invasion? No, Dulles and Angleton were full steam ahead with that fiasco. They represented the Deep State back then, which included Hoover and Johnson. Only they could have set up the Big Event, not the KGB. And when JFK threatened to dismantle the CIA and fired Dulles he sealed his fate. The Soviets wouldn't dare get into the mix because they didn't have to. They were alerted so WWIII didn't ensue. But you will never agree to that because you are all in with your KGB theory. And what's all this about bigfoot not existing? :o
Wow, you must have read some ill-informed quasi-historical / quasi-political tracts by Joachim Joesten, Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Jim Garrison, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, Jefferson Morley, Bill Simpich, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, et al. ad nauseam, and seen "JFK: The Hysterical Movie," too!
Go have a major colonic, and then try reading "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA".
Then move up to Tennent H.Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars."
All three of those works are free-to-read on the Internet.
(Funny how you realize that KGB-boy Putin made Trump our president, but don't seem to be able to connect the dots between that event and ... well ... "The Big Event")
-- MWT ;)
-
Wow, you must have read some ill-informed quasi-historical / quasi-political tracts by Joachim Joesten, Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Jim Garrison, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, Jefferson Morley, Bill Simpich, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, et al. ad nauseam, and seen "JFK: The Hysterical Movie," too!
Go have a major colonic, and then try reading "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA".
Then move up to Tennent H.Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars."
All three of those works are free-to-read on the Internet.
(Funny how you realize that KGB-boy Putin made Trump our president, but don't seem to be able to connect the dots between that event and ... well ... "The Big Event")
-- MWT ;)
Nice try. The KGB could never have set up the motorcade route or got Oswald a job at the TSBD or switched coffins or controlled the autopsy and on and on. Did they help the DPD sheep dip Oswald? Did they also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago? You need to get out more and just let the "evil evil evil"...Deep State thing go.
-- MWJ ;)
-
OP said: "Eyewitnesses, Earwitnesses, Nose witnesses, are not reliable."
They ARE reliable so long as their 'evidence' jibes with the Warren Report.
The Pro LN witness reports are, in general, among the least reliable ‘evidence’ of Oswald being the lone assassin. For instance, three shells being found on the sixth floor is a better indication that three shots were fired than a majority of the witnesses remembering that there were three shots. No, I don’t consider Pro-LN witnesses as being reliable and Pro-CT witnesses unreliable. I consider all eyewitnesses to be unreliable, although they are sometimes, no doubt, correct. But when are they correct and when are they incorrect? I rather rely on evidence, not the witnesses.
-
Nice try. The KGB could never have set up the motorcade route or got Oswald a job at the TSBD or switched coffins or controlled the autopsy and on and on. Did they help the DPD sheep dip Oswald? Did they also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago? You need to get out more and just let the "evil evil evil"...Deep State thing go.
-- MWJ ;)
The way I see it, Oswald went rogue and got lucky, not shooting-wise, but location-wise.
But you do raise an interesting question: How much did Russophile Ruthie really like Russia?
And that George DeMohrenschildt-- was he really a long-term KGB "illegal" as Clare Edward Petty, based on his close reading of some WW II VENONA decrypts, suspected in the mid-1970s, according to Richard Russell in "The Man Who Knew Too Much"?
And Marina! Was she, as some people suspect, really a KGB "honeytrapper" in Leningrad before she met her Knight In Shining Armor?
And was Ivan Obyedkov, the Soviet Embassy "security guard" who volunteered the made-radioactive-by-KGB name "Kostikov" to a bad Russian speaking and a bad English speaking Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline in Mexico City really a Kremlin-loyal triple-agent, as James Angleton intimated in his top-secret June, 1975, Church Committee testimony?
What say you, Comrade?
-- MWT ;)
-
The way I see it, Oswald went rogue and got lucky, not shooting-wise, but location-wise.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif) Keep 'em coming!
-
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif) Keep 'em coming!
Jerry,
Is that part of your old Catskills vaudeville act, the one where they had to lob the rotten tomatoes in, softball-style, rather than chuck 'em in, high and hard?
-- MWT ;)
-
I would like to see that. And a few more things.
