JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jake Maxwell on January 29, 2022, 03:50:33 AM
-
It would seem that ballistic experts could determine fairly conclusively if the windshield damage came from the front or the rear of Kennedy's limo...
It would also seem that this could be demonstrated in some fashion...
Also... has anyone suggested that someone was trying to kill SS agent Greer?
(https://i.ibb.co/6rFpwZg/Screen-Shot-2022-01-28-at-9-25-06-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/RYcMbSz)
-
Same here...
I think a Safelite repair professional would have a good answer for us!
-
The limo's windshield actually consisted of two sheets of glass molded together to form one (an outer windshield and an inner windshield, so to speak).
Robert Frazier (FBI) inspected the windshield when the limo was back at the White House down in the White House basement. He testified that all of the damage was to the inner windshield. There were tiny pieces of lead on the inner windshield. The outer windshield was undamaged.
-
FBI agent James Hosty was called to testify in Washington DC to the Warren Commission. I found this passage from his book “Assignment Oswald” to be interesting:
I walked in and looked around. It looked like a typical conference room, one you would find in any prestigious law firm, nicely furnished, and against two walls were stacks of what looked like law books. Another wall was almost entirely windowed. I didn’t notice the view. In the middle of the room was a long conference table. At the far end was a large executive-type desk, and sitting on it was the windshield from President Kennedy’s limousine. The day before, Stern had shown this windshield to Belmont, Fain, Quigley, and me. We could see pock-marks on the inside of the windshield. Stern explained that forensic experts had determined that the pockmarks were consistent with highspeed bullet fragments hitting it. On the floorboard just beneath these pockmarks, bullet fragments had been recovered. These fragments were determined to be consistent with the headshot Kennedy had suffered. I shivered when I looked at the windshield.
-
FBI agent James Hosty was called to testify in Washington DC to the Warren Commission. I found this passage from his book “Assignment Oswald” to be interesting:
I walked in and looked around. It looked like a typical conference room, one you would find in any prestigious law firm, nicely furnished, and against two walls were stacks of what looked like law books. Another wall was almost entirely windowed. I didn’t notice the view. In the middle of the room was a long conference table. At the far end was a large executive-type desk, and sitting on it was the windshield from President Kennedy’s limousine. The day before, Stern had shown this windshield to Belmont, Fain, Quigley, and me. We could see pock-marks on the inside of the windshield. Stern explained that forensic experts had determined that the pockmarks were consistent with highspeed bullet fragments hitting it. On the floorboard just beneath these pockmarks, bullet fragments had been recovered. These fragments were determined to be consistent with the headshot Kennedy had suffered. I shivered when I looked at the windshield.
This ties in with Kellerman's observation that a "flurry of shells come into the car" at the moment of the headshot and in the Z-Film we see both Kellerman and Greer ducking at the same moment. The "flurry of shells" being the fragments of bullet hitting the windshield and the chrome trim above it:
"There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."
-
This ties in with Kellerman's observation that a "flurry of shells come into the car" at the moment of the headshot and in the Z-Film we see both Kellerman and Greer ducking at the same moment. The "flurry of shells" being the fragments of bullet hitting the windshield and the chrome trim above it:
"There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."
When does Kellerman tell Greer, “Let’s get out of here; we are hit?"
Before or after the headshot?
-
When does Kellerman tell Greer, “Let’s get out of here; we are hit?"
Before or after the headshot?
It appears to me that he says that the headshot occurred during the time he was saying that.
-
When does Kellerman tell Greer, “Let’s get out of here; we are hit?"
Before or after the headshot?
If you read Kellerman's testimony he states that he had turned and seen that JFK was hit, he then turned back, "grabbed the mike" and started talking into it. As he was talking the "flurry of shells" came into the car. I get the impression (and it's only an opinion) that Kellerman said "Let's get out of here" just before the headshot (just before the "flurry").
-
If you read Kellerman's testimony he states that he had turned and seen that JFK was hit, he then turned back, "grabbed the mike" and started talking into it. As he was talking the "flurry of shells" came into the car. I get the impression (and it's only an opinion) that Kellerman said "Let's get out of here" just before the headshot (just before the "flurry").
Do the films show Kellerman reaching for the mic to make the call before the headshot?
-
I checked the Zapruder... It does appear to me that Kellerman has the mic before the headshot...
