In another thread, a WC apologist argued that the conspiracy position is a constantly moving, shifting target, that it is "flexible enough to support whatever conclusion" is deemed suitable/necessary. Now, this is mighty strange criticism coming from someone who supports the magic bullet and the single-bullet theory (SBT). Consider:Belief in the SBT by non-CTs relies on the same kind of fictions that CTs use to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Oswald fired all three shots.
-- At first the SBT required that Connally was rotated 20-30 degrees to the right when the missile struck, in order to make his back wound align with the magic bullet's trajectory from JFK's throat, but now we're assured the theory can still work even though many of the theory's defenders admit that Connally's torso was rotated only 10-15 degrees.
Of course, recently, Knott Laboratory, a forensic engineering and animation lab, proved that Connally's position and back wound make the SBT impossible. Knott Lab engineers did a laser test in Dealey Plaza, collecting millions of data points, and determined that the SBT is impossible because Connally's back wound does not and cannot align with a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and exiting JFK's throat. Here's a video on the Knott Lab study:
Why the 'single bullet theory' in JFK assassination is impossible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss8XOQD1hEE&t=157s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss8XOQD1hEE&t=157s)
The video has already had nearly half a million views since being posted last month.
Belief in the SBT by non-CTs relies on the same kind of fictions that CTs use to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Oswald fired all three shots.
Perhaps the Knott Laboratory model will help everyone see what I have been saying for over 20 years: that the SBT is not only wrong but that it is wrong to think it is needed to support the WC’s conclusions.
"Overwhelming evidence"?? Why do you suppose that even Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said that no one was ever able to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands? Why do you suppose that even Norman Mailer said that a good defense attorney could have gotten Oswald acquitted?U said "he is bringing his left hand up" .
I suspect you are unaware of all the problems with the case against Oswald. Here's some suggested reading for you:
“Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald”
“The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”
“Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?”
“Was Oswald’s Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?”
“Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?”
You can find these articles here: https://sites.google.com/view/myresearcharticles/home (https://sites.google.com/view/myresearcharticles/home)
Huh? If the SBT is false, then more than one gunman must have been firing at JFK. We have known for years from released WC documents that the reason Specter et al initially cooked up the SBT was to avoid the conclusion that more than one shooter was involved. Good grief, how can you not know this?
Let's read an excerpt from WC staff attorney Norman Redlich's 4/27/64 memo to J. Lee Rankin, the WC's chief counsel:
----------------------------------------------------------
We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. (p. 1)
----------------------------------------------------------
Since the Commission could not allow that JFK was hit at or before Z190, they had a serious problem on their hands. The Commission strongly leaned toward the view that JFK was hit at or shortly after Z210; they admitted that in Z225 JFK is already reacting to a wound; they acknowledged that Connally said he was hit no earlier than Z231; and they said that Connally must have been hit before Z240--but they knew that one gunman could not have fired two shots between Z210 and Z240.
This glaring timing problem is the main reason that WC apologists refuse to accept the HSCA PEP's finding that JFK was hit before Z190, that he begins to react to this hit at around Z200, and that Jackie begins to react to JFK's reaction before she disappears behind the freeway sign. WC apologists cling to the Z224 SBT myth, even though JFK is clearly already reacting to a wound in Z225.
The fact that JFK is already reacting to a wound in Z225 means he must have been hit a bare minimum of 30 frames earlier, since he had to stop waving, then bend both of his forearms inward, and then start to move his hands toward his throat--these actions would have taken at least 30 frames. It is ludicrous to argue that JFK miraculously performed these actions in less than 1/18th/second after allegedly being hit at Z224.
As the HSCA PEP noted, at around Z200, JFK's right hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also starts moving to the level and area of his throat. When JFK reemerges from behind the freeway sign in Z224, he is also bringing his left hand up toward his throat. Obviously, he is reacting to a shot that occurred many frames before Z224.
You are the first person I've ever met who claims that the SBT is not needed to support the WC's conclusions.
Let's read an excerpt from WC staff attorney Norman Redlich's 4/27/64 memo to J. Lee Rankin, the WC's chief counsel:
----------------------------------------------------------
We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. (p. 1)
----------------------------------------------------------
The fact that JFK is already reacting to a wound in Z225 means he must have been hit a bare minimum of 30 frames earlier,
It is not the human response time that is the issue. It is the time required to reload the bolt-action MC, re-aim and pull the trigger. That requires about 2.3 seconds.
According to this, it was 2 1/4 seconds:
https://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html
The short answer is no.
One second is equal to 18.333 Zapruder frames.
One second divided by 18.333 equates to 0.0545464462990236 seconds per Zapruder frame.
30 Zapruder frames multiplied by 0.0545464462990236 seconds equates to 1.636393388970709 seconds.
The human response time to external stimulus is quicker than 1.636393388970709 seconds.
"Overwhelming evidence"?? Why do you suppose that even Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said that no one was ever able to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands? Why do you suppose that even Norman Mailer said that a good defense attorney could have gotten Oswald acquitted?We aren't going to agree that there was a conspiracy involving dozens of police, FBI, and Secret Service officers, as well as civilian witnesses, Buell Frazier, Ruth Paine, Georges deM, Marina, etc. That is the only way all that evidence could exist if Oswald was innocent.
I suspect you are unaware of all the problems with the case against Oswald. Here's some suggested reading for you:I am aware that all of the suggested problems are grossly overstated at best or otherwise demonstrably false. Perhaps you are not aware of all the evidence set out in the book and 1200 pages of footnotes in Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.
Huh? If the SBT is false, then more than one gunman must have been firing at JFK. We have known for years from released WC documents that the reason Specter et al initially cooked up the SBT was to avoid the conclusion that more than one shooter was involved. Good grief, how can you not know this?
This glaring timing problem is the main reason that WC apologists refuse to accept the HSCA PEP's finding that JFK was hit before Z190, that he begins to react to this hit at around Z200, and that Jackie begins to react to JFK's reaction before she disappears behind the freeway sign. WC apologists cling to the Z224 SBT myth, even though JFK is clearly already reacting to a wound in Z225.I agree that, after emerging from behind the Stemmons sign, JFK is reacting to the first shot that occurred after z186 and before z202, most likely z190-z195. But I disagree that JBC begins reacting to the second shot that hit him in the back by z230 or even z240. According to the evidence he was hit on the second shot and that did not occur until after the midpoint between z195 and z313 and after Hickey and Nellie turned around (after z268).
The fact that JFK is already reacting to a wound in Z225 means he must have been hit a bare minimum of 30 frames earlier, since he had to stop waving, then bend both of his forearms inward, and then start to move his hands toward his throat--these actions would have taken at least 30 frames. It is ludicrous to argue that JFK miraculously performed these actions in less than 1/18th/second after allegedly being hit at Z224.
As the HSCA PEP noted, at around Z200, JFK's right hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also starts moving to the level and area of his throat. When JFK reemerges from behind the freeway sign in Z224, he is also bringing his left hand up toward his throat. Obviously, he is reacting to a shot that occurred many frames before Z224.
You are the first person I've ever met who claims that the SBT is not needed to support the WC's conclusions.
“The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”
U said "he is bringing his left hand up" .
U said "he is reacting to a shot" .
NNOOOOOOOO.
An involuntary "bringing" & an involuntary "reacting" are not the same as a voluntary bringing & reacting.
Involuntary acts take imo say two forms. The quickest taking say 0.01 sec (one Z frame).
An involuntary startle reaction might imo take say 0.1 sec (two Z frames).
And voluntary reactions involving the brain processing thoughts might take say 0.25 sec (five Z frames).
According to this, it was 2 1/4 seconds:
https://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html
The short answer is no.
One second is equal to 18.333 Zapruder frames.
One second divided by 18.333 equates to 0.0545464462990236 seconds per Zapruder frame.
30 Zapruder frames multiplied by 0.0545464462990236 seconds equates to 1.636393388970709 seconds.
The human response time to external stimulus is quicker than 1.636393388970709 seconds.
Sorry, the emperor is naked. Why keep insisting that he has new clothes?
One, JFK's waving motion freezes in Z200 at the latest.
Two, there is no way on this Earth that JFK's visible Z225 reaction could have been in response to a Z224 hit. That is sheer fantasy and delusion.
Three, if we discard the magic-bullet myth, and if we assume that Connally was hit as late as Z239, as the WC absurdly posited, and if we assume that JFK was hit at Z199 and magically began freezing his waving motion 1/18th/second later, this would allow only 40 frames to work the rifle's bolt, aim, and squeeze the trigger. 40 divided by 18.3 is 2.18 seconds. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed the head and neck area of the target boards 18 out of 21 times, and their second and third shots were the most inaccurate, and two of them took 6.75. 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series.
The FBI firing test with the alleged murder rifle puts the 2.25/2.3 minimum firing time in serious doubt, as WC attorney Wesley Liebeler explained in an internal WC memo that was never supposed to see the light of day:
-----------------------------------------------------
As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI.
The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Of the 15 sets of 3 shots described above. only 3 were fired within 4.8 seconds. A total of five sets, including the three just mentioned were fired within a total of 5.6 seconds. The conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster than the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries and that in any event he could fire faster than the experts did in 10 of their 15 tries.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, if we get real and acknowledge what the Zapruder film clearly shows, we will admit that JFK was hit no later than Z190 (and probably at Z186), and that Connally was hit at Z234 (Connally himself chose Z234 as the moment he was hit). This gives slightly more time (four to eight frames) to reload, aim, and fire, but (1) it means that at least four shots were fired because we have to account for the Tague curb shot and wounding, and (2) it leaves no bullet to explain what knocked JFK visibly forward from Z226-232.
The Z226-232 reaction, second only to the head shot, is the most visible, obvious reaction in the film. JFK is knocked visibly forward and his forearms are flung upward, obviously in response to the impact of a bullet striking his back. The WC and the HSCA ignored this dramatic reaction, but it is one of the most readily apparent events in the entire film. This shot probably hit JFK at Z224 and was a separate bullet from the one that hit him at Z186-190.
Finally, even assuming that the alleged lone gunman had 48 frames to reload, aim, and fire, that still only gives him 2.62 seconds to do so. Again, two of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test required 6.75, 7.0, and 8.25 seconds in three of the shot series. If we assume that the alleged lone gunman was the unskilled and unpracticed rifleman Lee Harvey Oswald, the single-shooter scenario becomes downright ridiculous, given that the slower times of the Master-rated riflemen were done against stationary targets and from an elevation of only 30 feet (vs. Oswald's alleged feat against a moving target from 60 feet up).
Now, if we get real and acknowledge what the Zapruder film clearly shows,...
So I gather that these are the Zapruder frames that weren't altered? I wish you'd make up your mind because using the Altered Zapruder Film to prove your newest theory is getting real old.
In fact your pages of hysterical claims of alteration strongly refute your right to use the Zapruder film in any capacity, of any type proof, but if you want to be the Forum's Biggest Hypocrite, please continue. JohnM
You're still using this childish argument? I suggest you take a Logic 101 class, among other things. Do you think people will forget that I have repeatedly specified that the plotters could only do much editing of the film, and that even in its altered form the film refutes the lone-gunman scenario, which is why it was suppressed for 12 years? And do you think people will fail to notice that you are ducking the unsolvable problem posed by JFK's two separate reactions, especially given the fact that you claim the film is the unaltered original?
What good do you think it does for your position to keep pointing out that I believe the film has been altered, when you offer no rational explanation for JFK's two separate sets of reactions, for Connally's dramatic right-shoulder collapse, etc., etc.?
I mean, you insist the film is unaltered. Okay, then why do you refuse to acknowledge what it so plainly shows regarding JFK's reactions? You can't really believe that JFK could have been hit in Z224 and then have bent both forearms inward and started raising his hands up to his throat--all in 1/18th/second. As I've proved, even the WC knew that his Z225 reaction meant he was hit many frames before that point.
And what credentials do you have to be saying that it's "hysterical" to claim that the film has been altered, when experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Mantik, Schaeffer, etc., have documented evidence of alteration, and given your obvious inability to explain the anomalies in the film? You keep issuing adamant summary dismissals of the very idea of film alteration, yet you have provided no explanation for
-- Why the Zapruder film was secretly detoured to the CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York and then taken to the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in DC. Gee, what was going on here? Why were these detours omitted from the official chain-of-custody for the film? What possible innocent reason could there have been for those detours and for omitting them from the chain-of-custody? Hey? Are you ever going to address this issue?
-- Why the only two CIA photo technicians at NPIC who have commented on the subject have said that the Zapruder film they saw showed events that are not in the existing version of the film. Were they both "mistaken"? And, gosh, is it just a whopping "coincidence" that dozens of other witnesses in the plaza reported seeing events that are not seen in the current Zapruder film?
Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.
The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.
Ditto for your flimsy "explanation" of Brehm Jr.'s movements. You still have not explained how any person, much less a young boy, could have carried out those movements and ended up calmly standing and clapping in no more than 0.61 seconds. You spent most of your time quibbling over whether Brehm Jr. is already moving in Z277, an assumption that I immediately said I was willing to make for the sake of argument, and engaging in juvenile posturing over the fact that I assumed Cranor was using Z380 as her comparison frame instead of Z375, even though there is virtually no difference between Jackie's and Hill's positions and location in the two frames. Yet, you offered nothing but fluff on the key issue of the impossibility of the speed of the movements.
And your bogus limo-"stop" GIF, again, exposes you as a deceptive amateur and propagandist.
Your ridiculous limo-"stop" GIF alone proves you're an unserious propagandist,
Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was suppressed from the general public for 12 years, until Geraldo Rivera showed on national TV in March 1975? Huh?
Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.
The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.
Simple common sense should tell you this.
U said "he is bringing his left hand up" .
U said "he is reacting to a shot" .
NNOOOOOOOO.
An involuntary "bringing" & an involuntary "reacting" are not the same as a voluntary bringing & reacting.
Involuntary acts take imo say two forms. The quickest taking say 0.01 sec (one Z frame).
An involuntary startle reaction might imo take say 0.1 sec (two Z frames).
And voluntary reactions involving the brain processing thoughts might take say 0.25 sec (five Z frames).
This is too ridiculous to bother answering. You must be kidding.
I already answered most of this in your other thread, please keep up. But I'll repeat it here just to rub it in.
As for Brehm's son, you've been told and even shown the Zapruder sequence in real time, proving that your self serving opinion is worthless.
For a start, your assumption that the frames in question begin with a stationary boy are already proven wrong because his extended leg is in the first inconvenient frame that you purposely omitted, so why do you persist with the lies?
As for the movement of Brehm's son, open your eyes and see the light.
WOW, stop with the lies, you were the one who couldn't make a physical distinction between "stop" and slow", I simply showed and described the slowdown, which is obvious.
OMG, another massive Griffith Blunder, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.
The following week the most important key frames(besides the headshot) were published in LIFE magazine and allowing for production and distribution, the amount of time to alter these frames all of which can be perfectly slotted back into the original, was only a few days, and is simply was not enough time but don't believe me go and ask any older SFX specialist and ask them exactly what could be done with 8mm film or any film for that matter and then ask if your ideas are actually plausible.
Another problem for you is that all the individual elements that you think were edited all have their own specific properties as in lighting, motion blur, directional shadows and angles and etc, and if you cut something out and stick it somewhere else then it's a guarantee that the moved object will be out of place with the surroundings.
Good luck refuting any of this but I know from past experience that you can't, so you will try and find my missing apostrophe and blab about some "scholar" that is commenting on a subject that is way beyond his/her level of expertise. Yawn!
Btw you keep saying "alteration" and now you have introduced "CIA's Hawkeyeworks photographic laboratory in New York" and repeated claims from "two CIA photo technicians at NPIC" and even referred to Costella who claims huge changes to the images, which by definition means that the films were not merely edited but manipulated and faked, . . .
yet you cowardly never explicitly say how and what was altered, please explain?