1. Richard Trask said that the image on the Wiegman film is “frozen”. It does not move. If this is false, this would be easy to prove. One could show a brief snippet of the Wiegman film, or something like the following:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
showing consecutive frames of the Wiegman film, showing the “cloud” moving like a real cloud, possible a smoke cloud. I suspect the CT failure to come up with such is a strong indication that the image is frozen.
2. There has been good video of small smoke clouds produced by a single shot rifle. Can CTers show a video where such a smoke cloud hangs around for a few seconds? They can choice as calm a day as they like, as long is the film is taken outdoors. Can a “frozen cloud” be recreated or is the Wiegman film the one and only example that has and can ever be produced?
I'd like to see a CT 'smoking gun' re-creation showing smoke rising from a rifle and remaining intact enough to be visible much above the rifle, let alone the treetop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0293ct3M/smoking-gun-dealwy.gif)
This musket demo shows the barrel-smoke already thinning out
-
Were you replying to my post?
-
I'd like to see a CT 'smoking gun' re-creation showing smoke rising from a rifle and remaining intact enough to be visible much above the rifle, let alone the treetop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0293ct3M/smoking-gun-dealwy.gif)
This musket demo shows the barrel-smoke already thinning out
I wonder if that guy's face tested positive for nitrates?
-
Thank you for your substantive reply to my post.
The Beckley housekeeper was totally reliable when it came to confirming LHO's visit to the boardinghouse, when it occurred, what he did, how long he stayed, and what he was wearing when he arrived and what he was wearing when he left. She was totally loony bonkers as to the DPD car stopping in front of her house and honking and totally unreliable as to seeing LHO standng at the bus stop north of the house after he left.
Some eyewitness evidence is reliable because it is accurate even in the absence of corroborative evidence. But, I think too much such evidence was rejected simply because it didn't fit the narrative.
-
Has the smokey cloud allegedly in Wiegman frames been debunked?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Looks like the light coloured tree you can see in the Towner Slide 2 to me.
-
Looks like the light coloured tree you can see in the Towner Slide 2 to me.
Yes, but any CTer worth his salt will say that Towner image was altered.
-- MWT ;)
-
Thank you for your substantive reply to my post.
The Beckley housekeeper was totally reliable when it came to confirming LHO's visit to the boardinghouse, when it occurred, what he did, how long he stayed, and what he was wearing when he arrived and what he was wearing when he left. She was totally loony bonkers as to the DPD car stopping in front of her house and honking and totally unreliable as to seeing LHO standng at the bus stop north of the house after he left.
Some eyewitness evidence is reliable because it is accurate even in the absence of corroborative evidence. But, I think too much such evidence was rejected simply because it didn't fit the narrative.
I assume your talking about my reply to your post.
Some of Beckley housekeeper statements were quite reliable.
Her identification of Oswald is reliable because she already knew Oswald before that day. Witness identifications are much more reliable when they already knew the subject than if they were a stranger up to that point. Her timing of when this occurred is unusually reliable, because she had heard of the Dealey Plaza shooting, was setting up the TV to see what had happened, and remember what was on TV while Oswald was there. Much better than a witness checking a watch, might be a watch that runs a little fast or slow, or might not have checked the watch as close to the time in question as they remembered. Only the Ruby Western Union receipt provides a superior timestamp.
These housekeeper statements match up well with other known facts. A taxi driver dropping off a man he believed was Oswald near the house within a few minutes. Oswald being identified as present very near the Officer Tippit shooting site, just about 15 minutes later just under a mile away. Oswald being seized at a theater 45 minutes within two miles of the house. It all fits.
Also, her “Pro-LN” statements were given that very day. Minimizing the chance, she was remembering something from the day before, or maybe several days before.
In contrast, her “Pro-CT” statements didn’t come out until 6 days later. Oswald waiting for a bus. A police car showing up and waiting there. If these memories are valid, and are from November 22, why didn’t she state them to the police or the press that day? Later statements have to be considered less reliable. Oswald had often waited for a bus on other days. Maybe she was remembering Oswald from one of those days. The police were often parked outside the house in the days following November 22. Maybe she was remembering this from one of those days.
An additional point, the Oswald waiting for a bus. A police car stopping and honking its horn, does not fit the LN narrative. But it doesn’t really the CT narrative either.
Oswald’s on the run. He likely is beginning to suspect he is being set up. And he decides to wait for a bus outside the house he lives in?!? He doesn’t decide to getting away from there immediately and catch a bus somewhere else?