-
I checked the Zapruder... It does appear to me that Kellerman has the mic before the headshot...
Oh really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrs7v8b4/kellerman-and-greer-looking.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/YC7Rw9BT/gear-shift-mic-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbGL1jp0/kellerman-and-greer-1st.gif)
Altgens 6 is inconclusive which hand is on the mic/radio. Although it does show Kellerman to be at the far right of the limo (staring into the side mirror). He hasn't moved over towards the limo mic which is next to Greer's steering wheel.
Possibly Greer changes the mic from the right hand to his left hand. below
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnVMgq6J/completed-mic-hand-change.gif)
Which then gives you Greer holding the mic in his left hand
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpXxGwS2/larger-outlined-greer-kellerman.gif)
I don't think it was ever answered if there are two mics in the limo on that day
Greer told FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill on the night of the autopsy, during an ''informal interview''.
Greer stated that he first heard what he thought was
possibly a motorcycle backfire and glanced around and noticed
that the President had evidentlv been hit. He thereafter qot
on the radio and communicated with the other vehicles, stating
that they desired to get the President to the hospital immediately.
Greer denied making those comments to FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill when question by Arlen Specter. Greer stated only Kellerman used the limo mic! from 'Testimony of William Robert Greer, Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service, March 9, 1964, -214a131:'
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMjhgcZk/slow-hand-movement.gif)
Greer covering Kellerman's ass, or worse?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/d0RtBF5/Screen-Shot-2022-01-29-at-2-46-43-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/zhzFsp4)
(https://i.ibb.co/SPVwpXn/Screen-Shot-2022-01-29-at-2-48-52-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/TkPM5B8)
This is what I see...
First pic - Kellerman... closest to the camera... turning back to see Kennedy leaning over... apparently “hit”...
Second pic - Kellerman on the mic...
If you watch the film on “The Lost Bullet” version of Zapruder (10:26) - which seems to be the best, or at least as good as other renditions... I think you will notice the order... Kellerman turns back... then gets on the mic... then shortly thereafter... Kennedy is hit...
HOWEVER... Here is what is most disturbing and significant to me:
Greer turns back to watch the president... until the headshot...
I think Greer was at the anticipated planned location in the street... and he had slowed the car... and was expecting Kennedy to be assassinated... Kellerman might have been certain... Greer was not...
I think they were both in on the dirty deed...
Greer’s rubber-necking until the shot is a “dead” giveaway... in my opinion...
-
This gif seems to show Kellerman talking on the mic... hand to left ear...
(https://i.ibb.co/tPrPyBL/ezgif-com-crop-29.gif) (https://ibb.co/x8T8VhF)(https://i.ibb.co/hHgNdPW/ezgif-com-crop-30.gif) (https://ibb.co/ZKfrgn8)
-
This gif seems to show Kellerman talking on the mic... hand to left ear...
(https://i.ibb.co/tPrPyBL/ezgif-com-crop-29.gif) (https://ibb.co/x8T8VhF)(https://i.ibb.co/hHgNdPW/ezgif-com-crop-30.gif) (https://ibb.co/ZKfrgn8)
Possibly, but does he take it from Greer's hand? his left hand
-
The outer surface appears to me scratched or chipped...
It seems I recall testimony from 2 or 3 who saw the windshield up close... and they said it appeared to have a hole in it...
This most likely... and very easily... could be verified... with a contemporary expert ballistics analysis...
-
Yes, hard to see that very well...
-
I just chatted with two different Safelite Auto Glass agents, asking if a technician can easily tell if a crack came from the inside or outside of a windshield...
I got the very same reply...: (see screenshot of chat)
“Yes they can!”
(https://i.ibb.co/MfPm6f2/Screen-Shot-2022-02-06-at-3-19-33-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/W0BLt0x)
(https://i.ibb.co/0nM2Bgr/Screen-Shot-2022-02-06-at-3-22-41-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/QJNQ82M)
-
This one determination of where the crack originated would settle the issue... and answer the question, “Was there another shooter from the front?"
There are ballistics experts who can look at a crack like this and determine from which direction the object came...
Perhaps a technician could make a determination from using only the photo...
If so, it would be interesting to get a response from two or three...
My guess from the location of the crack... if coming from the front... is that “they" were trying to take out Greer... like they took out Oswald... before any incriminating information could be disclosed...