It's all well and good to keep adding all these contradicting "scholars" whose opinions are directly at odds with each other and your claims of simple editing but let's be honest here, all you are doing is a pathetic attempt to delay the inevitable time, when you have to specifically describe scientifically exactly how and what has been changed. JohnM
No, you did not. Your idea of "answer" to throw up a bunch of flim-flam and smoke and posturing, and the few times you have tried to actually address a problem, you have blundered badly.
LOL! The sequence "in real time" has Brehm Jr. coming from behind his dad, then coming virtually parallel with him, and then standing calmly clapping in, by your admission, no more than 0.61 seconds. I guess you just can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can go watch the Zapruder film in real time and in slow motion and see all these things for themselves.
Again, if there's nothing unnaturally rapid about Brehm Jr.'s movement, you should easily be able to duplicate them in a reenactment. Do and record a reenactment, and duplicate those movements in 0.61 seconds, even with your stand-in already starting to step out when you start the timer, and post the video. That's all you gotta do.
Uh, I already answered this argument. How many times have I already told you that, yes, go ahead and assume that Brehm Jr. was already moving in Z277. That really doesn't help your case. I mean, never mind that your evidence that he's already moving in Z277 is questionable, as I've noted. But, again, for the fifth or sixth time, go ahead and assume that he's moving in Z277, because the movement is still unnaturally and impossibly fast even with this assumption.
Uh-huh. See above.
Oh, it's obvious?! Really?! This is more of your clown material. I would note that I already responded to this nonsense with several paragraphs of points and observations in previous replies.
Again, if your phony slowdown is so obvious, why did Luis Alvarez report that the only slowdown he could detect was the split-second slowdown from Z295-304, a slowdown that nobody had ever noticed before, a slowdown that is imperceptible when you view the film at normal speed, and a slowdown that does not even remotely resemble the stop or marked slowdown described by dozens of witnesses from all over the plaza?
Incredibly, you're still lying about my point regarding "stopped or markedly slowed" and "a stop and a rapid slowdown." You keep pretending that I've failed to distinguish "between stop and slow," when anyone who understands English can see that you're lying about this.
Just how juvenile and ridiculous can you get? Are you so clueless that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between seeing the individual frames published in a magazine or a report and watching the film itself? I mean, how old are you? Seriously, you act and argue like a teenager.
I mean, duh, yes, we all know that the individual frames were published by the WC and by LIFE magazine. Gee, no kidding!
Does your mom know you're using her Internet service?
More of your repetition of blah, blah, blah based on your ignorance of the evidence and on your refusal to read any of the scholarly research on the evidence of Zapruder film alteration. Every one of these arguments has been addressed in the scholarly pro-alteration literature. The problem is that you haven't read any of it.
Tell me, which anti-alteration author has answered the research of Weatherly, Ryan, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, etc.? How about you cite me some of those rebuttals, hey?
And, clearly, you haven't read a single scholarly pro-alteration response to the anti-alteration arguments, because you keep repeating some of them and acting like you're presenting unanswered arguments.
More of your ducking and dodging and bobbing and weaving. You pull this stunt over and over. Rather than deal with the established fact that the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to two CIA photographic labs, you make phony strawman arguments that are based on your ideological refusal to take alteration seriously.
Notice that not one syllable of all of your hot air here explains why those detours occurred and why they were suppressed from the official record of the film's chain of custody.
And, just on a point of logic, not to mention basic English, a film that has major changes made to many of its images is still an altered film. A "fake" film is one that has been made up and is in no way based on the original. If someone got a bunch of actors and lookalike limos and cars and filmed a fake shooting in Dealey Plaza from Zapruder's position, that would be a "fake" Zapruder film.
HUH????????????????? Just HUH?????????????? LOL! Do you suffer from amnesia? Or, do you just really hope that no one has read our previous exchanges on the subject and also my article on Zapruder film alteration???????? Holy smokes. In my article, I discuss several things that were altered: the limo's movement (the stop/marked slowdown was removed), Brehm Jr.'s movements, Summers' foreleg movements, Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations on the limo's trunk, JFK's backward motion, the impossible speed of the disappearance of the explosive spray, etc., etc.
Nonsense. Those scholars are not "contradicting" and their opinions are not "directly at odds with each other." You are both lying and bluffing at the same time. I can tell by the arguments you're making that your research has been very one-sided and that you have read very little of the scholarly research that supports alteration.
I see you did another post trying to explain away the obvious conflict between the Nix and Zapruder films regarding Jackie's and Hill's positions and locations. You've done nothing but repeat your previous arguments, and your own graphics prove that the camera angles were not very different.
I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?
And, again, your own graphics show that the POV/camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.
.
I just had to laugh out loud when you asked me if I realized that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of Dealey Plaza! This qualifies you for the Captain Duh award, and the Captain Meaningless Argument award. Uh, yes, I've told you at least twice now that Nix and Zapruder were on opposite sides of the limo. What don't you understand about this?
And, again, your own graphics show that the POV/camera angles were not that different, certainly not enough to account for the drastic differences in Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.
The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225, when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat. (p. 1)
(b) The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point -- possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position). (p. 1)
The FBI laboratory examination of the Zapruder camera establishes that it operates at a speed of 18-1/3 frames per second. Weapons experts have testified that the minimum time required to operate the assassination weapon is 2-1/4 [2.25] seconds. It would appear, therefore, that a minimum of 41 frames would have to elapse between the first and second shots. (18-1/3 x 2-1/4). (p. 1)
Hilarious! The reason I was seeking further clarification is that even though you claim to realise that the Zapruder and Nix were filmed from diametrically opposed locations, you then go on to repeatedly assert that their POV were not that different? How the heck did you come to that conclusion? And do you know what POV actually means?? Some of the delusional crap that you bonkers CT believers come up with is absolute comedy gold.
And here we go again, no actual evidence, no refutation of my images, just the same old tired claims that what you see, in your opinion proves the Zapruder has been altered. Yawn!
For goodness sakes, for once in your life prove at least one of your stupid claims, and for bonus points provide some evidence of exactly how this alteration was accomplished and no, saying the film went to some secret CIA lab is not proof, and for that matter, the decades old recollections of CIA agent's rusty old memories isn't proof either.
Also, the Brehm claim is your claim and it's absolutely absurd for you, to ask me, to provide a recreation, so how about you show us your timed reenactment that you say you did and we can start from there?
I think you were seeking "further clarification" either to dishonestly posture and/or because you appear to have trouble with English and/or because you only skim over my replies and do not actually read them (even though you quote them). How many times have I said that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, while I noted that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sites of the car? I made this point in my previous reply to you (Reply #15), and I made it in my second-previous reply to you (Reply #11). Allow me to quote myself from Reply #11:
----------------------------------------------
Your attempt to deal with Jackie's and Hill's conflicting locations in the Zapruder film and the Nix film is a joke. You won't even admit what anyone with two working eyes can plainly see about the distance between Jackie's and Hill's heads alone in the two films. Your entire "explanation" is that the apparent differences in their positions in the films are just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the films were shot from different sides of the limo and from different angles, yet one of your own graphics proves that the camera angles are not drastically different.
The camera angles are key, not the fact that the cameras were on opposite sides of the limo. Two cameras filming from opposite sides of a car are going to capture the same information about the positions and locations of bodies on/in the car, as long as they're filming from angles that are not drastically different. Simple common sense should tell you this.
----------------------------------------------
Remember now? Got it? Are we clear now?
Your own graphic titled "Spatial Chart 4 Northern Half of Dealey Plaza" shows that the camera angles were quite similar. They were nowhere near different enough to create the optical illusion that you are absurdly suggesting, but this is the only explanation you have offered to explain the self-evident conflict between Jackie's and Hill's locations and positions in the Nix and Zapruder films.
Translation: You have no answer for the indications of alteration that have been discussed by experts such as Ryan, Weatherly, Costella, Schaeffer, Mantik, and others, and so you're going to fall back on your tactic of issuing adamant summary pronouncements based on your ideological rejection of even the possibility of alteration.
I'm guessing you still have not bothered to read any of the research done by the above-mentioned experts, right? Right? Here's a link to Dr. David Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film titled "The Zapruder Film Controversy":
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf (https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf)
You'll notice he spends eight pages on the arguments for authenticity. Given your pitiful response to my article on alteration, I can only imagine the illogical and evasive gyrations you're going to provide if you comment on Dr. Mantik's research.
Oh! It's "absolutely absurd" of me to challenge you to do a reenactment to back up your claim that a young boy, or even an adult, could perform all of Brehm Jr.'s actions in only 0.61 seconds?! Do you have any idea how silly you look in saying this? Exactly what in the world is "absurd" about challenging you to back up your claim with a reenactment? Huh? You see, most people believe that reenactments can provide crucial evidence about disputed events. That's why police departments and other investigative bodies often conduct reenactments. That's why the WC conducted several reenactments.
Be honest: You don't want to do a timed and filmed reenactment because deep down you know there's no way your stand-in will be able to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s movements in just 0.61 seconds. We both know it.
I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in England in the 1990s, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped back to the U.S. When we received our household goods after we moved back to the states, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.
I actually did film the reenactment that I did with my son Jacob when we lived in England in the 1990s, but I recorded it with a VHS camera, and the VHS tape did not survive being shipped back to the U.S. When we received our household goods after we moved back to the states, I sadly discovered that the movers had packed our VHS tapes in a flimsy cardboard box without using padding and that the VHS tape of the reenactment, along with many other VHS tapes in the box, was crushed and damaged beyond recovery.
CORRECTION: After I posted the above-quoted paragraph in my previous reply, I started getting the gnawing feeling that I had erred on when I did the reenactment and in what move the video got destroyed. The more I thought about it, the more I began to suspect that I'd done the reenactment when we lived in Georgia and that the tape got destroyed in our move from Georgia to Texas. For one thing, as I thought back about our move from England, I recalled that the British movers were very careful with our stuff and used a ton of wrapping paper to make sure nothing got broken. After doing a little searching, I found the third edition of my Zapruder film alteration article and confirmed my suspicion that I did the reenactment with Jacob in 1998 and that the VHS tape got destroyed when our household goods were shipped from Georgia to Texas.
I've edited the original reply by adding a correction notice and by striking out the incorrect statements about when the reenactment was done and when the VHS tape got destroyed.
This is getting tiring, you keep presenting the same endless wall of words of regurgitated garbage but I just couldn't let some of the idiocy in this laughable post go by without highlighting just how delusional you really are.
My responses are grounded in physics, science and perspective whereas your weak attempts of refutation are based on your opinions, biased observations and maintaining this unseen conspiracy just so you can move a few more books, I've seen this before with the likes of Jim DiEugenio, another clown who never met a conspiracy he didn't like, and just so he also could maintain the rage and sell just 1 more book or sell 1 more deceptive DVD. Pathetic!
1. I'll tackle this nonsense first, you say you moved and your VHS tapes which in my experience are virtually indestructible, were "crushed", Hahahaha, you can throw 1 of those solid bad boys against a wall and they will still function, did you also pack Big Ben and London Bridge on top of them and even then I doubt they would be "crushed beyond recovery"? What a Dildo!
2. I have never doubted the reasoning on doing an originally unfilmed re-enactment, I wholeheartedly endorse the Baker time trial and the confirmation that Oswald had ample time to arrive at the 2nd floor Lunchroom.
But asking me to prove/disprove another 1 of your dreamed up fantasies goes beyond the pale, It's YOUR problem not mine and it's up to YOU to provide evidence, it's as simple as that! Besides since the event was filmed and I have supplied a stabilized GIF of what actually happened, therefore makes any further involvement from me to be redundant! It happened as said and looks perfectly normal.
3. I see you have doubled down on your "camera angles were quite similar", and even though I supplied a graphic which completely destroyed your bizarre observation, you keep repeating your stupidity? Am I secretly on Candid Camera or is this some sort of alien experiment on the the concept of gullibility?
Once again the angles are NOT even remotely similar and the change of perspective accounts for the varying distances between Clint and Jackie. This is basic Kindergarten perspective 101!
4. Your Zapruder PDF is total lunacy, and I disproved a number of your amateur observations, like Malcom Summers leg being splayed forward which is proved because his left shoe is covering his right ankle, again Basic Perspective 101.
I could go on and on and on refuting your amateur observations but everyone has their limit and I'm rapidly approaching mine, go ahead and believe what you want but in the centuries to come, the events in Dealey Plaza are already in the history books and these wacky theories of yours will soon be forgotten and true history will prevail, as it always does.
Btw, your often repeated defence of "2/3 of the Western World believes..." malarkey is based on random selective polls of people who basically don't know the evidence beyond a few nuggets of CT nonsense and when the evidence is revealed to a jury as in the TV trial of Oswald, the jury had no qualms in convicting Oswald, and that's the fact Jack! Just imagine a jury being exposed to your endless unproven ludicrous accusations, you'd be thrown out of Court on your ass and probably sent to a Psychiatric Asylum. JohnM
I appreciate the clarification but the where and when is irrelevant, more info on how, under reasonable circumstances, a virtually indestructible VHS tape could possibly be destroyed would definitely help you. Did your movers clobber the tape with a sledge hammer because with your hostile attitude I wouldn't doubt it!JohnM
Once again you come across as a teenager who is losing the argument and who resorts to a bunch of name-calling and yelling to vent his frustration.
No, your responses consist of endless evasions, demonstrably bogus arguments, and juvenile name-calling. You said your phony limo slowdown is "obvious," yet even Dr. Alvarez, an ardent WC apologist, said he could only find one brief slowdown in the Zapruder film, and it was not your bogus slowdown. The slowdown he found, which he only detected via careful frame-by-frame analysis, is the split-second, virtually imperceptible slowdown in Z295-304, a slowdown that you yourself did not notice.
You would have us believe that the dozens of eyewitness accounts of the limo stopping or markedly slowing are all describing a half-second slowdown in the Zapruder film that no one noticed until Alvarez detected it with frame-by-frame analysis. This is your idea of a response "grounded in physics, science and perspective"?
I address this below, but I have to chuckle at your description of VHS cassettes, which are made of plastic, as "virtually indestructible." Really? I remember my kids accidentally stepping on a couple of them and ruining them as a result. You should do a reenactment where you throw a VHS tape up against a wall with enough force to simulate, say, 120 pounds being applied to the top or bottom. Yeah, let's see you do that and then try to play it. Let's see it.
Wrong. The WC Baker-Oswald reenactment proved no such thing. Even some WC apologists have admitted that the Commission's reenactment was unrealistic. Yet, here you are you repeating the debunked claim that it proved Oswald had ample time to get into the second-floor lunchroom. Why don't you venture to explain how he could have done that without being seen by Truly, who was running ahead of Baker and who was already on the third-floor steps when Baker got on the second-floor landing and saw Oswald through the door window? You might read these articles first, before you embarrass yourself further:
Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wAiq3B9Sc1BfBc7qay2vYswNrcQY_Rt/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wAiq3B9Sc1BfBc7qay2vYswNrcQY_Rt/view)
The Baker-Oswald Encounter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFu2SyC373LpYKZRp6v5vtCDGzlri4N0/view)
You can holler and scream and stomp your feet like a bratty teen all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your "stabilized GIF" shows Brehm Jr. behind his father one moment and then standing calmly beside him and clapping just 0.61 seconds later, just as we see in the Zapruder film.
To see how vacuous and unrealistic your argument is, see how long it takes you just to reach for and grasp a cup while sitting at your desk. I'll bet my 401Ks that it will take you right around 1 second to do this, even if you're trying to do it quickly. Yet, you would have us believe that Brehm Jr. was standing behind his father one moment and then, just 0.61 seconds later, had magically moved about 2 feet and was calmly standing beside his father and clapping.
No wonder you refuse to do a reenactment. No wonder you don't want to try to prove your claim that there's nothing unusual or unnaturally rapid about the boy's movements.