Or rouge policemen want to quietly pickup Oswald. Make him disappear. And don’t want anyone to know about it. And they decide to show up in a police car?!?!? And honk its horn?!?!? Wouldn’t they use a private car, one that won’t tell a casual witness that Oswald was picked up by the police?
By any reasonable measure, the most believable statements were given on November 22. And the most unbelievable six days later.
The shoe clerk Brewer identification of Oswald entering this store would be unreliable, except he saw the subject just after he left the shoe store, enter a theater and Brewer pointed out Oswald in the theater a few minutes later. If none of this happened, if Brewer pointed out Oswald in a police lineup a few hours later, that would be not as reliable.
Are the witnesses who saw a subject emptying a gun and identified Oswald in a lineup as reliable? No. They did not know Oswald beforehand. Nor help seize the subject within the next few minutes. However, we do have much more reliable evidence. The police seizing Oswald within a half hour, within a mile of the Officer murder site, pulling a gun on the officers in the theater, and the gun being matched to the shells found at the sight. Yes, any case, even this case can unravel, if one looks for reasons, any reason at all, to throw out the ballistic evidence, fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence. Still, physical evidence is the most reliable evidence and is what a skeptic relies on.
-
Looks like the light coloured tree you can see in the Towner Slide 2 to me.
Smoke cloud ?!?:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Towner 2 slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image57~0.jpg)
And there it is, the “Gun Smoke Cloud Tree” in all its glory.
I believe it was Robert Groden that first used this picture to “prove” that there was a gun smoke cloud hovering over the Grassy Knoll. He had many pictures that he could have used to “prove” this. The problem is that most of these pictures were in color, which clearly show a tree turning yellow in the fall. But a black and which photograph is much harder to interpret. It could be gun smoke cloud, which would be gray, of course. Or it could be a tree that is turning yellow, which would also look gray in the black and white photo. Groden, being the genius that he is, went with a black and white image.
So yes, Nicholas, I think you could be right. The “smoke-cloud” could very well be that light-colored tree seen in the Towner 2 slide. Except it can’t be. Because that tree would be masked by the smoke cloud.
Just kidding.
Has the smokey cloud allegedly in Wiegman frames been debunked?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Yes. In my mind this smokey cloud in the Wiegman frame is debunked. Unless you or someone else wishes to dispute this. Which I don’t expect.
-
It appears that Nicholas Turner has solved a mystery, at least to my satisfaction.
Below is a frame from the Wiegman film showing the “Smoke Cloud”:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
This was discovered by Robert Groden who published this claim in his book “The Killing of a President”.
This claim, on the surface seems dubious because this frame was taken about 7 seconds after the headshot. Could a gun smoke cloud hang around that long?
Maybe it could. Some deeds are so dark that the paranormal may take effect. In these cases, a gun smoke cloud may hang around for several seconds, perhaps much longer, as a sign to any passerby of the dark deed that was committed there. Indeed, there are some who hold that this dark cloud may hang over the Grassy Knoll to this day.
However, Nicholas Turner has pointed out the Towner 2 slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image57~0.jpg)
And there it is, the “Gun Smoke Cloud Tree” in all its glory.
I believe it was Robert Groden that first used this picture to “prove” that there was a gun smoke cloud hovering over the Grassy Knoll. He had many pictures that he could have used to “prove” this. The problem is that most of these pictures were in color, which clearly show a tree turning yellow in the fall. But a black and which photograph is much harder to interpret. It could be gun smoke cloud, which would be gray, of course. Or it could be a tree that is turning yellow, which would also look gray in the black and white photo. Groden, being the genius that he is, went with a black and white image.
Question:
Does anyone know if this tree is still there?
From time to time, people on this forum state that they are going to visit Dallas and intent to take some pictures of Dealey Plaza while they are there. The next LNer to visit in November should check to see if the tree is still there and if so, get a picture of himself under the Gun Smoke Cloud Tree. It would be great if you can get some black and white shots as well as the usual color shots.
And even better if you can get a picture of you and Robert Groden under the tree. I believe he can be found at the Plaza from time to time. No, you should skip the Groden part because you would have to slip him a 20. But, if you can skip the payment part and just drag him over to the tree, that would be great.