Maybe for Greer it functioned as a warning shot...
-
I find it a leap of faith to assume Kellerman mistook fragments hitting the windshield as a flurry of separate shots coming in. Could a person differentiate the timing of a bullet landing from the fragments landing just a few feet ahead? I does not seem like enough time for anyone to think it is two separate shots.
Then we have Greer who describes the last shots as "almost simultaneous". Both these agents are experienced with weapons yet both are fooled by fragments of a single round?
There is also lots of corroboration from other witnesses in the follow up car and LBJ's car and other locations. About 25 witnesses said the last shots were in rapid succession, like automatic fire, almost at the same time and other similar descriptions. They were not in the front seat experiencing the fragments.
The idea Kellerman mistook fragments for a flurry of separate shots seems like unsupported conjecture.
-
I find it a leap of faith to assume Kellerman mistook fragments hitting the windshield as a flurry of separate shots coming in. Could a person differentiate the timing of a bullet landing from the fragments landing just a few feet ahead? I does not seem like enough time for anyone to think it is two separate shots.
Then we have Greer who describes the last shots as "almost simultaneous". Both these agents are experienced with weapons yet both are fooled by fragments of a single round?
There is also lots of corroboration from other witnesses in the follow up car and LBJ's car and other locations. About 25 witnesses said the last shots were in rapid succession, like automatic fire, almost at the same time and other similar descriptions. They were not in the front seat experiencing the fragments.
The idea Kellerman mistook fragments for a flurry of separate shots seems like unsupported conjecture.
"The idea Kellerman mistook fragments for a flurry of separate shots seems like unsupported conjecture."
I wouldn't agree that it's unsupported.
The timing Kellerman gives for the "flurry" equates to the head-shot. The bullet fragmented and some of the fragments were powerful enough to crack the reinforced windshield and dent the chrome trim above. He describes it this way -"a flurry of shells come into the car." He does not seem to be describing shots being heard outside the vehicle, he is describing something happening inside the vehicle. In the Z-Film we can see this is the exact moment Kellerman and Greer duck for cover. Personally, I doubt they are ducking from sounds, I think they are ducking from objects smashing into the windshield and chrome trim, something that really happened. Nowhere does Kellerman describe fragments coming into the vehicle.
The timing, the ducking motion of Kellerman and Greer and the actual damage to the vehicle strongly indicate Kellerman is talking about bullet fragments from the head-shot spraying the inside of the limo.
That said, it's just my opinion and not a fact, but I don't think it is "unsupported".
-
"The idea Kellerman mistook fragments for a flurry of separate shots seems like unsupported conjecture."
I wouldn't agree that it's unsupported.
The timing Kellerman gives for the "flurry" equates to the head-shot. The bullet fragmented and some of the fragments were powerful enough to crack the reinforced windshield and dent the chrome trim above. He describes it this way -"a flurry of shells come into the car." He does not seem to be describing shots being heard outside the vehicle, he is describing something happening inside the vehicle. In the Z-Film we can see this is the exact moment Kellerman and Greer duck for cover. Personally, I doubt they are ducking from sounds, I think they are ducking from objects smashing into the windshield and chrome trim, something that really happened. Nowhere does Kellerman describe fragments coming into the vehicle.
The timing, the ducking motion of Kellerman and Greer and the actual damage to the vehicle strongly indicate Kellerman is talking about bullet fragments from the head-shot spraying the inside of the limo.
That said, it's just my opinion and not a fact, but I don't think it is "unsupported".
Kellerman actually says "a flurry of rounds CAME INTO the car."
The fact their ducking at the time of the shot is more likely due to the shot/shots than reacting to fragments. Why jump to the conjecture about them reacting to fragments when a round just entered the car? Kellerman said he heard the gross sound of the round hitting JFK's head. I think he described it as a melon being dropped. I am sure that is enough to make anyone duck all by itself. No need to theorize about reacting to fragments.
But the biggest problem for me is those fragments would hit the windshield a fraction of a second after the head shot.
The debris that flew up can be measured to over 100mph. The debris that hit the windshield would have been traveling about the same speed. Traveling the 7 feet from JFK to the windshield would take about 1/20th of a second. The debris and fragments would hit the windshield far too quickly for it to be perceived as two separate shots.