When I did my reenactment with my son Jacob, Jacob tried 12 times to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s feat. With a stopwatch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were 0.97, 0.99, 0.89, 0.92, 1.03, 0.92, 0.89, 0.99, 0.97, 0.85, 0.82, and 0.77 seconds, as compared to Brehm junior’s amazing time of 0.56 seconds or 0.61 seconds. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair, but it took him time to steady himself and to start clapping his hands.
Anyone can try this experiment at home and see how impossibly fast Brehm Jr. performs his movements.
This is just more of your dishonest, erroneous bluster. Anyone with two working eyes can see that the camera angles are quite similar. That's why both Z380 and the corresponding Nix frame show the rear wheel on their side, show their end of the rear bumper, show the respective sides of Jackie's and Hill's bodies. This would not be the case if the viewing angles were markedly different. Apparently you just don't care or realize that your own Dealey Plaza-diagram graphic shows that the viewing angles are not all that different.
Again, as is readily apparent to anyone who isn't committed to denying what they can see, in Z380 Jackie's head is clearly at least 3 feet from Hill's head, and Jackie's right hand and Hill's hands are at least 1 foot apart, but in the Nix frame their heads almost appear to be touching, with no space between them, and Hill's left hand appears to be beyond Jackie's right hand. You can delude yourself into believing that this is just a gigantic optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but few people are going to join you in your self-delusion.
If anyone is displaying "lunacy," it's you. You are denying what is plainly visible. Look at Summers' left leg in Z353. It is mostly extended and is at least 6 inches off the ground. His left leg is virtually parallel with his right leg. You can't tell me that you don't see this.
But look at his left leg in the very next frame, Z354. His left foreleg is bent markedly backward. You can tell this just by the fact that his left foot is now directly above his right foot, whereas in Z353 his left foot is extended beyond his right foot. Again, you can't tell me that you don't see this.
And then look at his position in Z356, just three frames or 3/18ths of a second later. It's very different from how he looks in Z353. Not only are his legs in a noticeably different position, but his left arm and upper body are in a noticeably different position. I know you can see these things. Anyone can see them. They are self-evident.
Sorry, but down here on Earth, humans can't whip their legs, arms, and upper bodies from and into such different positions that quickly.
You're the amateur here. You've proved that over and over again. Is "John Mytton" even your real name? Do you have a website? If not, why not? Have you published any articles or books on the JFK case? If not, why not? I've asked you this before, and you ducked it.
Yeah, of course, Mr. Bloviating Teenager. "Random selective polls"? Uh, polls of this nature are supposed to be random. That's the whole idea. You continue to show a poor level of education.
Let's say this: How about if you find me a random or at least a large-sample poll done by a recognized/reputable organization that found that a majority of the respondents believed in the lone-gunman theory? Hey? Find me one reputable poll that has found this.
As for the guilty verdict in the "TV trial of Oswald," I assume you're referring to the Showtime mock Oswald trial that was held in London in 1986. What about the other mock Oswald trials? Any clue?
As you may or may not know, the 1992 A&E mock Oswald trial ended with Oswald's acquittal. The three 2013 mock Oswald trials held in Texas all ended in hung juries, with about 3/4ths of a selected focus group that watched one of the trials voting that a conspiracy had been involved. The 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial held in San Francisco ended in a hung jury, with three of the five jurors dismissed during voir dire voting for acquittal. The 1967 Yale Law School mock Oswald trial ended in a hung jury.
So, gee, I guess the case against Oswald isn't as "overwhelming" as you keep claiming it is. Hey? Why do you suppose that even Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said no one had been able to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands? Why do you suppose that even Norman Mailer said he could have gotten acquitted in a trial?
And, you should understand that many of the jurors who voted guilty in the mock trials said they did not believe that Oswald acted alone. Even the majority of the jurors in the Clay Shaw trial said they believed a conspiracy had killed JFK. Saying that Oswald was guilty is not automatically the same thing as saying there was no conspiracy. Many people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy also believe that Oswald fired shots and was part of the conspiracy.
"Virtually indestructible VHS tape"?! Anyone who has owned VHS tapes will recognize your comment as clownish. Anyway, as I explained, the reenactment tape and several other tapes were crushed and damaged beyond recovery because they were packed in a flimsy cardboard box and with no padding. You need more "clarification" than that? Okay, the plastic cassettes that encased the magnetic tapes were crushed so badly that they cracked and broke into pieces--they were, after all, made of plastic. The magnetic tape inside the reenactment cassette was cut and twisted as a result of the crushing and cracking of the cassette.
1. Once again, in a topic analysing the visual record, I provide irrefutable visual evidence whereas you provide your amateur opinion! Nuff said!
2. Another week goes by and again the same old story story about how you did the "Brehm's son" experiment yada yada yada, and now you provide a challenge that anybody can do this at home, so why the heck haven't you done this at home and filmed it with your phone and posted it here. The experiment itself could be set up in minutes and completed in less than a literal second? Waiting... Zzzzz...
3. Why hasn't 1 member jumped to your defence, in virtually every thread I post in, the CT members form a pack mentality and love to attack me and debate me and try and beat/humiliate me, but here, all I hear are crickets, could it be because they see my replies as being grounded in science and your amateur responses as being , well, amateurish?
4) I have a Youtube channel and my JFK videos have over a half a million views, how many books have you sold? LOL!
The first part of my following video required element isolation, video matting and compositing 11 layers of video, mattes, effects, music and speech.
JohnM
4) I have a Youtube channel and my JFK videos have over a half a million views, how many books have you sold? LOL!
The first part of my following video required element isolation, video matting and compositing 11 layers of video, mattes, effects, music and speech.
That's Mytton speak for; I copied Bugliosi's BS list of evidence and I infringed on copyright to make a pathetic video that nobody is really interested in.
Thanks for watching my video with thousands of views and almost a thousand comments! Thumb1:
Btw how about you being the first member here to defend Griffiths accusations of Zapruder alteration.
JohnM
I watched your pirate video a long time ago and even then it looked like the work of an amateur.
As for Zapruder, I have no opinion about it due to a lack of knowledge. I've always accepted it as it is, despite the fact that I do know that people more knowlegable than me have argued that is manipulated.
In the bigger scheme of things, the Zapruder video does not provide crucial evidence beyond the fact that it shows Kennedy being shot.
I watched your pirate video a long time ago....
I've always accepted it as it is...
...the Zapruder video does not provide crucial evidence beyond the fact that it shows Kennedy being shot.
Again, thanks for watching.
Exactly, if it looked to be altered, this fact would stick out like a sore thumb, even to the casual viewer.
Precisely, so why alter it at all, what could that possibly achieve? Because for some reason Griffith thought it was of vital importance to alter Brehm's son, because most likely Griffith believes Brehm's son was another assassin?
The film shows to the casual uninformed viewer that Kennedy goes back and to the left, so why wouldn't "they" alter this most crucial aspect in the Film?
JohnM
If there is some question of alteration of the Z film , which means frames being removed or added? Then I must ask why then did not the conspirators do a better job of editing so that the MC rifle shots would appear to be spread over 6-7 seconds rather than what the Z film as we have been presented shows as only a 4.8 sec spread between Z224 reactions of JFK and JC and the Z 313 last shot?
There is something which SEEMs peculiar about the head shot blood spray disappearing in only one frame (1/18th of a second ).
I’m not sure this quick dissipation was ever replicated by the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy documentary , however , they did manage to replicate the forward ejection of brain matter.
It’s the Z312–Z313 frames which show a 1/18th sec forward movement of JFKs head that would probably be the frames that were altered because without that little detail, the general perception of the public would be (as it was at first public viewing of the Z film) that the “back and to the left” movement of JFKs head was a clear indication the head shot came from the front of the limo.
If there is some question of alteration of the Z film , which means frames being removed or added? Then I must ask why then did not the conspirators do a better job of editing so that the MC rifle shots would appear to be spread over 6-7 seconds rather than what the Z film as we have been presented shows as only a 4.8 sec spread between Z224 reactions of JFK and JC and the Z 313 last shot?
There is something which SEEMs peculiar about the head shot blood spray disappearing in only one frame (1/18th of a second ).
I’m not sure this quick dissipation was ever replicated by the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy documentary , however , they did manage to replicate the forward ejection of brain matter.
It’s the Z312–Z313 frames which show a 1/18th sec forward movement of JFKs head that would probably be the frames that were altered because without that little detail, the general perception of the public would be (as it was at first public viewing of the Z film) that the “back and to the left” movement of JFKs head was a clear indication the head shot came from the front of the limo.
I guess you haven't read most of my replies herein. JFK starts reacting long before Z224, as the HSCA PEP noted, as we know the WC's experts recognized, and as Olson and Turner noted, etc., etc.Ok. Firstly, jfk was leaning right or at least he was hard right against the side of the limo.
In wound ballistics tests, the particulate spray from head shots remains visible for at least six frames, which only makes sense when you think about it. Another problem with the spray in the Zapruder film is that no spray blows backward, yet we know that blood and brain were splattered on the trunk, on the follow-up car, and on the two left-trailing patrolmen. Hargis was hit so hard by the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only moving about 11 mph, and the film shows no spray into which he could have driven of that could have hit him).
The Z312 forward head movement is highly debatable. I've cited it because WC apologists cited it for years after Dr. Alvarez detected it. Subsequent research has found sound reasons to believe that the movement is an optical illusion. A much more obvious and faster forward movement occurs from Z328-330. A gunshot impulse on the Dallas dictabelt recording occurs at right around Z328. For mor info on this, see British research Martin Hay's review of Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/last-second-in-dallas-by-josiah-thompson (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/last-second-in-dallas-by-josiah-thompson).
I notice that WC apologists seem reluctant to deal with the Knott Laboratory refutation of the SBT mentioned and documented in the OP. Knott Lab, a forensic engineering and animation lab, has proved that Connally's position and back wound make the SBT impossible. Knott Lab engineers conducted a laser test in Dealey Plaza, collecting millions of data points, converted the data into 3D imagery, and determined that the SBT is impossible because Connally's back wound does not and cannot align with a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and exiting JFK's throat. Here's a video on the Knott Lab study:
Why the 'Single Bullet Theory' in JFK Assassination Is Impossible
As I noted in the OP, the video has already had nearly half a million views since being posted about a month ago.
Of course, Dr. Mantik destroyed the SBT back in the 1990s when he produced an overhead scan of a man with dimensions closely resembling JFK's dimensions and showed that any bullet going from the back wound to the throat wound would have had to smash through the spine. WC apologists are still in denial about this powerful evidence. They've produced goofy graphics that move the back wound in order to enable the bullet to miss the spine.
Of course, Dr. Mantik destroyed the SBT back in the 1990s...
Knott Laboratory, an industry leader in forensic engineering and animation for more than 40 years, was commissioned to create the digital reconstruction of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to test the "single bullet theory" from the historic Warren Commission report. They have released their findings in advance of the 60th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Kennedy was famously assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, TX. The Warren Commission was assembled to investigate the shooting and issued a report in 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, firing a total of three shots in the incident. However, evidence suggests the potential of a fourth shot from another location indicating a second gunman and a wider conspiracy to kill the president.
Knott Laboratory was hired by John Orr, a former Justice Department attorney, who conducted his own investigation as a private citizen, making trips to the National Archives to review every document available, and even being permitted to examine original evidence such as the president’s shirt. In 1995, Orr sent his report to then Attorney General Janet Reno, which did achieve some reexamination of the evidence by the FBI, but ultimately didn’t lead to anything new or conclusive. Once Orr hired Knott in 2018, modern science was able to corroborate his theory.
The "single bullet theory" concluded that one of the three shots fired from the window by Oswald struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The report stated that the bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exited his neck, entered Governor Connally in the right armpit, exited his chest, went through his right wrist and embedded in his left thigh.
To reconstruct the scene with modern technology, the Knott Laboratory experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to two million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Knott Laboratory also obtained historic photographic evidence from the plaza, the limousine, and the "Zapruder film," which is widely known as the best video footage of the incident in its entirety.
From this point cloud, the team of forensic engineers was able to match images from the scene and the Zapruder film using a process called photogrammetry. They modeled the presidential limousine using multiple photographs and established the correct dimensions of the vehicle. Through a process called match moving, they synced frames from the Zapruder film into the digital recreation of the scene. The match moving enabled the alignment of the digital models of Kennedy and Connally in the vehicle to establish their positions frame by frame throughout the incident.
“With the ability to measure distances, locations and angles from the point cloud, we could develop the exact trajectory between Oswald's shooting position and points on each body,” said Stanley Stoll, CEO & Principal Engineer of Knott Laboratory. “Our team tested bullet trajectories using the two frames from the Zapruder film where the first shots occurred and the known entry and exit points on Kennedy and Connally.”
Stoll continued, “The shooting position, bullet exit point on President Kennedy, and entry point on Governor Connally should all be reasonably in line. When drawing this line from the sixth floor perch of the Texas Book Depository to the positions of the two men and their entry/exit points, we found a significant angle difference. This case is ongoing, but evidence strongly suggests there is more to the story in this historic event. Modern science refutes the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” (https://www.forensicmag.com/608244-Forensic-Animation-Firm-Tests-Single-Bullet-Theory-in-Reconstruction-of-JFK-Assassination/ (https://www.forensicmag.com/608244-Forensic-Animation-Firm-Tests-Single-Bullet-Theory-in-Reconstruction-of-JFK-Assassination/))
Let us take the Knott Laboratory digital reconstruction as a 100% molecular accurate illustration of events. Its trajectory depicts a "perfect straight-line bullet trajectory" through JFK, demonstrated by projecting a straight line from the president's throat wound through his back wound and towards the sixth-floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository. Extended is the straight line towards Governor Connally's back.Yes a FMJ rarely has zero veer in jelly, & sometimes say 15 deg of veer in say 15 inches. But i want to point out some other Knott krapp.
So, the Knott Laboratory reconstruction assumes a "perfect straight-line ballistic trajectory" and, therefore, appears to demonstrate that the Single Bullet Theory is impossible. But its reconstruction is somewhat deceptive and emphatically demonstrably erroneous. It does not consider the possibility that CE 399 (FB1 C1) could have traversed through JFK—from back to front—by a "slightly curved left-to-right nonlinear trajectory."
A "slightly curved left-to-right nonlinear trajectory" would change the bullet entry and exit angles but still enter and exit at the locations of the president's wounds and could explain the 10″ (to Connally's back) discrepancy in the Knott Laboratory digital reconstruction. The slight change in bullet entry and exit angles from that depicted could still align with the sniper's nest window, slightly altering the assassin and their rifle's position. In short, the nonlinear trajectory has the bullet exiting the president's throat at an angle different from that demonstrated in the Knott Laboratory digital reconstruction and strikes Governor Connally near the right armpit.
Supposition: CE 399 traverses JFK by a nonlinear trajectory, passing between the transverse process of his 7th cervical vertebrae and the transverse process of his 1st thoracic vertebrae (avoids striking his spine) and then of course, exits his throat slightly to the right of his Adam's Apple.
The following is a rare example of a possible nonlinear full metal-jacketed bullet trajectory:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42399-021-00760-3
(https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs42399-021-00760-3/MediaObjects/42399_2021_760_Fig7_HTML.png?as=webp)
Knott's analysis is based on the shot through JFK at z223-225. It shows that the bullet could not have struck JBC in the right armpit.
Lets assume that Knott did not stuff up. In that case........
(1) Where did the bullet that passed throo jfk end up? What did it hit (end up) after it exited jfk?
Knott proved beyond any doubt that the slug was made of ice & melted.
Knott's analysis is based on the shot through JFK at z223-225. It shows that the bullet could not have struck JBC in the right armpit.Yes. I steered clear of adding an additional dot-point before my (1), ie a say (0) that the shot that passed throo jfk had to have caused some damage,
It would be interesting to see what their analysis would show if the shot occurred at z193-195, which is a better fit with all the evidence.