-
It appears that Nicholas Turner has solved a mystery, at least to my satisfaction.
Below is a frame from the Wiegman film showing the “Smoke Cloud”:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
This was discovered by Robert Groden who published this claim in his book “The Killing of a President”.
This claim, on the surface seems dubious because this frame was taken about 7 seconds after the headshot. Could a gun smoke cloud hang around that long?
Maybe it could. Some deeds are so dark that the paranormal may take effect. In these cases, a gun smoke cloud may hang around for several seconds, perhaps much longer, as a sign to any passerby of the dark deed that was committed there. Indeed, there are some who hold that this dark cloud may hang over the Grassy Knoll to this day.
However, Nicholas Turner has pointed out the Towner 2 slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image57~0.jpg)
And there it is, the “Gun Smoke Cloud Tree” in all its glory.
I believe it was Robert Groden that first used this picture to “prove” that there was a gun smoke cloud hovering over the Grassy Knoll. He had many pictures that he could have used to “prove” this. The problem is that most of these pictures were in color, which clearly show a tree turning yellow in the fall. But a black and which photograph is much harder to interpret. It could be gun smoke cloud, which would be gray, of course. Or it could be a tree that is turning yellow, which would also look gray in the black and white photo. Groden, being the genius that he is, went with a black and white image.
Question:
Does anyone know if this tree is still there?
From time to time, people on this forum state that they are going to visit Dallas and intent to take some pictures of Dealey Plaza while they are there. The next LNer to visit in November should check to see if the tree is still there and if so, get a picture of himself under the Gun Smoke Cloud Tree. It would be great if you can get some black and white shots as well as the usual color shots.
And even better if you can get a picture of you and Robert Groden under the tree. I believe he can be found at the Plaza from time to time. No, you should skip the Groden part because you would have to slip him a 20. But, if you can skip the payment part and just drag him over to the tree, that would be great.
"Is that tree still there?"
I believe it was cut down years ago, burned, and went up in smoke, just like this waste-of-time thread is doing as I type this.
Talk about reinventing the square wheel ...
-- MWT ;)
-
Does anyone know if this tree is still there?
Go to google maps... 411 Elm St
Try ----
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7790269,-96.8087268,3a,75y,276.41h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMTjchOnfq6fNI3I2FRL9EA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
-
Thread: Car smells like Gunpowder
http://www.grandprixforums.com/3-8l-v6-naturally-aspirated-l36-l26-/107444-car-smells-like-gunpowder.html
Jonnyboy1129
Hey y'all I've got an 02 that's been sitting for roughly 5 months. I went to start it and the battery was dead so I slapped a new one in and now it will start and run for about .8 seconds and shut itself off. If I get on the gas I can keep it running but barely. It won't go over 4k and it sounds like it's missing. I did find a short in the #2 plug wire so I changed the ICM, all of the coil packs, ignition wires and plugs. But none of that helped. I checked the fuel pressure and it's fine so the pump and filter are ok. Also i hook up a code reader to erase codes and I can't get a connection to the engine. And to top all of that off when I keep the accelerator down the exhaust smells like gunpowder.
-
The premise of this thread is a non sequitur. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your premise that the smell of a bigfoot is akin to the smell of gun powder from a puff of smoke, which some CTs saw in a 57 year old, B/W, grainy, overexposed photo allegedly taken 7 seconds after the headshot, and your analogy was intended to suggest that witnesses who smelled smoke were having olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia), and you attempted to link the 2 by suggesting that if bigfoot smell is phantosmia because bigfoot doesn't exist, then the gun powder smell wasn't real, because there was no knoll shooter? (whew) If that's about right then your non sequitur faulty analogy is also circular. We have a BINGO!
-
The premise of this thread is a non sequitur. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your premise that the smell of a bigfoot is akin to the smell of gun powder from a puff of smoke, which some CTs saw in a 57 year old, B/W, grainy, overexposed photo allegedly taken 7 seconds after the headshot, and your analogy was intended to suggest that witnesses who smelled smoke were having olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia), and you attempted to link the 2 by suggesting that if bigfoot smell is phantosmia because bigfoot doesn't exist, then the gun powder smell wasn't real, because there was no knoll shooter? (whew) If that's about right then your non sequitur faulty analogy is also circular. We have a BINGO!
What knoll shooter?