The fact that Greer was looking at JFK when his head exploded and Kellerman said he heard it hit gives us more than enough reason to explain their ducking without invoking the fragments. Or you could say the reacted to both the head shot and the fragments as a single event. But there is no reason to assume they took the fragments to be a separate shot.
-
Kellerman actually says "a flurry of rounds CAME INTO the car."
The fact their ducking at the time of the shot is more likely due to the shot/shots than reacting to fragments. Why jump to the conjecture about them reacting to fragments when a round just entered the car? Kellerman said he heard the gross sound of the round hitting JFK's head. I think he described it as a melon being dropped. I am sure that is enough to make anyone duck all by itself. No need to theorize about reacting to fragments.
But the biggest problem for me is those fragments would hit the windshield a fraction of a second after the head shot.
The debris that flew up can be measured to over 100mph. The debris that hit the windshield would have been traveling about the same speed. Traveling the 7 feet from JFK to the windshield would take about 1/20th of a second. The debris and fragments would hit the windshield far too quickly for it to be perceived as two separate shots.
The fact that Greer was looking at JFK when his head exploded and Kellerman said he heard it hit gives us more than enough reason to explain their ducking without invoking the fragments. Or you could say the reacted to both the head shot and the fragments as a single event. But there is no reason to assume they took the fragments to be a separate shot.
It guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I was simply saying that, although it is conjecture to assume Kellerman was describing the front of the limo being sprayed by bullet fragments as a "flurry of shells", it's not "unsupported" conjecture:
It is clear from Kellerman's testimony that the moment he refers to the "flurry" is the same moment as the head-shot.
We know the bullet fragmented at the head-shot.
We know these fragments sprayed the front of the limo.
We know this spray of fragments caused damage to the reinforced windshield and chrome trim.
We know from the Z-film this is the same moment Greer and Kellerman ducked.
It maybe a coincidence Kellerman describes a "flurry of shells" coming into the car at the same moment the front of the limo is sprayed with bullet fragments but I doubt it.
"The fact their ducking at the time of the shot is more likely due to the shot/shots than reacting to fragments. Why jump to the conjecture about them reacting to fragments when a round just entered the car?"
Kellerman is clearly describing multiple objects entering the front of the limo and not "a round". How can a single round be described as a "flurry". Furthermore, it's my opinion that when Kellerman says the flurry "came into the car" he is describing the front of the limo, not what is going on behind him. JFK had already been shot through the neck but Kellerman doesn't describe that as a "flurry of shells".
It is pure conjecture to assume Kellerman is describing a single shot as a "flurry".
"Kellerman said he heard the gross sound of the round hitting JFK's head. I think he described it as a melon being dropped. I am sure that is enough to make anyone duck all by itself. No need to theorize about reacting to fragments."
To imagine both special agents ducked for cover because they heard something that sounded like a melon being dropped can only be described as wild conjecture. We know that the front of the limo was sprayed with bullet fragments, this would seem like an ideal moment to duck for cover and it can be no coincidence that they duck for cover a split second after the head-shot.
Which seems more plausible - duck for cover because a) the front of the limo is sprayed with bullet fragments, or b) it sounded like a melon being dropped.
Like I say, this is a point we will have to agree to disagree on.
-
Of all the futile efforts, trying to match up witness recollections of events down to fractions of seconds in the Z-film probably tops the list. They have undergone a sudden and traumatic event that played out in a handful of seconds. They then use imprecise language to describe these recollections that can then be interpreted in multiple ways.
-
Of all the futile efforts, trying to match up witness recollections of events down to fractions of seconds in the Z-film probably tops the list. They have undergone a sudden and traumatic event that played out in a handful of seconds. They then use imprecise language to describe these recollections that can then be interpreted in multiple ways.
We all know you're not one for details Richard.
Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter. This may be a trivial detail for you as you are safe in the narrative that's been handed to you but, in trying to genuinely understand what happened that day, it's vital to have an understanding of such details.
You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence -
Shots were fired
The head-shot bullet fragmented
These fragments sprayed the front of the limo causing damage to the windshield and chrome trim
Greer and Kellerman reflexively duck for cover within a split-second of the head-shot, as shown in the Z-film
Is it because a flurry of shots came into the limo - contradicting the lone assassin narrative
Is it because a single fragmenting bullet sprayed the inside of the limo - supporting the lone assassin narrative
-
We all know you're not one for details Richard.
Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter. This may be a trivial detail for you as you are safe in the narrative that's been handed to you but, in trying to genuinely understand what happened that day, it's vital to have an understanding of such details.
You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence -
Shots were fired
The head-shot bullet fragmented
These fragments sprayed the front of the limo causing damage to the windshield and chrome trim
Greer and Kellerman reflexively duck for cover within a split-second of the head-shot, as shown in the Z-film
Is it because a flurry of shots came into the limo - contradicting the lone assassin narrative
Is it because a single fragmenting bullet sprayed the inside of the limo - supporting the lone assassin narrative
LOL.
-
LOL.
;D
How very Otto of you.
Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.
-
;D
How very Otto of you.
Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.
There is not much more to say. Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again. Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter. A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation. We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots. Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots. Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations. There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots. A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact. Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.
-
There is not much more to say. Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again. Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter. A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation. We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots. Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots. Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations. There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots. A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact. Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.
It's my opinion that only three shots were fired and that they were fired from the SN.
I've agreed about how imprecise witness testimony can be. In the post you are responding to I wrote:
"You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence."
For me, whenever possible, it's about interpreting witness statements against any physical evidence that relates to that witness testimony. That was the point I was making in the post.
"Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again."
What "fact" do you think I substituted my subjective opinion for.
-
Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...
And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...
-
Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...
And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...
Robert Frazier of the FBI testified that he examined the limo. He said this about the windshield (this is from his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial).
Q: Did you find anything unusual about the windshield and if so, please describe that condition?
A: The windshield was partially broken in a star-shaped fashion, that is there was a crack in the windshield. I made a specific examination of it to determine what caused the crack. I found on the inside surface of the windshield a deposit of lead which had been forced against the glass and had splattered and as a result determined the glass had been broken by the impact of a projectile striking the inside surface of the glass and fracturing the windshield in the outer layer.
Q: Upon what did you base your determination that the glass had been hit by a projectile hitting the inside rather than the outside?
A: As a result of having examined hundreds of pieces of glass which have been broken in a known fashion, that is by a blow delivered in a known way, it is possible by studying the radial cracks or fractures emanating from the point of force to determine the side of the glass on which the force was applied.
Using the stress lines left on this glass at the time the glass was broken and caused by the object which broke the glass it is possible to determine the direction the force was applied. This examination of the cracks showed that the pressure had been applied on the inside surface.
Q: Now the opinion which you formed as to which side of the windshield had been hit, Mr. Frazier, was that a definite opinion or was there any doubt in your mind as an expert?
A: It is a definite conclusion.
-
That addresses the point straight up...
That is basically the same line of questioning I would have wanted to ask an expert...
-
It's my opinion that only three shots were fired and that they were fired from the SN.
I've agreed about how imprecise witness testimony can be. In the post you are responding to I wrote:
"You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence."
For me, whenever possible, it's about interpreting witness statements against any physical evidence that relates to that witness testimony. That was the point I was making in the post.
"Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again."
What "fact" do you think I substituted my subjective opinion for.
"Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter." It's entirely reasonable for Kellerman to have used this phrase to describe a situation in which one shooter (Oswald) fired three shots in a matter of seconds striking two individuals in the car.
-
"Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter." It's entirely reasonable for Kellerman to have used this phrase to describe a situation in which one shooter (Oswald) fired three shots in a matter of seconds striking two individuals in the car.
This would be a reasonable interpretation if you hadn't read Kellerman's testimony.
If you have read his testimony, not only is it an unreasonable interpretation of his words, it is beyond reason.
In reality Kellerman had already described JFK hit by the first shot and states that while he was talking into the radio to get the out of there the "flurry of shells" came into the limo. He is describing a very intense moment that occurred while he was talking into the radio.
Kellerman's words have to be interpreted in the context of the rest of his testimony and any physical evidence relating to those words. Doing this really limits the amount of reasonable ways there are to interpret his words.
-
How about: How many laminated windshields have you inspected, Mr. Frazier?
I like that one too!
There is such controversy over this event... and past testimony from every source thought to be reliable has been questioned...
The windshield could still undergo another examination, today...
I say," Pull it out of storage...!"
This one thing would settle quite a bit...