At that point JBC is turned to the right. Also, the right to left angle from the SN is greater than at z223-225. It appears to be at least 13. degrees and goes to JBC's left side. So it could have hit JBC on the left side after exiting JFK.
Firstly, Oswald's shot-2 was at Z218 (or Z219 at latest).I am not sure what makes you conclude that the shot was at z218.
Nextly, an earlier shot at Z193-195 needs a steeper vertical slug angle (compared to Z196-230). And i think that a steeper vertical angle makes Knotts' alignment problem worse (i think they had the SBT at Z223).
But i agree that the nett right-to-left horizontal angle from the SN (for Z193-195) is greater than for a later shot (ie is a better fit with all of the evidence), koz Elm St is gradually curving to the left as the limo goes further down the hill.
I am not sure what makes you conclude that the shot was at z218.Your reference to 9. re Moore is wrong. Moore did not say that shot-1 was at the Thornton sign, Moore said that it was when the jfklimo was near the small highway markers near the overhead signals. The reference to the Thornton sign was inserted by the FBI.
Here is some of the evidence of a first shot striking JFK just before z202:
1. Motorcade witnesses said that the VP car had just completed the turn and the VP security car had turned 90 degrees of the 120 degree turn and was along side the TSBD. The VP car is still turning when last seen at z181
.
2. Hugh Betzner said he took his z186 photo and began to wind his camera to take another when the first shot sounded.
3. Linda Willis said that JFK was passing between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot sounded. JFK was in that line of sight between about z195 and z205.
4. Phil Willis said his z202 photo was taken a fraction of a second after the first shot and caused him to press the shutter.
5. In the Secret Service film made 10 days after the assassination the JFK stand-in is visible through the leaves while passing beneath the oak tree and is completely clear as he passes the lamppost and before he reaches the Thornton Freeway sign He was opposite the Thornton sign at z200.
6. Mary Woodward, standing opposite the President at about z192 said the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" occurred just as he passed by.
7. Other witnesses farther along Elm St. such as Karan Hicks, Gloria Calvary, Carol Reed and Karrn Westbrook said the President's car was almost directly in front of them when the first shot sounded.
8. SA Jack Ready in the right front running board of the QM said he immediately turned to the rear when he heard the first shot. He begins his turn releasing his right hand from the front hand-hold at z199.
9. T.E. Moore said the president had reached the Thornton sign when the first shot sounded. JFK was in that position at z200.
10. The shot pattern recalled by over 40 witnesses puts the relative spacing 1......2...3 with a longer pause between the first and second and the last two in rapid succession. That is over six seconds if the last two were 2 seconds apart.
Your reference to 9. re Moore is wrong. Moore did not say that shot-1 was at the Thornton sign, Moore said that it was when the jfklimo was near the small highway markers near the overhead signals. The reference to the Thornton sign was inserted by the FBI.That sounds like Max Holland's attempt to put the first shot before Zapruder began filming. Moore signed the statement. I think he would know the difference between the huge Thornton Freeway sign (with three highway markers)xall by itself and a single pole 10 feet past the traffic light with two highway markers and no sign.
In any case, my reason for shot-2 being at Z218 is that that frame accords with the reactions of jfk & Connally.The whole point is to determine whether the shot through JFK could have struck JBC in the right armpit based on the SN-JFK neck-JBC right armpit trajectory being a straight line. You have to suspend your belief that it occurred and look at the trajectory evidence at points where evidence indicates that the first shot occurred. There is abundant, consistent evidence that the first shot did not miss and was before z202.
In addition, Z218 accords with Lattimer's 1994 lapel flip tests, as i explain in that thread. The 1963 lapel flip is at Z224, & the 1994 lapel flip test tells me that the 1963 shot was 6 frames earlier, ie at Z218, But i would be ok with Z219 at latest.
That sounds like Max Holland's attempt to put the first shot before Zapruder began filming. Moore signed the statement. I think he would know the difference between the huge Thornton Freeway sign (with three highway markers)xall by itself and a single pole 10 feet past the traffic light with two highway markers and no sign.The whole point is to determine whether the shot through JFK could have struck JBC in the right armpit based on the SN-JFK neck-JBC right armpit trajectory being a straight line. You have to suspend your belief that it occurred and look at the trajectory evidence at points where evidence indicates that the first shot occurred. There is abundant, consistent evidence that the first shot did not miss and was before z202.Witness evidence & reaction evidence tells us that Oswald's shot-1 happened well before Z133.
That sounds like Max Holland's attempt to put the first shot before Zapruder began filming. Moore signed the statement. I think he would know the difference between the huge Thornton Freeway sign (with three highway markers)xall by itself and a single pole 10 feet past the traffic light with two highway markers and no sign.The whole point is to determine whether the shot through JFK could have struck JBC in the right armpit based on the SN-JFK neck-JBC right armpit trajectory being a straight line. You have to suspend your belief that it occurred and look at the trajectory evidence at points where evidence indicates that the first shot occurred. There is abundant, consistent evidence that the first shot did not miss and was before z202.NO, NO, NO & NO. Here below is what Moore told Sneed.
NO, NO, NO & NO. Here below is what Moore told Sneed.So you prefer Moore's reported recollection 24 years after the events to a writer who wants to establish an early first shot miss - to the statement taken by an FBI officer trained in taking accurate witness statements 6 weeks after the events. Ok fine. But how do you explain Hugh Betzner, Robert Croft, ( after z186, after z161) Phil Willis (before z202) and all the other evidence I referred to that conflicts with his alleged statement to Sneed. Maybe Sneed got it wrong. After all, not only did Moore get the wrong sign in his FBI statement but he imagined JFK moving in response to it...
T.E. Moore Larry Sneed University of North Texas Press Chapter View Citation
Additional Information In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
T.E. MOORE Eyewitness
There was a highway marker sign right in front of the Book Depository, and as the President got around to that, the first shot was fired.
So you prefer Moore's reported recollection 24 years after the events to a writer who wants to establish an early first shot miss - to the statement taken by an FBI officer trained in taking accurate witness statements 6 weeks after the events. Ok fine. But how do you explain Hugh Betzner, Robert Croft, ( after z186, after z161) Phil Willis (before z202) and all the other evidence I referred to that conflicts with his alleged statement to Sneed. Maybe Sneed got it wrong. After all, not only did Moore get the wrong sign in his FBI statement but he imagined JFK moving in response to it...Most of the witness statements were partly or mostly wrong.
The refusal of WC apologists to face cold, hard facts that destroy their version of the shooting goes back to when clear, close-up photos of JFK's tie were finally released and showed no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot. Poof goes the single-bullet theory.All of this is superseded by the Knotts 3D model. The Knotts 3D model solves all such problems. Hail to the Knotts 3D model, for ever & ever amen.
Naturally, JFK's tie knot was centered just about perfectly between his collar. According to the lone-gunman theory, the throat wound was beneath the tie knot (although we've known for years that the wound was actually above the knot). If so, any bullet exiting a wound that was beneath the tie knot would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick one of the edges of the knot before allegedly streaking toward Connally.
No wonder the Justice Department fought so doggedly for so long to suppress the photos of JFK's tie.
It seems that Brehm was the first to recognise the SBT.
Here are 2 pages from Sneed's No More Silence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLpVkPsW-/brehm-p63.png)(https://i.postimg.cc/ry4mQQcW/brehm-p65.png)
The problem with Brehm is he was originally a two shot witness. 6 hours later he acknowledges that the media is reporting there were believed to be three shots and then changes his testimony to incorporate a third shot. He is a perfect example of the WC and HSCA’s reference to medias influence. What you are reading in Sneed’s book is Brehm’s media altered belief in a third shot.Yes. But, re the SBT, Brehm sort of shows that 2 or 3 mistakes can make a "right".
Yes. But, re the SBT, Brehm sort of shows that 2 or 3 mistakes can make a "right".Even after adding an additional shot, he still maintained the second shot was the head shot. Hard to deny SBT with the second shot being the headshot. Interesting he has JFK leaning forward when the first shot occurred.
Even after adding an additional shot, he still maintained the second shot was the head shot. Hard to deny SBT with the second shot being the headshot. Interesting he has JFK leaning forward when the first shot occurred.
Dallas Times Herald 11/22
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
FBI report 11/24
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. ... He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.
Marjan-The trajectory assumptions would be different if this is true. Is JFK leaning forward talking to JBC and this is not seen because of the sign?Yes. From memory (it was so long ago).
Charles Brehm 11/24 FBI Report
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded.
DPD Hargis makes the exact same claim. That JFK was bent forward talking to JBC at the time of the first shot.
"When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look."
"The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him."
"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood.
It seems that Brehm was the first to recognise the SBT.
The problem with Brehm is he was originally a two shot witness. 6 hours later he acknowledges that the media is reporting there were believed to be three shots and then changes his testimony to incorporate a third shot. He is a perfect example of the WC and HSCA’s reference to medias influence. What you are reading in Sneed’s book is Brehm’s media altered belief in a third shot.
You again prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Brehm didn't speculate that JFK and Connally were hit by the same non-fatal bullet until over 20 years after the shooting (in the 1980s). He said nothing about this in his 11/22/63 Dallas Times Herald interview or in his 11/24/63 FBI interview. Not one word.
Brehm never said there were only two shots.
So here you guys are carrying on and on about the SBT and ignoring the fact that the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis has proved that the SBT is impossible.
This is so typical of what you guys do here. You simply ignore facts that refute your version of the shooting, and you post reply after reply as if those facts don't exist.
Anyway, back to Brehm: It is quite curious to see anti-conspiracy proponents citing Charles Brehm, because even his later, altered story refutes any non-conspiracy version of the shooting.
For starters, before Brehm knew what he was supposed to say about the origin of the shots, he told a Dallas Times Herald reporter shortly after the shooting that the shots came from in front or from the side of JFK ("the shots came from in front of or beside the President").
Then, two days later, two FBI agents got ahold of Brehm and claimed that he told them, in their unrecorded interview, that the shots came from one of the two buildings at Elm and Houston, that the first shot wounded JFK, that the second shot was the headshot, and that there was a shot after the headshot.
When Brehm gave a recorded interview in 1988, he declared that all the shots positively came from the TSBD and from nowhere else, and he speculated that JFK and Connally were hit by the same non-fatal bullet, but he still insisted that the second shot was the headshot and that there was a shot after the headshot. He added an important detail about the third shot that he heard: he said the shot flew over him and was close enough that he heard it fly over him, that it had a different sound than the two other shots, and that it "didn't hit anybody":
-------------------------------------------------
The third shot really frightened me! It had a completely different sound to it because it had really passed me, as anybody knows who has been down under targets in the Army or been shot at like I had been many times. You know when a bullet passes over you, the cracking sound it makes, and that bullet had an absolute crack to it. I do believe that that shot was wild. It didn’t hit anybody.
-------------------------------------------------
It is very important that the third shot that Brehm heard passed so closely above him that he heard it go over him. As Brehm said, anyone who has had bullets pass near them knows that sound. I had the same experience during Army live-fire exercises when they would have us low-crawl on the ground and fire bullets a few feet above our heads so we would know what it sounded like to have bullets pass near us. You only hear that sound when a bullet passes near you, whether it's beside you or above you.
The fact that Brehm heard a bullet fly closely above him poses at least two fatal problems for any non-conspiracy version of the shooting.
One, the missed shot that Brehm heard fly nearby over his head could not even remotely have had any chance of hitting the curb near James Tague. Brehm was standing about 10-12 feet to the right of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman and nearly directly in front of the Babushka Lady. If you draw a line from the sixth-floor window through/near Brehm and to the south side of Main Street, you end up at a point on Main Street that is at least 40 feet from the Tague curb strike.
Two, it boggles the mind to imagine how the same sixth-floor gunman who had just hit JFK's head could have so wildly missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his next shot. This miss would have been at least 12 feet to the left of the limousine and several feet above it. To miss the large limo so badly, the limo, not to mention JFK's upper body, would not even have been in the gunman's field of view through the scope (or through the iron sights).
Obviously, it is far more likely, and far more logical, that this miss came from a point behind Brehm, which would explain why his first statement about the shots was that they came from the front or side of JFK, which would have placed the gunman at a point behind Brehm.
Here is Brehm, shortly after the shooting, saying he heard two shots, that JFK was hit with the second. I would think if he heard a third he would have mentioned it? The evidence for me strongly indicates there were three but the argument for two is almost as valid. Why most of the witnesses further down Elm Street said they only heard two is puzzling (Hudson said three shots but he's a shaky witness). Anyway, here is Brehm.
Here is Brehm, shortly after the shooting, saying he heard two shots, that JFK was hit with the second. I would think if he heard a third he would have mentioned it? The evidence for me strongly indicates there were three but the argument for two is almost as valid. Why most of the witnesses further down Elm Street said they only heard two is puzzling (Hudson said three shots but he's a shaky witness). Anyway, here is Brehm.
If you filter out the earwitnesses there are very few three shot witnesses.
Brehm is just the tip of the iceberg. Jackie, SA Greer, Sheriff Decker, Altgens, Zapruder, SA Hill plus 40 or more eyewitnesses are all two shot witness. A large number of witnesses state the second shot was the headshot in various ways. SA Kinney, Jarmin, SA Kellerman and Marilyn Willis for example.
The shell information combined with Josiah Thompson’s observation about all of the 30+ shells he examined that had been fired in the carcano in his book Six Seconds In Dallas, indicate there were only two shots fired. Josiah’s observation along with Hoover’s June 2nd memo to Rankin about the FBI analysis about only two shells CE 544 and CE 545 exhibiting the “chamber mark” leave little doubt as to the number of shots. Even though the FBI does not reference it, CE 141 actually has the ”chamber mark” which can only be explained by the expansion due to the heat of the chamber from having been fired. There is an obvious anomaly in the chamber of the rifle most likely from a reamer during manufacturing. I think Anthony Marsh had it correct that you could probably find the same issue in a number of the rifles produced at the same time.
A two shot assassination leaves little doubt as to Lone Gunman and explains everything. The WC, HSCA, and FBI all knew this was the answer. SBT is the only answer there is.
Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't get a bullet to the Tague curb. The attempts to get a bullet or fragment from the sixth-floor window to the Tague curb are downright farcical, not to mention contradictory.Tague said that he was not struck on the first or third shots and that there were exactly 3 distinct shot sounds. Greer also mentioned a "concussion" effect from the second shot. His right ear was not far from the damaged windshield frame and mirror. So, there is mutually consistent evidence that the damage to the frame and the fragment striking Tague occurred on the second shot. That simply means that the bullet through JBC and wrist fragmented and some struck the windshield and top frame and, at least one other fragment, went a bit higher. If you are wondering what caused the fragments to deflect you only have to look at the wrist wound:
You again prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Brehm didn't speculate that JFK and Connally were hit by the same non-fatal bullet until over 20 years after the shooting (in the 1980s). He said nothing about this in his 11/22/63 Dallas Times Herald interview or in his 11/24/63 FBI interview. Not one word.A bit off topic. But the above raises a few issues that i have never bothered to address until now.
Brehm never said there were only two shots.
So here you guys are carrying on and on about the SBT and ignoring the fact that the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis has proved that the SBT is impossible.
This is so typical of what you guys do here. You simply ignore facts that refute your version of the shooting, and you post reply after reply as if those facts don't exist.
Anyway, back to Brehm: It is quite curious to see anti-conspiracy proponents citing Charles Brehm, because even his later, altered story refutes any non-conspiracy version of the shooting.
For starters, before Brehm knew what he was supposed to say about the origin of the shots, he told a Dallas Times Herald reporter shortly after the shooting that the shots came from in front or from the side of JFK ("the shots came from in front of or beside the President").
Then, two days later, two FBI agents got ahold of Brehm and claimed that he told them, in their unrecorded interview, that the shots came from one of the two buildings at Elm and Houston, that the first shot wounded JFK, that the second shot was the headshot, and that there was a shot after the headshot.