-
What knoll shooter?
The one who shot the musket.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
-
What knoll shooter?
Wasn't bigfoot supposed to be the knoll shooter in this analogy?
-
It appears that Nicholas Turner has solved a mystery, at least to my satisfaction.
Below is a frame from the Wiegman film showing the “Smoke Cloud”:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
This was discovered by Robert Groden who published this claim in his book “The Killing of a President”.
This claim, on the surface seems dubious because this frame was taken about 7 seconds after the headshot. Could a gun smoke cloud hang around that long?
Maybe it could. Some deeds are so dark that the paranormal may take effect. In these cases, a gun smoke cloud may hang around for several seconds, perhaps much longer, as a sign to any passerby of the dark deed that was committed there. Indeed, there are some who hold that this dark cloud may hang over the Grassy Knoll to this day.
However, Nicholas Turner has pointed out the Towner 2 slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image57~0.jpg)
And there it is, the “Gun Smoke Cloud Tree” in all its glory.
I believe it was Robert Groden that first used this picture to “prove” that there was a gun smoke cloud hovering over the Grassy Knoll. He had many pictures that he could have used to “prove” this. The problem is that most of these pictures were in color, which clearly show a tree turning yellow in the fall. But a black and which photograph is much harder to interpret. It could be gun smoke cloud, which would be gray, of course. Or it could be a tree that is turning yellow, which would also look gray in the black and white photo. Groden, being the genius that he is, went with a black and white image.
Question:
Does anyone know if this tree is still there?
From time to time, people on this forum state that they are going to visit Dallas and intent to take some pictures of Dealey Plaza while they are there. The next LNer to visit in November should check to see if the tree is still there and if so, get a picture of himself under the Gun Smoke Cloud Tree. It would be great if you can get some black and white shots as well as the usual color shots.
And even better if you can get a picture of you and Robert Groden under the tree. I believe he can be found at the Plaza from time to time. No, you should skip the Groden part because you would have to slip him a 20. But, if you can skip the payment part and just drag him over to the tree, that would be great.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BtfFDwYD/graycale-smoketree.jpg)
-
Wasn't bigfoot supposed to be the knoll shooter in this analogy?
It's rumoured that Bigfoot was on the roof behind the Hertz sign on the TSBD roof, so he wasn't really a knoll shooter
-
The premise of this thread is a non sequitur. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your premise that the smell of a bigfoot is akin to the smell of gun powder from a puff of smoke, which some CTs saw in a 57 year old, B/W, grainy, overexposed photo allegedly taken 7 seconds after the headshot, and your analogy was intended to suggest that witnesses who smelled smoke were having olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia), and you attempted to link the 2 by suggesting that if bigfoot smell is phantosmia because bigfoot doesn't exist, then the gun powder smell wasn't real, because there was no knoll shooter? (whew) If that's about right then your non sequitur faulty analogy is also circular. We have a BINGO!
I will correct you about what you say I am saying.
I make two separate claims:
1. Under the outdoor, windy conditions, it is unlikely that any witnesses riding in a vehicle of the motorcade received enough gun smoke to actually smell gun smoke. Regardless of whether there was only one rifle firing three shots or four rifles firing eight shots.
2. Witness can easily smell what they anticipate they should be smelling.
I don’t have proof that none of the witnesses could smell gun smoke.
But on the other hand, the reports of witnesses smelling gun smoke should not be taken as a reliable indicator that there really was enough gun smoke in the air for they to smell. One should not treat these reports as “proof” that there was enough gun smoke in the air to smell, as many CTers do. It is actually an unreliable indicator.
I’m not saying I have proof that there was insufficient gun smoke in the air to be smelt but that CTers do not have enough proof or compelling reasons to believe there probably was.
Claim 2 is supported by the strong association of sightings of Bigfoot with the strong unmistakable smell of Bigfoot and the sound reasons we have to believe that Bigfoot does not exist.
-
Claim 2 is supported by the strong association of sightings of Bigfoot with the strong unmistakable smell of Bigfoot and the sound reasons we have to believe that Bigfoot does not exist.
What about reported sightings which are conjured up when someone smells skunk cabbage and assumes it's bigfoot? That isn't phantosmia and isn't a sound reason to believe bigfoot doesn't exist. Like the premise of this thread, it is a non sequitur.
-
What about reported sightings which are conjured up when someone smells skunk cabbage and assumes it's bigfoot? That isn't phantosmia and isn't a sound reason to believe bigfoot doesn't exist. Like the premise of this thread, it is a non sequitur.
The main reason for thinking Bigfoot does not exist is that we would have found proof a long time ago if it did. A captured Bigfoot. The body of a Bigfoot. The skeleton of a Bigfoot. The skull of a Bigfoot. DNA from a Bigfoot, from its stool, hair, etc. which should be easy to find. None of this has been found as of 2020.
Phantosmia is not what I have been talking about. Phantosmia is a chronic condition. It occurs a lot with a subject. What I am talking about is a one-time occurrence of phantom smells. Smelling a foul odor when a person thinks they are in the presence of a Bigfoot. Smelling gun smoke when they think/know that gunshots have been fired.
Again, my main point is not that we have proof that gun smoke was not detectable to any of the riders in the cars of the motorcade. It’s that CTers do not have proof of such gun smoke from the witness’s accounts. It is too easy for them to imagine they are smelling what they expect to smell.
Question:
Do you think that sometimes people imagine they smell something that they expect to be able to smell? Yes or no.
-
I’ve often wondered about these types of effects. I know it’s something that would be very hard to measure, but I’ve always wondered how the mind might distort events during a rush of adrenalin during perceived times of stress (like realization of bullets being fired and people being shot).
Things like association of timing or perception of time and time spacing and how it changes as the perception of danger rapidly sets in, in this case after the realization that loud bangs were shots, and not firecrackers, had set in.
The related point here I wonder about is the association of sulfur smell with gunpowder while hearing gunshots.
I recall the cheaper gasoline or diesel in large cars in the early 60’s would smell nasty, maybe even sulfur like, when the cars were accelerated fast. Sweet crude (low sulfur) was desired to make these fuels help keep those levels down and increase the efficacy of tetra ethyl lead as an octane booster in gasoline.
Just a possibility for how people might have associated the smell of accelerating cars back then to guns when shots were being fired. It wouldn’t be so much an imaginary smell, but just how they associated the sense of smell with the concurrent events as they unfolded at that time.
-
I’ve often wondered about these types of effects. I know it’s something that would be very hard to measure, but I’ve always wondered how the mind might distort events during a rush of adrenalin during perceived times of stress (like realization of bullets being fired and people being shot).
Things like association of timing or perception of time and time spacing and how it changes as the perception of danger rapidly sets in, in this case after the realization that loud bangs were shots, and not firecrackers, had set in.
The related point here I wonder about is the association of sulfur smell with gunpowder while hearing gunshots.
I recall the cheaper gasoline or diesel in large cars in the early 60’s would smell nasty, maybe even sulfur like, when the cars were accelerated fast. Sweet crude (low sulfur) was desired to make these fuels help keep those levels down and increase the efficacy of tetra ethyl lead as an octane booster in gasoline.
Just a possibility for how people might have associated the smell of accelerating cars back then to guns when shots were being fired. It wouldn’t be so much an imaginary smell, but just how they associated the sense of smell with the concurrent events as they unfolded at that time.
I agree with this. I choose the Bigfoot example instead of looking into something like people smelling hotdogs from 100 feet away at the approach of a vendor, even though the wind was blowing the wrong way. Maybe the way the wind swirls, they could really smell the hotdogs.
But with Bigfoot, reasonable people can conclude that Bigfoot probably does not exist. So, the common correlation between seeing a Bigfoot (maybe really a person or a standing bear) and terrible smells is a clear example of people imaging they are smelling something they think they should be smelling. I can’t imagine that every time there is a standing bear, there is also a nearby skunk.
If this commonly happens with Bigfoot sightings, I don’t see why something similar couldn’t happen when there is gunfire.
-
Another issue connected to this still frame is the Brake Lights we see on the National Press Pool Car. Why if the JFK Limo & the Queen Mary are Moving and going underneath the Triple Underpass well ahead of the cars behind them, do we see the Press Pool Car hitting the Brakes? What is STOPPING/Slowing Down the Press Pool Car and the cars in Front of it?