When Brehm gave a recorded interview in 1988, he declared that all the shots positively came from the TSBD and from nowhere else, and he speculated that JFK and Connally were hit by the same non-fatal bullet, but he still insisted that the second shot was the headshot and that there was a shot after the headshot. He added an important detail about the third shot that he heard: he said the shot flew over him and was close enough that he heard it fly over him, that it had a different sound than the two other shots, and that it "didn't hit anybody":
-------------------------------------------------
The third shot really frightened me! It had a completely different sound to it because it had really passed me, as anybody knows who has been down under targets in the Army or been shot at like I had been many times. You know when a bullet passes over you, the cracking sound it makes, and that bullet had an absolute crack to it. I do believe that that shot was wild. It didn’t hit anybody.
-------------------------------------------------
It is very important that the third shot that Brehm heard passed so closely above him that he heard it go over him. As Brehm said, anyone who has had bullets pass near them knows that sound. I had the same experience during Army live-fire exercises when they would have us low-crawl on the ground and fire bullets a few feet above our heads so we would know what it sounded like to have bullets pass near us. You only hear that sound when a bullet passes near you, whether it's beside you or above you.
The fact that Brehm heard a bullet fly closely above him poses at least two fatal problems for any non-conspiracy version of the shooting.
One, the missed shot that Brehm heard fly nearby over his head could not even remotely have had any chance of hitting the curb near James Tague. Brehm was standing about 10-12 feet to the right of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman and nearly directly in front of the Babushka Lady. If you draw a line from the sixth-floor window through/near Brehm and to the south side of Main Street, you end up at a point on Main Street that is at least 40 feet from the Tague curb strike.
Two, it boggles the mind to imagine how the same sixth-floor gunman who had just hit JFK's head could have so wildly missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his next shot. This miss would have been at least 12 feet to the left of the limousine and several feet above it. To miss the large limo so badly, the limo, not to mention JFK's upper body, would not even have been in the gunman's field of view through the scope (or through the iron sights).
Obviously, it is far more likely, and far more logical, that this miss came from a point behind Brehm, which would explain why his first statement about the shots was that they came from the front or side of JFK, which would have placed the gunman at a point behind Brehm.
You really should stop posting until you have done your homework, until you have read some of the scholarly books on the evidence of multiple gunmen.
A two-shot assassination is ludicrous. Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't get a bullet to the Tague curb. The attempts to get a bullet or fragment from the sixth-floor window to the Tague curb are downright farcical, not to mention contradictory.
In addition to the Tague curb strike, we have
-- the Aldredge curb strike
-- the Foster manhole/grass strike
-- the deformed bullet found in the limo in DC, seen and handled by Dr. James Young (and verified by Chief Mills)
-- the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)
-- the large fragment seen by autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer (this may well have been the same slug that Admiral Osborne told the HSCA that he saw at the autopsy, the same slug documented in the FBI-to-Stover receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy--no, I don't buy the tale that the agents called two or three small fragments a "missile"; they knew the difference between a few small fragments and a missile, and Custer and Osborne were not hallucinating).
A three-shot scenario can't explain these extra bullets and misses, much less a two-shot scenario.
You really should stop posting until you have done your homework, until you have read some of the scholarly books on the evidence of multiple gunmen.
Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't...blah blah blah...
The refusal of WC apologists to face cold, hard facts that destroy their version of the shooting goes back to when clear, close-up photos of JFK's tie were finally released and showed no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot. Poof goes the single-bullet theory.
Naturally, JFK's tie knot was centered just about perfectly between his collar. According to the lone-gunman theory, the throat wound was beneath the tie knot (although we've known for years that the wound was actually above the knot). If so, any bullet exiting a wound that was beneath the tie knot would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick one of the edges of the knot before allegedly streaking toward Connally.
No wonder the Justice Department fought so doggedly for so long to suppress the photos of JFK's tie.
(although we've known for years that the wound was actually above the knot)
Tague said that he was not struck on the first or third shots and that there were exactly 3 distinct shot sounds. Greer also mentioned a "concussion" effect from the second shot. His right ear was not far from the damaged windshield frame and mirror. So, there is mutually consistent evidence that the damage to the frame and the fragment striking Tague occurred on the second shot. That simply means that the bullet through JBC and wrist fragmented and some struck the windshield and top frame and, at least one other fragment, went a bit higher. If you are wondering what caused the fragments to deflect you only have to look at the wrist wound:
And, FYI, Tague also said one of the shots came from the grassy knoll.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes.JohnM
So was Brehm just lying when he told the FBI two days later, on 11/24, that he heard a shot after the second-shot headshot? The FBI agents would have had no reason to fabricate that part of his statement.
It is a mighty thin reed to rely on his 11/22 TV interview, when he was clearly in shock, and to infer that he meant that he heard only two shots and no more. He never said "only two shots." A reporter said "two shots," and Brehm answered "two shots." He was almost certainly thinking of the shots that hit JFK and was focused on those two shots. After he had calmed down and was interviewed two days later, he said he heard a third shot but that it came after the headshot, and he never wavered from that.
At least two sets of two shots came very closely together and each of these sets would have sounded like one shot to many people, so it is not a bit surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots. Plus, many people commented that one of the shots sounded very different than the others, and many people probably did not notice this shot, which is another reason that it's not surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots.
You really should stop posting until you have done your homework, until you have read some of the scholarly books on the evidence of multiple gunmen.
A two-shot assassination is ludicrous. Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't get a bullet to the Tague curb. The attempts to get a bullet or fragment from the sixth-floor window to the Tague curb are downright farcical, not to mention contradictory.
In addition to the Tague curb strike, we have
-- the Aldredge curb strike
-- the Foster manhole/grass strike
-- the deformed bullet found in the limo in DC, seen and handled by Dr. James Young (and verified by Chief Mills)
-- the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)
-- the large fragment seen by autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer (this may well have been the same slug that Admiral Osborne told the HSCA that he saw at the autopsy, the same slug documented in the FBI-to-Stover receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy--no, I don't buy the tale that the agents called two or three small fragments a "missile"; they knew the difference between a few small fragments and a missile, and Custer and Osborne were not hallucinating).
A three-shot scenario can't explain these extra bullets and misses, much less a two-shot scenario.
Oh Really?? Hahahaha!
Allowing for slightly differing camera angles, focal length and camera lenses and the fact that Kennedy's autopsy photos show Kennedy with a violently fractured skull and no muscle control, the location of the throat wound is definitely not above the tie knot and in fact perfectly corresponds to the precise location of Kenney's tie knot.
Anyway Griffith, do keep trying because 1 day you may actually get something right, but in the mean time, I absolutely love constantly destroying the Forum Bully! JohnM
You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you? We just saw in your response regarding Tague that you obviously did not know, or perhaps chose to ignore the fact, that Tague initially believed shots came from the grassy knoll, then changed his mind based on newspaper stories and later the Warren Report, and then changed his mind again after he researched the JFK case for himself.
Let me try this: Let me ask you some simple, straightforward questions about the throat wound in reply to your repetition of the claim that it was an exit wound:
-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?
-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?
-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).
-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?
-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?
-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?
-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?
-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?
You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you?
Nicely done John. But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hP5PGjvn/jfk-tie-height.gif)
-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?
-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?
Nicely done John. But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side.That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDxpmy2D/jfk-location-tie-knot-wound.gif)
which generally fits with the break in the tie as shown in CE 395 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0027a.htm)
(https://i.postimg.cc/prBfpXkK/tie-knot.jpg)
The distinguished war surgeon and noted medical author Dr John Lattimer discovered that a tight shirt collar, with its multiple reinforced stitching, kept the exit wound to a small size. Here's a quote from an article that is about exit wounds being contained in general:
"If the area of exit is pressed against a firm object (even a tight
pants waistband), the skin edges will be abraded (or “shored”).
Sometimes, the entrance and exit truly cannot be distinguished"
We all can readily explain your falling for the Knott 3D study because you know little about perspective and line-of-sight analysis.
For over a quarter of a century, you have promoted the claim that the Top-of-the-Head Photo shows the cowlick wound in a place that is actually the vertex area.
That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.
I've already debunked this nonsense in previous replies, but you just keep repeating it. Again, (1) JFK's collar was not tightly gripping his neck but, as everyone would expect, fit comfortably around it--it bore no resemblance to a "tight pants waistband." And, (2) the bullet, even one traveling at just 2200 fps, would have exited the neck before the neck tissue would have had time to expand to press against the comfortably fitting collar.
This is a good example of your practice of repeating arguments that you know have been debunked because they were debunked in replies to you in previous threads.
Why didn't you mention, as I've documented for you in previous replies, that Lattimer was caught red-handed misrepresenting his test data, that Lattimer assumed that the back wound was above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck, that Lattimer royally goofed in reading the skull x-rays, etc.?
Folks, if you want the full story on Lattimer and his fraudulent tests and claims, I suggest you read Dr. Thomas's demolition of Lattimer in his book Hear No Evil. Here's an article written by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Cyril Wecht that deals with some of Lattimer's fraudulent claims (as well as those made by Luis Alvarez, Nicholas Nalli, and the Haags): https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists).
LOL! Well, of course you dismiss the only 3D laser analysis ever done on the SBT because the analysis proves that the SBT is impossible! You peddle Lattimer's quackery but dismiss the Knott Lab 3D laser analysis. You just don't care that Knott Laboratory is a respected and recognized forensic engineering firm that specializes in the digital reconstructions of events. We both know that if the Knott Lab analysis had found that the SBT was possible, you would be hailing Knott Lab's recognized expertise and experience.
Folks, if you are new and are just reading the latest replies in this thread, here are some articles about Knott Lab's recent 3D laser analysis of the SBT that proves the SBT is impossible:
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/ (https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/)
Here's a 24-minute podcast interview with Knott Lab CEO Stanley Stoll in which he explains the Knott 3D laser analysis and shows clips based on the digital reconstruction from the 3D laser data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glUgE9RCwnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glUgE9RCwnw)
You know this is a lie. You know that I have always said that the cowlick site is about 1 inch above the lambda and 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture, exactly where the HSCA FPP and Dr. Riley, among others, placed it. You must be hoping that most readers will not have read our previous exchanges on this issue, and that they will not have seen you grossly misrepresent Dr. Riley's placement of the cowlick site, even though Dr. Riley provided diagrams that place the wound exactly where the HSCA FPP did.
I'm guessing you're also hoping that readers will be unaware that in one exchange you argued that the cerebellum is part of the right cerebrum,
or that you falsely claimed that Dr. McDonnel said the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, proving that you really have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case.
LOL! Is this supposed to be a joke?! That "break" is where the Parkland nurses cut the tie to remove it! Sheesh, are you kidding? Have you read nothing but pro-WC propaganda on this issue? You might start with Harold Weisberg's research on the matter--he was the one who finally obtained high-quality photos of the tie and shirt. He also examined the tie at the National Archives and interviewed Dr. Carrico.
LOL! Anything "debunked" by you isn't debunked at all.
The back wound was above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck.
I don't dismiss the Knott Lab 3D SBT study because it "proves that the SBT is impossible". I dismiss it because the placement of the figures in their Z225 frame recreation is way off.
Reader, go to https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 and see where Griffith refers to the "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I also show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum as that is what is damaged in the drawing. Why would I claim the cerebellum was damaged?
The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?
Griffith is a Mormon. They must believe in bearing false witness because he practices it nonstop.
I said the frontal bone per se wasn't missing, not that some small pieces along the posterior edge weren't missing.
Monte Evans' fine review of High Treason 2 omitted more than one annoying error. Among them: Livingstone's charge of missing frontal bone in the x-rays. . . .
Of course, the "missing" frontal bone is nothing more than normal luminosity. . . . Dr. McDonnel reported the frontal bone present (1 HSCA 205). (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
Pat Speer thinks the dark area where frontal bone would be in the lateral Xray doesn't mean all that area is missing.
Griffith believes nurses at Parkland were using sharp-pointed scalpels to remove clothing. How dumb is that? Maybe Mormons aren't allowed to have scissors.
I would be interested in your list of the errors that you have found in the Knott model. If you have a problem with their placement of JFK and JBC you should be able to explain the problem.
We all can readily explain your falling for the Knott 3D study because you know little about perspective and line-of-sight analysis.
I would be interested in your list of the errors that you have found in the Knott model. If you have a problem with their placement of JFK and JBC you should be able to explain the problem.
Knott Laboratory concluded that the path through JFK at z223 cannot strike JBC anywhere close to his right armpit. They say that the straight line path through JFK's midline goes 6 inches to the left of JBC's armpit.
Now we know that it did not strike him 6 inches left of the right armpit. My point has been that z223 is not where the JFK neck shot occurred. There is a lot of evidence that it was the first shot and that the first shot was just before z202 - likely z190-195, at which time JBC was turned to the right:
and the right to left angle from the SN to the car direction was 15 degrees:
At that angle, a shot through JFK exiting on the left side of hit tie knot about 1 cm left of his midline, will travel 6.4 inches or 16.3 cm farther left over the 24 inch distance between JFK's throat exit wound and the plane of Gov. Connally's seatback (24tan(15)=6.43). The photographic experts at Itek working for the HSCA concluded that JBC may have been inside JFK anywhere 10.2 to 20.3 cm (4-8 inches) (6 HSCA 49 - footnote (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028a.htm)). The distance from JBC's midline to his right armpit entry wound was 20 cm (6 HSCA 48 - figure II-18 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0027b.htm)). All I am saying is that this still puts the bullet through JFK anywhere from 6.1 cm left of JBC's midline to 4 cm to the right of his midline when it crossed the plane of JBC's seatback. That is 16 cm to 26.1 cm left of his right armpit entry wound.
So in the best case scenario for the SBT at z193, the bullet passes 16 cm left of JBC's right armpit entry wound and it could have been up to 26.1 cm left of the actual wound.
With JBC turned to the right as he is at that point, this does two things: It moves the left side of his back farther away from the seatback, allowing he bullet to travel even farther to the left. It also reduces the effective width of his back for the bullet to strike.
I would be interested in your list of the errors that you have found in the Knott model. If you have a problem with their placement of JFK and JBC you should be able to explain the problem.
Knott Laboratory concluded that the path through JFK at z223 cannot strike JBC anywhere close to his right armpit.
They say that the straight line path through JFK's midline goes 6 inches to the left of JBC's armpit.
Now we know that it did not strike him 6 inches left of the right armpit. My point has been that z223 is not where the JFK neck shot occurred. There is a lot of evidence that it was the first shot and that the first shot was just before z202 - likely z190-195, at which time JBC was turned to the right:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y94w1fTQ/JFK-z193.gif)
and the right to left angle from the SN to the car direction was 15 degrees:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdDTKkH3/z193-positions.jpg)
At that angle, a shot through JFK exiting on the left side of hit tie knot about 1 cm left of his midline, will travel 6.4 inches or 16.3 cm farther left over the 24 inch distance between JFK's throat exit wound and the plane of Gov. Connally's seatback (24tan(15)=6.43). The photographic experts at Itek working for the HSCA concluded that JBC may have been inside JFK anywhere 10.2 to 20.3 cm (4-8 inches) (6 HSCA 49 - footnote (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028a.htm)). The distance from JBC's midline to his right armpit entry wound was 20 cm (6 HSCA 48 - figure II-18 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0027b.htm)). All I am saying is that this still puts the bullet through JFK anywhere from 6.1 cm left of JBC's midline to 4 cm to the right of his midline when it crossed the plane of JBC's seatback. That is 16 cm to 26.1 cm left of his right armpit entry wound.
So in the best case scenario for the SBT at z193, the bullet passes 16 cm left of JBC's right armpit entry wound and it could have been up to 26.1 cm left of the actual wound.