Perhaps the driver dropped a cigarette butt between his legs. My response is as foolish as your question. Why ask something that cannot be answered?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rN49Sb/Grassy-Knoll-Smoke-1.jpg)
Another issue connected to this still frame is the Brake Lights we see on the National Press Pool Car. Why if the JFK Limo & the Queen Mary are Moving and going underneath the Triple Underpass well ahead of the cars behind them, do we see the Press Pool Car hitting the Brakes? What is STOPPING/Slowing Down the Press Pool Car and the cars in Front of it?
This is, after all, the Press Pool Car. They may have felt the story was right there in Dealey Plaza, where the shots were fired. Other cars can take off if they want to but their reporter instincts may have been to urge the driver to stop. The driver’s responsibility was not to protect the occupants of that car, so he might oblige.
In addition, in heavy traffic, when one car brakes suddenly, the cars behind brake even more suddenly. Some of the cars behind may be forced to come to a stop even after the car that did the original braking never stopped and has now speeded up and is moving at its original speed. This can be observed anytime on any heavily congested freeway.
I believe that the JFK limousine slowed, from 13 mph to 8 mph, when the driver heard Connally yelling. So, he slowed so he could look backwards to figure out what, if anything, was occurring in the limousine. This was a mistake. He should not pause to figure out what is happening but instead assume something bad is happening and speed up. If it turned out to be nothing, no great harm is done.
By the way, I can expect the usual unsupported claim to be made, that the driver’s actions went against Secret Service training. No one knows what Secret Service training is. This has always been kept a secret because this information could be useful to would be assassins. For all we know, Secret Service training was to figure out what is happening and then act. Since much of the time, in a motorcade, the vehicles are hemmed in by crowds, a lot of the time taking off at high speed would not be a good option anyway. So, we don’t know if drivers were trained, before 1963, to always take off at high speed the moment something suspicious happens. Likely they weren’t.
-
Witnesses to smelling gunpowder at street level:
• Ralph Yarborough was in the car two cars behind the Presidents car and said he smelled gunpowder. He is a war veteran with more than 50 years experience with fire arms. WC Vol VII, pg 439
• Earl Brown, Dallas Police Patrolman – “Heard shot’s and then smelled gunpowder” WC Vol VI, pg 233
• Elizabeth Cabell, wife of Dallas mayor, said “acutely aware of the smell of gunpowder” WC Vol VII, pg 486
• Billy J. Martin, patrolman - “You could smell the gunpowder… you knew he wasn’t far away. When you’re that close, you can smell the powder burning. Why you—you’ve got to be pretty close to them… you could smell the gunpowder… right there in the street.”
• Congressman Ray Roberts, seated next to her, had mentioned it also. Same source as Martin
• Tom C. Dillard, two cars behind the Cabell car, he “. . . very definitely smelled gunpowder when the cars moved up to the corner [of Elm and Houston Streets] Same source as Martin
• Virgie Rackley stood in front of the depository building close to the street. “She recalled that after the second shot, she smelled gun smoke…” same source as Martin
• One newspaper summed it up: “. . . seconds later the cavalcade was gone. The area still reeked with the smell of gunpowder.” Same source as Martin
-
And where did the gun smoke originate from:
Witnesses to Hickey holding and possibly firing a “rifle”:
• Dallas Mayor, Earl Cabel. see’s one Secret Service agent standup with a sub-machine gun.
• Senator Yarbrough also saw a rifle.
• Agent Winston rides in the front of JFK in the lead car. He noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow up car, “I first thought that he had fired it”.
• Sam Holland, a witness, is standing on top of the underpass as the motorcade is going under him. “After the first shot, the Secret Service agent raised up with a machine gun and dropped back down into the seat. WC Vol XIX, ex 5323, pg 480
• Roy Kellerman testified there was an AR15 in the motorcade.
• Hugh Betner saw one Secret Service agent pull out a gun, he was standing watching the motorcade. vol XXIV, ex 2003, pg 200
• A police officer on the over pass as the motorcade passing under saw an agent swinging around the gun.
• Margaret Chisolm WC vol XIX, ex 5323, pg 472 saw agents stand up and sit back down.
• Jean Hill – Saw JFK grab his chest and fall forward and she thinks she saw men in plain clothes shooting back. WC Vol XXIV, Ex 2003, pg 212
• Ralph Yarborough saw a SS Agent pull out a rifle. WC Vol VII, pg 439