With JBC turned to the right as he is at that point, this does two things: It moves the left side of his back farther away from the seatback, allowing he bullet to travel even farther to the left. It also reduces the effective width of his back for the bullet to strike.
The Knott Laboratory digital illustration of trajectory alignment at Zapruder frame 225 is misleading and requires rectification to portray a more accurate representation of events. The green line entry point is at JFK's midline, not at the actual bullet wound entry location, which was approximately 3-4 centimetres to the right of his spine. Also, the green line exit location appears to be imprecisely placed further to the left of the actual location of the throat exit wound.
Therefore, when Knott Laboratory uses Zapruder frame 225 as the time of the second shot—instead of the actual bullet strike at Zapruder frame 224—a correction to their placement of wound entry and exit locations to the precise locations at this frame (225) would place the green trajectory line at a different angle, and align more accurately with the entry wound near Governor Connally's right armpit.
The change in the President and Governor Connally's positions relative to each other between Zapruder frames 224 and 225 are so minuscule that it is almost negligible. There will be a slight difference in trajectory alignments to the sixth-floor window between these two frames.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFS9dxTH/Don-Knotts-lab-sbf.gif)What is the basis for that claim, Jerry? Here is what Knott shows as the trajectory at z225:
(John Mytton)
That Griffith and you are on the same page in not seeing the mismatches of the Knott 3D frame superimposed on Z225 is telling.
That is helped when they have the bullet enter JFK's back at (or maybe a bit left of) the mid-line and exit the left chest. Their study doesn't have the bullet exit at Kennedy's throat mid-line. That fix alone would gain six inches lateral.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f8/31/6YRmIurW_o.jpg)Thanks Jerry. I am always impressed with your graphics skills. But I would be more impressed with your points if you acknowledged the error range in your assumptions. For example, you have JFK's elbow completely outside the car and his rib cage pressed against the side of the car. There has to be an error range associated with that position. Also, you are making assumptions about the distance from JFK's rib cage to his spine, and the width of JBC's back. You are also using a downward angle of exactly 18 degrees. That is based on the height of the SN above the entry wound and the horizontal distance from the rifle to the entry wound as well as the exact angle that the car is to the horizontal. There are all error ranges in those figures.
Not to worry. Those good folks at Don Knotts Lab will get your theory to work.
What is the basis for that claim, Jerry? Here is what Knott shows as the trajectory at z225:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5fW4KhP/knott-path-z225.jpg)
Thanks Jerry. I am always impressed with your graphics skills. But I would be more impressed with your points if you acknowledged the error range in your assumptions. For example, you have JFK's elbow completely outside the car and his rib cage pressed against the side of the car.
There has to be an error range associated with that position. Also, you are making assumptions about the distance from JFK's rib cage to his spine, and the width of JBC's back. You are also using a downward angle of exactly 18 degrees. That is based on the height of the SN above the entry wound and the horizontal distance from the rifle to the entry wound as well as the exact angle that the car is to the horizontal. There are all error ranges in those figures.
Also:
1. you have the jump seat inside the car by 6 inches. The Hess & Eisenhardt drawings show 2.5 inches. Simple measurement on an actual photo from CE874 (allowing a generous amount for the space between the seat edge and door) shows that the space between the door and right edge of the jump seat shows that the space is between 15 and 18% of the seat width, which was 20.5 inches wide according to H&E. That works out to 3.1 to 3.7 inches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTNntp8Y/Limo-CE874-cropped-measure.jpg)
2. you have JBC's left leg out to the side but not with his knee very high. The jump seat was on the floor and the knees had to be well above the seat:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kD3hdMY7/men-in-car-side-open.jpg)
Taking all those errors and error ranges into account, the bullet through JFK goes close to the left thigh. Keep in mind that the bullet was almost certainly tumbling after exiting JFK's neck. Even if the trajectory was to the left edge of JBC's back, a tumbling bullet striking very obliquely on the turned back might have grazed the back of his suit but not penetrated. It would be interesting to see what a close examination of the back of the jacket might show....
The animated gif by JohnM that I posted shows the Knott Lab trajectory exiting the President's left chest (I have also step-paused the video to confirm this).Knott has placed JBC where he appears to be from their analysis of the zfilm. That is the JBC on the right. The position of JBC that makes the SBT work is the JBC on the left. I agree that on the z225 frame the green line trajectory is about an inch or so too far left. So move the left side JBC an inch or so to the right. He is still sitting on the drive shaft! That, incidentally, is where Thomas Canning had placed him for the SBT to work. Are you suggesting that he was sitting that far left?
(https://knottlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Connally-Shift-Z225.jpg)
The alternative-angle still just posted by Paul McBrearty shows their (or CT John Orr's) trajectory entered well over on the left side of Kennedy. I could be wrong, but the President's head seems unnaturally over to the left, as well.
The tip of his elbow extends over the car. I see nothing wrong with that; my guide is the Zapruder film. I don't think I have ever had JFK's "rib cage pressed against the side of the car" in any model. Certainly not in this model, which has a decent match for JFK to his position in Z193.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/8a/36/4c44yh2O_o.jpg)If your jump seat is as you have shown now at 2.5 inches, I apologize - my mistake. One thing you have to keep in mind, however, is that the distance between JFK's neck exit wound and the plane of the seat back is on a downward path. I measured it to be 24.5 inches on my model:
This is another of your long-running charges against me, and again with no merit.
Just looking at the positions at z195. Nothing imaginary about that. The fact is that we do not have direct evidence of what the bullet (CE399) struck after it exited JFK's neck and grazed his tie knot.
His leg is comfortably high. That can be adjusted but you have to first get the bullet pass Connally's left torso. Oh yeah, what about how poorly "Mason Theory" Connally is away from matching the Governor's true position in the Zapruder film?
"Grazed the back of his suit but not penetrated". You're beginning to sound like Griffith and his imaginary "missile path" through the corpus callosum and Top-of-the-Head claim that the cowlick wound is visible where the vertex area actually is.
-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie knot? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?
Myers Vs. Don Knotts.Except that Myers refuses to show us:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2BYs10b/Myers-vs-don-knotts.jpg)
Connally's position as the Limo entered Houston and compare Don Knott's original Connally location which is virtually in front of Kennedy with Dale Myers much closer to reality position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsxPMJwh/muchmore-connally-enter-houston.jpg)
Also note how Don Knotts Lab has Connally's head too far forward, so that in their matching of Connally's head into Zapruder Z225, they could fraudulently place their Connally model further to the right!
...
JFK back wound was further to the right than Don Knott lab's guess and Myer's nailed it.
For a change, here's the Zapruder film reversed and Connally and Kennedy are both reacting simultaneously.They do not begin reacting at the same time, but they are reacting at the same time. The question, however, is: what is JBC reacting to? The sound of the first shot (which he said he recognized as a rifle shot and feared and assassination occurring so he turned around to check on JFK) or being hit in the back by it? How can you tell it is the latter?
I am not sure why you think a professional, obviously well equipped and capable lab would compromise their professional integrity to please a client. Orr's original 1995 report can be downloaded from the link in the first comment on this youtube page (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkgmOB924s).
And lastly, don't forget that Don Knott's had to satisfy their paying client, John Orr.
Knott Laboratory was hired by John Orr....
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-laboratory-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
Except that Myers refuses to show us:
1. How far he places JBC's jumpseat from the inside of the door to JBC"s right.
2. The angle from the trajectory from the SN to the car direction at the time of the shot through JFK's neck
3. the view of the exact same position of the two men as seen from Zapruder's position.
Knott does all of this and provides the details. When Myers does the same, we can make a fair comparison.
Abraham Zapruders' involuntary startle response to the sound of a gunshot at z224 is evident by the sudden film blur at z227.Here is my jiggle analysis of the Zapruder footage, for the record.
Except that Myers refuses to show us:
1. How far he places JBC's jumpseat from the inside of the door to JBC"s right.
2. The angle from the trajectory from the SN to the car direction at the time of the shot through JFK's neck
3. the view of the exact same position of the two men as seen from Zapruder's position.
Knott does all of this and provides the details. When Myers does the same, we can make a fair comparison.
They do not begin reacting at the same time, but they are reacting at the same time. The question, however, is: what is JBC reacting to? The sound of the first shot (which he said he recognized as a rifle shot and feared and assassination occurring so he turned around to check on JFK) or being hit in the back by it? How can you tell it is the latter?I am not sure why you think a professional, obviously well equipped and capable lab would compromise their professional integrity to please a client. Orr's original 1995 report can be downloaded from the link in the first comment on this youtube page (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkgmOB924s).
1. How far he places JBC's jumpseat from the inside of the door to JBC"s right.
2. The angle from the trajectory from the SN to the car direction at the time of the shot through JFK's neck
3. the view of the exact same position of the two men as seen from Zapruder's position.
They do not begin reacting at the same time, but they are reacting at the same time. The question, however, is: what is JBC reacting to? The sound of the first shot (which he said he recognized as a rifle shot and feared and assassination occurring so he turned around to check on JFK) or being hit in the back by it? How can you tell it is the latter?
I am not sure why you think a professional, obviously well equipped and capable lab would compromise their professional integrity to please a client.
And lastly, the paying client by definition must be satisfied, for instance how many defence lawyers have defended an obviously guilty man, the OJ case instantly springs to mind.OJ did not stab anybody.
JohnM
OJ did not stab anybody.
You're probably right................ At 5 pm, Kardashian and one of his defense lawyers read Simpson's public letter.[87][90][91]
The fact that OJ denied owning the "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes was just a case of a bad memory?
The fact that OJ had a badly cut hand which dripped out blood as he walked away from the murdered bodies was just a coincidence?
The fact that there was blood in OJ's Bronco which matched Ron and Nicole was from another time?
The relatively rare glove which Nicole bought for OJ and was found at OJ's property and had the blood of Simpson, Nicole and Ron was another coincidence?
The other glove being at the crime scene was just bad luck?
OJ holding a gun to his head and the suicide note was possibly the actions of a heart broken man?
OJ had his passport, $9,000 in cash and a fake goatee and moustache in his possession, because he wanted after the death of his ex wife, to go on holiday?
OJ beating his wife for over a decade and clubbing her car with a baseball bat was just family problems?
Etc., etc., etc...
So yeah if all of this evidence isn't right, then I suppose it's possible that OJ didn't stab anybody.
JohnM
............... At 5 pm, Kardashian and one of his defense lawyers read Simpson's public letter.[87][90][91]
In the letter, Simpson sent greetings to 24 friends and wrote,
"First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder".
I believe Simpson. Simpson did not stab anyone.
Here is a clue........ the stabbings were done by Simpson.
U might be able to work it out from there. I did. And i spent only a few days on the mystery.
I should not have implied that i worked it out. I didnt. It had been worked out by someone else, & i simply found him & his theory.
Its not like the jfk accidental homicide, where i (me, myself) did work out some of the answers.
But apparently my good fortune in finding that-there someone else & his theory (back to Simpson here) has eluded people like yourself.
Simpson was/is innocent. Simpson did it.
.................Bodziak also testified today that a number of bloody impressions photographed by Lee on the walkway on June 25 and identified by the criminalist as footprints were taken 12 days after crime-scene barriers had been removed and after numerous people had walked through the area. Those footprints, the FBI agent said, are not in photographs taken by the police the day after the murders.
And so it goes.
.................................... SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- After failing in a last-minute bid to delay O.J. Simpson's testimony, defense attorneys suggested yesterday there are 23 "mystery" footprints at the crime scene.
Mr. Simpson's attorneys cross-examined FBI shoe expert William Bodziak, getting him to admit that he couldn't identify all prints at the scene as being Bruno Maglis -- the type of shoe whose prints have been identified at the scene -- and that he could not prove Mr. Simpson owned a pair of the shoes.
Mr. Bodziak testified Wednesday that he matched bloody footprints around the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman with the type of Bruno Magli shoes Mr. Simpson was wearing in a picture.
But defense lawyers yesterday said not all prints belonged to the shoes.
"There were 23 footprints you couldn't associate with Bruno Magli shoes?" attorney Phil Baker asked.
"That's correct," Mr. Bodziak said.
"And you believe the assailant stepped in blood around Nicole Brown Simpson?" Mr. Baker asked.
"Yes," Bodziak said.
Mr. Bodziak, an FBI agent who has done FBI shoe analysis since 1970, said he based his conclusions on examinations of photos sent to him first by the prosecution in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial and later by plaintiffs in Mr. Simpson's civil trial. He acknowledged his analysis is only as good as the photographs he gets.
Here is a clue........ the stabbings were done by Simpson.
The fact that Brehm heard a bullet fly closely above him poses at least two fatal problems for any non-conspiracy version of the shooting.Not if Oswald was taking shots at the same time as the conspirator's hired sniper(s). Thus, Oswald was either part of the conspiracy or had nothing to do with it at all.
That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.
Ok, I've narrowed it down to either Bart or Homer, can you give me some more clues?Yes, Simpson jnr.
Now seriously, you are probably alluding to Simpson's son, Jason?
But I can't find any compelling reason to believe that Jason had any reason to Kill Nicole and Ron, whereas OJ who I believed never stopped "loving" or at least wanted to continually control Nicole would have gone ballistic when he saw Ron with Nicole and a crime of passion is much more likely for the volatile OJ.
The nuts and bolts are, the evidence of the cut hand and the corresponding blood drops, OJ's gloves, the lies about the shoes, the suicide note, the gun to the head, the blood in the Bronco, the blood on the socks, etc., etc., are all powerful evidence which finally found OJ guilty at the Civil trial.
JohnM
Not necessarily. I imagine that the tie was cut off next to the tie knot, while Kennedy was on the slab at Parkland.I was only joshing. I thort it would be obvious that i was joshing.
I'll let the man himself explain.It doesn't matter if you have the correct position of JBC in the car AND if you have an accurate model of the limousine. Myers has neither. This is Myers' overhead view of his model limousine. (https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm):
Charge: Myers misplaces Connally’s jumpseat in order to ensure the alignment of the single bullet theory.
Truth: The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of any trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the single bullet theory.
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=speers
And lastly, the paying client by definition must be satisfied, for instance how many defence lawyers have defended an obviously guilty man, the OJ case instantly springs to mind.A defence lawyer does not give evidence. They are duty bound to defend a client and give the client the benefit of all defences that the evidence and the law permits. They cannot mislead the court and lead evidence that they know to be false. In any event, the purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not to determine what likely happened.
JohnM
I was only joshing. I thort it would be obvious that i was joshing.
Charge: Myers misplaces Connally’s jumpseat in order to ensure the alignment of the single bullet theory.
Truth: The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of any trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the single bullet theory.
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=speers
No previous SBT reconstruction compares to the recent and historic Knott Lab reconstruction because the Knott reconstruction used a "digital twin" of Dealey Plaza that was based on over 851 million data points collected during 36 laser scans done in Dealey Plaza. The Knott Lab reconstruction proves once and for all that the SBT is simply impossible.
Folks, the SBT is dead, dead, dead. It died when the Zapruder film was released in 1975 and we saw that JFK was clearly, obviously, undeniably hit long before Z224. Another nail was pounded in the SBT's coffin when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear photos of JFK's tie and shirt. And the Knott Lab 3D-laser SBT reconstruction puts several more nails in the SBT's coffin and wraps a steel band around the coffin. It's dead.
Free your minds and join the 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world who have long since rejected the lone-gunman theory.
No previous SBT reconstruction compares to the recent and historic Knott Lab reconstruction because the Knott reconstruction used a "digital twin" of Dealey Plaza that was based on over 851 million data points collected during 36 laser scans done in Dealey Plaza. The Knott Lab reconstruction proves once and for all that the SBT is simply impossible.
Folks, the SBT is dead, dead, dead. It died when the Zapruder film was released in 1975 and we saw that JFK was clearly, obviously, undeniably hit long before Z224. Another nail was pounded in the SBT's coffin when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear photos of JFK's tie and shirt. And the Knott Lab 3D-laser SBT reconstruction puts several more nails in the SBT's coffin and wraps a steel band around the coffin. It's dead.
Free your minds and join the 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world who have long since rejected the lone-gunman theory.
No previous SBT reconstruction compares to the recent and historic Knott Lab reconstruction because the Knott reconstruction used a "digital twin" of Dealey Plaza that was based on over 851 million data points collected during 36 laser scans done in Dealey Plaza. The Knott Lab reconstruction proves once and for all that the SBT is simply impossible.Why do you conclude that the SBT demise leads to the conclusion that Oswald didn't act alone?
Folks, the SBT is dead, dead, dead. It died when the Zapruder film was released in 1975 and we saw that JFK was clearly, obviously, undeniably hit long before Z224. Another nail was pounded in the SBT's coffin when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear photos of JFK's tie and shirt. And the Knott Lab 3D-laser SBT reconstruction puts several more nails in the SBT's coffin and wraps a steel band around the coffin. It's dead.
Free your minds and join the 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world who have long since rejected the lone-gunman theory.
It goes to JBC's left side. Where was he hit on the left side? Do the wound characteristics fit that of CE399 hitting the thigh backwards giving the impression to Dr. Gregory that the thigh wound "was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile" (4 H 128)? Does the single dent on the base of the femur fit a bullet striking the femur on a tangent as Dr. Shires observed and depositing a bit of lead in the femur as the x-rays showed?
Where does the trajectory for JBC’s wounds lead? Where is their explanation for the trajectory and the fact there is only evidence of two bullets. They had the red line going somewhere so why not explain it?
Knotts did not accomplish a thing. When you view the explanation that surrounds the video it is clear their explanation leaves a lot of room for error and questions.
The position of LHO in the window is important, but even then, their animation and explanation as to where JBC was in the car still has the level of JBC’s wound lining up with JFK’s wounds from the 6th floor window and JBC is still struck in the back no matter where they positioned him.
Where does the trajectory for JBC’s wounds lead? Where is their explanation for the trajectory and the fact there is only evidence of two bullets. They had the red line going somewhere so why not explain it?
All they have done is create a cartoon, by their own admission, that proves that the shot came from the 6th floor window. If this is the sum total of their capabilities to understand bullet trajectories and the things that influence trajectories, I am surprised they are consulted for forensic work.
Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE is used to determine the Trajectory of a Bullet(s). That is the sum goal of this SCIENCE. It is not Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason, or Ben Matlock.
It goes to JBC's left side. Where was he hit on the left side? Do the wound characteristics fit that of CE399 hitting the thigh backwards giving the impression to Dr. Gregory that the thigh wound "was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile" (4 H 128)? Does the single dent on the base of the femur fit a bullet striking the femur on a tangent as Dr. Shires observed and depositing a bit of lead in the femur as the x-rays showed?
It goes to JBC's left side. Where was he hit on the left side? Do the wound characteristics fit that of CE399 hitting the thigh backwards giving the impression to Dr. Gregory that the thigh wound "was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile" (4 H 128)? Does the single dent on the base of the femur fit a bullet striking the femur on a tangent as Dr. Shires observed and depositing a bit of lead in the femur as the x-rays showed?
Knotts Lab is not anything, but Science? Really? That is funny. This could have been done with an old survey transit. Knotts worked backwards from the wounds to the middle of the 6th floor window. They estimated the wounds on JFK and Connally then drew a line back to the window. The green line ends where? In the center of the double window? No one is depicted in the window holding a rifle. No one at all. That should be your first clue.
They are drawing lines and stating there was a different trajectory from Connally's wounds, and they don't think people would be curious as to where he is insinuating the shot came from? He actually completely distances himself from the question when it was asked. He doesn't want to get into the discussion about was there a second shooter. Yet look at what he has stated.
Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE is routinely admitted/used in courtrooms across the country to PROVE bullet trajectories. This same SCIENCE Proved the "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed!
Ohh Goodie goodie, Royell's back with the same old rubber stamp, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and on to infinity and beyond!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fT9skjtN/junk-rubber-tamp.gif)
JohnM
Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE is routinely admitted/used in courtrooms across the country to PROVE bullet trajectories. This same SCIENCE Proved the "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed![/b]
This is what happens when your entire case sits atop a foundation based onna THEORY. A "House Of Cards". And now, with SCIENCE destroying the SBT, everything is crashing DOWN around you. You guys earned this still unfolding debacle. (Rob Reiner and RFK Jr being the ramrods)
The Laser 360 SCIENCE is employed on all applications. There were several interviews done which directly addressed the Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE" conclusion. Some were longer and more detailed than others. Maybe you viewed a "Reader's Digest" version? Knott Labs is currently working on the other JFK Assassination bullet trajectories and their location(s). Stay Tuned.....................
You see what we see in the video. You have heard Mr. Stolls explanation. In the absence of anyone else and the fact you are promoting the video and belief in it here, Royell it is time for you to step up to the plate and explain the discrepancies in the video that are obvious to all. Where is Mr Orr who originally requested the work be done? The original request was placed in 2018 and it just shows up now?
Dr. Peters' recalls "bullet fragments taken from his thigh".It would help to provide a cite for that. I gather this is from the 1998 AARB hearings. Dr. Peters can say anything he wants but the fact is that there was no fragment taken from JBC's thigh. The front and lateral x-rays show one fragment - the same fragment in the same location within the femur image.
MR. GUNN: Did anyone else have an experience of that sort with Mr. Specter or with -
DR. PETERS: I'd like to ask a question about that. Now, as we've constructed it many times over the years, the first bullet that was fired was supposed to have missed. The second bullet went through the President and Governor Connally, and the third bullet hit President Kennedy in the skull. That's the way I think it's been explained to us over the years. Now, like Ron, I had never heard about this other bullet. There's been a lot written about the so-called pristine bullet and the -- Dr. Lattimer and the FBI fired bullets into 15 feet of pine board showing there was almost no deformity. And if you laid the pristine bullet on a flat surface such as this, It would roll irregularity showing it was only a little deformed. And I understood that the amount of lead missing from it actually equaled the calculated weight of lead from -- measured from President Kennedy's X rays, Governor Connally's arm, and the bullet fragments taken from his thigh, suggesting that it was indeed the same bullet that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally but -
Dr. Gregory testified that the fragment was just beneath the skin and that says "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged.."All very interesting but Dr. Gregory did not operate on the thigh. He operated on the wrist. Dr. Shires debrided the thigh wound down to the region of the femur and found no lead. A post-op x-ray would have been interesting but no postop xray of the thigh appears in the record as far as I can see. I would be surprised if such an xray would not still show the same lead fragment in the femur. If it was just below the skin one would expect that it would have been removed or at least been moved by Dr. Shires but no fragment was ever found. Dr. Shires maintained to the WC and HSCA that the fragment was in the femur. This is from the HSCA report on the 1978 interview with Dr. Shires, 7 HSCA 335:
Dr. GREGORY - Careful examination of this set of X-rays illustrated or demonstrates, I should say, a number of artificial lines, this is one and there is one. These lines I think represent rather hurried development of these films for they were taken under emergency conditions. They were intended simply to let us know if there was another missile in the Governor's limb where it might be located.
The only missile turned up is the same one seen in the original film which lies directly opposite the area indicated as the site of the missile wound or the wound in the thigh, but a fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?
Dr. GREGORY - This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts, not much more than that.
Mr. SPECTER - Could that fragment, in your opinion, have caused the wound which you observed in the Governor's left thigh?
Dr. GREGORY - I do not believe it could have. The nature of the wound in the left thigh was such that so small a fragment as this would not have produced it and still have gone no further into the soft tissues than it did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of the left thigh be consistent with having been made by a bullet such as that identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Dr. GREGORY - I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing.
I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather.
Mr. SPECTER - Had the missile gone through his wrist in reverse, would it likely have Continued in that same course until it reached his thigh, in your opinion?
Dr. GREGORY - The missile that struck his wrist had sufficient energy left after it passed through the radius to emerge from the soft tissues on the under surface of the skin. It could have had enough to partially enter his thigh, but not completely.
Mr. SPECTER - In the way which his thigh was wounded?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe so; yes.
Dr. Shires says that based on the Xray he believed the fragment was in the Femur, yet says that there was "very little soft tissue damage, less than one would expect", which in my opinion is consistent with Dr. Gregory's assessment of the bullet being just beneath the surface.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe as to the wound on the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES - The wound on the thigh was a peculiar one. There was a 1 cm. punctate missile wound over the junction of the middle and lower third of the leg and the medial aspect of the, thigh. The peculiarity came in that the X-rays of the left leg showed only a very small 1 mm. bullet fragment imbedded in the femur of' the left leg. Upon exploration of this wound, the other peculiarity was that there was very little soft tissue damage, less than one would expect from an entrance wound of a centimeter in diameter, which was seen on the skin. So, it appeared, therefore, that the skin wound was either a tangential wound or that a larger .fragment had penetrated or stopped in the skin and had subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound.
Dr. Shaw recalls being told by Dr. Shire and Dr. Gregory "that that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg" and Dr. Gregory who was present at this part of Dr. Shaw's testimony agreed.
Mr. SPECTER - Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?
Dr. SHAW - Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and----
Dr. GREGORY - I will say yes.
Connally's two dimensional Xray could have the lead fragment from CE399 at any depth, meaning that it was not necessarily embedded in the Femur. And again in my opinion, if CE399 inserted itself all the way into the bone, then just falling out wouldn't be that possible!
Think about what was stated, outside of the context of your theory.Ok. I have thought about it. What do you want me to do now?
About us
Knott Laboratory provides forensic engineering and visualization services in structural, civil and mechanical engineering. With every project, our goal is to provide you with accurate, clear answers. Our diverse team of engineers, accident reconstruction, and visualization experts cover a vast range of services from vehicle accidents to foundation inspection to fire origin and cause. The Knott Lab team has extensive courtroom experience in both federal and state courts and are able to clearly explain complex concepts to judges and jurors. We take cases throughout the country, but have locations in Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Grand Junction, Durango, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta. We specialize in: Accident reconstruction and analysis - cars, trucks, motorcycles, tractor-trailers, ATVs, trains, buses, and commercial vehicles Digital Media Forensics - critical incident scene reconstruction & analysis Product design and defects - balers, forklifts, woodchippers, cranes, trailer jacks Construction defects Construction and mechanical equipment failures Fire and explosion cause and origin Insurance claims - residential and commercial Building collapse Moisture intrusion.
Firearms and/or bullet trajectories are not even referenced.
Knott Laboratory utilized many of the latest forensic technologies in order to reconstruct the events that occurred during a shooting incident in which a police officer fatally shot a fellow police officer.
One of the tools used was 3D, high definition laser scanning to capture the entire scene of the shooting, including evidence marks left by 6 bullets fired by the defendant. The accuracy of the laser scans ( of less than 3/32”) allowed Knott Laboratory to perform a very accurate bullet trajectory analysis and to determine the positions of both officers at the time the fatal shot was fired. Other technologies used include, matchmoving police video footage from camera mounted on a police helicopter, motion capture, 3D interactive virtual environment and Virtual Reality display systems.
So you are Now putting an Egg Timer on SCIENCE/The Truth? Please consider the history of DNA amidst ALL of your whining.
Ok. I have thought about it. What do you want me to do now?
Knott Laboratory does have experience in the field of forensic animation.
Knott Laboratory Reconstruction of Police Shooting Case Settled:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/knott-laboratory-reconstruction-police-shooting-case-ziernicki
This is comparable to the issues of the JFK Assassination? There was a total of two people involved at a distance of roughly 10 feet. More than likely mistaken identity at night.
Hopefully realize how wrong you are and clue in.I am not sure what you mean by "clue in". Do you want me to follow your view and ignore all the evidence not only of the number of shots (3) but also the pattern to conclude that there were only two shots? It seems to me that I am not the one who needs to "clue in".
HUH. Your reply is Egg timer and DNA? Good thinking.If one corrects for the "obvious problems" with the trajectory by moving the path through JFK even 2 inches to the right, one still has to have JBC sitting on the drive shaft so that his right armpit aligns with the bullet leaving JFK's throat. It is obvious to me that having JBC sitting on the drive shaft and not in the middle of his seat as he actually was would create a much bigger "obvious problem". There may be errors. But even generous correction in favour of the SBT still shows that the SBT trajectory does not strike JBC in the right armpit. This tells us two things: 1. the SBT is wrong and 2. the shot through JFK did not occur at z210 or z225. Rather, it must have occurred when a the straight line path through JFK's neck wound missed JBC's back entirely.
Interesting that this is your complete understanding of the video and the obvious problems with the video.
If one corrects for the "obvious problems" with the trajectory by moving the path through JFK even 2 inches to the right, one still has to have JBC sitting on the drive shaft so that his right armpit aligns with the bullet leaving JFK's throat. It is obvious to me that having JBC sitting on the drive shaft and not in the middle of his seat as he actually was would create a much bigger "obvious problem". There may be errors. But even generous correction in favour of the SBT still shows that the SBT trajectory does not strike JBC in the right armpit. This tells us two things: 1. the SBT is wrong and 2. the shot through JFK did not occur at z210 or z225. Rather, it must have occurred when a the straight line path through JFK's neck wound missed JBC's back entirely.
Just keep your shorts on and wait for Knott Labs to trace the actual bullet trajectories. Knott Labs has thus far only used SCIENCE to DQ the SBT. Much like Maury Povich declaring, "You are NOT the father". Or law enforcement ruling someone OUT as being a suspect. Give SCIENCE the time needed to provide the bullet trajectories.The bullet trajectories are determined by evidence. Science will not tell us when the shots occurred. Science can only assist in interpreting the evidence.
Witness evidence & reaction evidence tells us that Oswald's shot-1 happened well before Z133.Bump. I see that this thread is once again being taken over by silly members who are fixated on the 7 inshoots/outshoots (& the Carcano) all being exactly on a silly long dead straight line.
I thort that Knotts (reckoned that they) showed that shot-2 after passing throo jfk would have hit Connally near his spine unless Connally was moved further left by about 10 inches.
Re the SBT having or needing a straight line, i think that it is undeniable that a dogleg or double dogleg in the SB trajectory must help the SBT.
And i am thinking that that dogleg might have been as much as say 10 deg in 10 inches, & then say 12 deg in 12 inches, making a possible total of say 22 deg in 22 inches.
We would need to use 2 blocks of jelly to do such a test, or dozens of tests, to see the possible ranges of resulting doglegs.
For example a 10 inch block of jelly separated by say 30 inches of air from a 12 inch block of jelly would probably give a greater range of resulting doglegs than a single 22 inch block of jelly.
I suppose that both blocks of jelly should have some bone in there somewhere.
So it all seems to come down to the assumptions made by Myers and the Knott crew, about what were the actual body positions at the time of the back-to-neck shot (and if the bullet deviated in its path as it passed through JFK).There is no possibility of the bullet changing direction materially after passing through JFK. It comes down to: 1. determining when the shot through JFK's neck may have occurred, according to the evidence, 2. what the actual position and direction of the car was at those times and what the body positions of the two men were at those times as determined from the evidence and 3. what the straight line trajectory of a shot from the SN through JFK's neck would have struck after leaving JFK, using an accurate 3D model of Dealey Plaza.
By duplicating the wound to the neck of President Kennedy, which caused bullet 399 to turn sideways, and having it then hit a Connally-type rib cage with shirt and jacket, we reproduced the right-sided bulge of the jacket worn by Connally, with lapel eversion, which is so significant in frame 224. The extensive damage to his shirtfront was from the hail of rib fragments and soft tissue, exactly as described with his own shirt. Our tumbling bullet then went on to fracture a radius and be recovered intact except that it was somewhat flattened and bent and had lead extruded from the rear, as did bullet 399. Fragments of this lead were scraped off on the ragged bone-ends of some of our fractured radiuses, just as with Governor Connally's radius. It is believed that this duplication of the jacket and lapel bulge of Governor Connally, which occurred dependably, when we reproduced the circumstances at Dallas, confirmed this very important detail in this technical demonstration of the findings in the shooting of President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The bulge and the lapel eversion of the jacket worn by Governor Connally, starting in Zapruder frame 224, does indeed establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the exact moment when bullet 399 went through him. The right arms of both men were seen to react simultaneously, immediately thereafter. It also permits us to establish that there was plenty of time (three and one-half seconds) between the first two shots (frames 160 to 224) and even more time (five seconds) between the last two shots (frames 224 to 313), for Oswald to reload, reacquire his target (the head of President Kennedy) plus two full seconds to lock onto it. If the bullet does not traverse the neck of President Kennedy, it does not cause Governor Connally's jacket and lapel to bulge. The lapel bulge is a very important bit of actual physical evidence in establishing the fact that one bullet hit both men and that Oswald had plenty of time to hit the President, first in the neck and then in the head. These experiments confirm the mechanism of the lapel bulge and the behavior of the bullet.
Lattimer JK, Laidlaw A, Heneghan P, Haubner EJ. J Am Coll Surg. 1994 May; 178(5): 517-22. PMID: 8167893.
So it all seems to come down to the assumptions made by Myers and the Knott crew, about what were the actual body positions at the time of the back-to-neck shot (and if the bullet deviated in its path as it passed through JFK).
(https://i.ibb.co/LxkZFLW/Kennedys-Riding-in-Dallas-002.webp) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/VDpmQL9/Myers-Knott.jpg) (https://ibb.co/923tVpg)
Experimental duplication of the important physical evidence of the lapel bulge of the jacket worn by Governor Connally when bullet 399 went through him:Lattimer did make a mistake (ie he lied).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8167893/
Here is a reminder that the SBT has been prooved.First of all, one has to prove that JBC's jacket bulges. All we can say is that the area of white shirt that is visible increases from z222-223 and decreases from z223-224. That is consistent with JBC moving his arm and causing movement of his jacket. I am not sure how else one could explain the change from z222-223:
Lattimer's 1994 tests showed that it was not possible for Connally's lapel to flip at Z224 unless the slug (magic bullet) at Z218 had firstly passed thru JFK.
Lattimer's 1994 tests showed that the spray from the outshoot (ie the spray under Connally's lapel) was not powerfull enuff (to flip the lapel) unless the slug had started to tumble before entry into Connally.
Hence Lattimer proved the SBT.
First of all, one has to prove that JBC's jacket bulges. All we can say is that the area of white shirt that is visible increases from z222-223 and decreases from z223-224. That is consistent with JBC moving his arm and causing movement of his jacket. I am not sure how else one could explain the change from z222-223:My reading is that Lattimer in 1994 showed that there was no flip if no bulge (needs checking).
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBnXpMjC/JBC-jacket-opens-222-223.gif)
My reading is that Lattimer in 1994 showed that there was no flip if no bulge (needs checking).But it is not at all clear that the lapel flips from z223-224. There is a change in the amount of white shirt that can be seen. That is all we can see. That is consistent with the jacket moving due to hand movement. In fact, from z222-223 the amount of white shirt increases. In z222 we can see a small white spot which could well be the brim of his hat that he is clutching in his hand. This white spot then disappears from view in z223 as he moves his hand down below the top of the side of the car, exposing more white shirt. Then when he brings his hand and hat up into view again, the jacket moves over the shirt reducing the amount of white shirt visible. The entire change in white shirt visibility fits perfectly with the movement of his right arm across the front of his body as he prepared to turn around toward JFK.
In 1963 we see a flip. So, there must have been a bulge (needs checking).
But the flip is sufficient to prove the SBT. We dont need a double proof (needs checking).
But, yes, a (very) strong gust of air could have made a/the flip.
In the giff, the 1963 tie/shirt does have a suspicion of a bit of bulge (bit Z is very blurry).
First of all, one has to prove that JBC's jacket bulges. All we can say is that the area of white shirt that is visible increases from z222-223 and decreases from z223-224. That is consistent with JBC moving his arm and causing movement of his jacket. I am not sure how else one could explain the change from z222-223:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBnXpMjC/JBC-jacket-opens-222-223.gif)
In Frame 222 there is a lot of motion blur from left to right (look at the Stemmons sign, the motorbike,...). Any contrasting line suffers from this lateral blur and that is what you are seeing - not a jacket lapel flipping out.There is blur in z222 but it is not much different than the blur in z224:
There is blur in z222 but it is not much different than the blur in z224:
I still do not understand how Andrew M. cannot see the obvious involuntary reaction of JC to the effect of the Z224 bullet hitting JC in his back which is off center to the right of his spinal cord thus causing the spin effect of his right shoulder abruptly turning counterclockwise and his body moving forward, followed by the involuntary clutching of his hat caused by the SAME 224 bullet that went thru his wrist.How do you tell that an action is voluntary or involuntary? Is it not possible for JBC to turn around after z224?
How do you tell that an action is voluntary or involuntary? Is it not possible for JBC to turn around after z224?
That IS what JBC said he did after hearing the first shot. There is quite a lot of consistent evidence is that JFK is reacting that way to the first shot. If that is the first shot then we have pretty good evidence from both Nellie and JBC that he was not hit in the back with it.
I am just trying to help you understand why I do not conclude that JBC is reacting there at all to the effect of a bullet passing through his body. He is reacting to the first shot, just as he said he did.
You can't be serious. Have you not read anything they have ever said? They were adamant all their lives that JBC was not hit in the back by the first shot! Nellie observed JFK reacting to the first shot before she observed JBC recoiling from being hit in the back by the second shot. JBC said he felt no impact from the first shot but heard it and feared an assassination was occurring.
That is just a patently false statement. Both Nellie and JBC clearly relate that JBC was hit by the first shot. So did DPD Hargis as well as Bill Newman.
Seriously it is time to clue in Andrew.
Both Nellie and JBC clearly relate that JBC was hit by the first shot. So did DPD Hargis as well as Bill Newman.
JBC said he was hit by a shot he did not hear, but he only heard two shots total.
JBC’s own Warren Commission statement, confirmed by both Jackie’s and Nellie’s statements, stated he was hit by the first shot, Bill Newman’s TV interview, DPD Hargis all tell a different story, that he was hit by the first shot. Both SA Greer and SA Kellerman have two shots and then accelerate. Everyone in the car and most around the car only relate two shots. In case you don’t hear that on your videos.
Where is the statement where JBC pretty much states the exact opposite of his reactions? Completely contradicting himself. It seems to be a huge problem with his statements. Maybe it relates to the severity of his wounding and he simple does not know or recall.
Nellie’s same day statement issued through Jullian Read: “Nellie does not know about a third shot”. So, she went from not knowing to describing him hit by the first shot in her WC statement to mimicking the everchanging storyline after that. Where are the videos showing that?
JBC said he was hit by a shot he did not hear, but he only heard two shots total.So that's three shots. Two that he heard and one that he felt strike him in between: ie. at a time after hearing the first and turning around to check on JFK but before hearing and feeling the effects of the third.
JBC’s own Warren Commission statement, confirmed by both Jackie’s and Nellie’s statements, stated he was hit by the first shotWhich part of the following statement are you having difficulty with (4 H 135-136)?:
Both SA Greer and SA Kellerman have two shots and then accelerate. Everyone in the car and most around the car only relate two shots. In case you don’t hear that on your videos.Both Greer (2 H 119) and Kellerman (2 H 278) said there were three shots. Greer even explained that he turned around immediately after - almost simultaneously with - the second shot, then turned forward and then back again before the third shot occurred.
Nellie’s same day statement issued through Jullian Read: “Nellie does not know about a third shot”. So, she went from not knowing to describing him hit by the first shot in her WC statement to mimicking the everchanging storyline after that. Where are the videos showing that?Do you have a cite for this statement? Her WC statement is pretty clear that she heard three shots (4 H 149). She watched JFK react to the first shot but never looked back after the second shot that she saw her husband recoil from. She says she then heard and felt the effects from the third shot striking JFK in the head.
So that's three shots. Two that he heard and one that he felt strike him in between: ie. at a time after hearing the first and turning around to check on JFK but before hearing and feeling the effects of the third.
Which part of the following statement are you having difficulty with (4 H 135-136)?:
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest,
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have
been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I
don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle
has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound
of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached
that far, and after I heard that shot. I had the time to turn to my right, and
start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
Both Greer (2 H 119) and Kellerman (2 H 278) said there were three shots. Greer even explained that he turned around immediately after - almost simultaneously with - the second shot, then turned forward and then back again before the third shot occurred.
Do you have a cite for this statement? Her WC statement is pretty clear that she heard three shots (4 H 149). She watched JFK react to the first shot but never looked back after the second shot that she saw her husband recoil from. She says she then heard and felt the effects from the third shot striking JFK in the head.
If not the SBT then what?
It would have to be a silenced shot that’s occurring that was the 1st shot hitting JFK in the throat AND back?
Or if it was a silenced shot that hit only JC at about Z224-225. fired within approx 1 sec after JFK was hit in the back and throat by a loud sounding shot at perhaps between Z195-Z210?
Could the apparent simultaneous reaction of both JFK and JC at Z223-225 be plausibly caused by 2 separate shots from 2 gunman, if one of them used a silenced rifle?
Since they never demonstrated a thru connection from the throat wound of JFK to his back wound or via versa, does this mean yet ANOTHER shot had to have been fired in the throat of JFK front the front of the limo almost simultaneous with one to his back from behind the limo?
If so then a minimum of 5 shots had to be fired by at least 3 shooters, of which TWO of 5 shots were silenced shots.
The SS agents reaction is starting only at approx Z255, so they must have heard at least one loud noise about 1 sec earlier which. suggests the shot that hit JC at Z224 was probably a loud shot.
It’s doubtful that SS agents would take 3 or more seconds to react to a loud shot which was fired at Z195 which they could also see hit JFK.
So it seems to me that IF NOT the SBT then there’s a much more complicated sequence of one gunman using a silenced rifle, perhaps small caliber like 22 cal or 5.56 mm, that hit JFK in the back and one silenced shot from yet ANOTHER gunman fired from the FRONT of the limo , which hit JFK in the throat, causing an entrance hole in the throat( as early observations /perceptions indicated)
These 2 silenced shots fired at Z195-210 , causing JFK reaction followed by the first LOUD shot hitting JC separately at Z 224-225
The 2nd and 3rd shots must have been from one gunman using an unsuppressed semi auto rifle because the spacing of the last 2 shots was probably not more than 1.5 sec apart, given the “back to back” perception of majority of ear witness.
But that causes another question if the 3 loud shots were fired by just one gunman or was there yet another gunman using a loud rifle, who fired his rifle 1 sec before the other gunman fired at Z313?
That then would require FOUR!? Gunman, 2 with silenced rifles and 2 with loud rifles.
That seems a bit beyond plausible imo, so scratch one of the loud sounding rifle gunman, which causes the solution to be that one gunman used a semi auto rifle, fired and hit JFK at Z313, followed by a 3rd loud shot 0.5 -1.0 sec AFTER Z313 which shot flew high due to muzzle rise effect when firing an semi auto rifle rapidly. That’s the shot that hit the curb near Tague, and since it was NOT an MC bullet, but rather a conical shaped bullet of different metal composition than the MC,6.5 mm ball nosed bullet, thus explaining absence of material residue from an MC type bullet in the curb analysis.
There’s still to much complication here , however , with using 2 other gunman with silenced rifles so scratch one of the silenced gunman firing from the front of the limo. That also requires accepting the back shot in JFK did in fact exit his throat and that they just failed to find the thru connection because of (insert explanation here).
Therefore , so far, the next simplistic alternative theory to replace the SBT requires at least 2 gunman with one using a silenced rifle and firing one silenced shot that hit only JFK in the back, exiting his throat and then disappearing , while the 2nd gunman at the 6th floor SE window of TSBD , fired 3 loud shots, the 1st at Z224 which caused JCs right shoulder turn, then reaction of SS agents by Z255, followed by 2nd and 3rd loud shots fired at Z313 and Z 335, of which Z335 shot missed high and struck curb near Tague.
This alternative to the SBT of 2 gunman still seems a bit too complicated , so since it’s unnecessary to use 2 gunman when just one will do, especially if using a semi auto rifle., scratch the silenced rifle gunman.
This is why I gravitated towards a CT alternate theory that accepts the SBT partly ( with modification ) by using just ONE gunman with a semi auto rifle whom began his shooting at Z 224 , that shot going thru both JC and JFK but which bullet had to be disposed of and replaced by CE 399 because the bullet recovered from JCs thigh was a conical shaped ie “pointed bullet” of different caliber (probably 7.62mm)
It’s a simple alternative theory that incudes the SBT in part , and it works except for the fact that there was only an MC rifle found on the 6th floor and Harold Norman described the clack/click sounds he heard and in his opinion thought they were generated from a bolt action rifle.
Duncan just posted the James Altgens interview. James Altgens is a two shot witness. His two shot statement was read on ABC TV 3 minutes after Walter Cronkite's CBS news flash of the Merriman Smith bulletin of three shots. Altgens was the only news reporter out of seventy news reporters in Dealey Plaza that was an eyewitness. Merriman Smith was an earwitness with another reporter in the car with him stating there was only two shots.Anyone watching in Houston, & then running around & down to watch some more at Elm St, would not properly hear Oswald's first shot at pseudo Z105, they would hear Oswald's shot-2 at Z218, & they would hear Hickey's auto burst at Z300-Z312.
Factor in just two shots into your scenarios. The overriding issue is there is no way to account or explain the bullet wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK.
Andrew, you have had this spoon fed to you at least 25 other times. This time you post the answers for me to your cherry-picked uniformed post so I know you can at least understand these people have more to their respective statements than what you have just posted.So when you said:
Anyone watching in Houston, & then running around & down to watch some more at Elm St, would not properly hear Oswald's first shot at pseudo Z105, they would hear Oswald's shot-2 at Z218, & they would hear Hickey's auto burst at Z300-Z312.Do you mean that first “horrible ear-shattering noise” as Mary Woodward described the first of three shots she heard as the President’s car passed where she was standing?
Lemmeeseenow, who could that be ---- ah yes, it could be Altgens, & it could be Bell --- they both said that there were 2 shots.
Anyone watching in Houston, & then running around & down to watch some more at Elm St, would not properly hear Oswald's first shot at pseudo Z105, they would hear Oswald's shot-2 at Z218, & they would hear Hickey's auto burst at Z300-Z312.
Lemmeeseenow, who could that be ---- ah yes, it could be Altgens, & it could be Bell --- they both said that there were 2 shots.
So when you said:I could post it again as has been done numerous times. What would be the point if you continually demonstrate you are either unable or unwilling to understand them. It will not seem like such a waste of time if you would demonstrate you can read these witnesses statements and understand them by posting what has been explained to you endlessly. Jackie and Nellie both confirm JBC's statement or is that the confusing part.
“ That is just a patently false statement. Both Nellie and JBC clearly relate that JBC was hit by the first shot. So did DPD Hargis as well as Bill Newman.
Seriously it is time to clue in Andrew.”
in response to my assertion that the Connallys said that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot, you really meant that I was just cherry-picking their statements?
Ok. So perhaps you can direct us to the statements that were omitted when I cherry-picked them.
Do you mean that first “horrible ear-shattering noise” as Mary Woodward described the first of three shots she heard as the President’s car passed where she was standing?
There was no mistaking or not having heard a shot. This was all tested by the HSCA as part of the Sound Analysis. There was no early missed shot. Altgens is specific as to the first shot he heard and JFK’s reaction. The time element of working the bolt of the carcano becomes insignificant with there having been only two shots. Even in your scenario two shots account for all the wounding. Why do you need to try and explain an additional shot that literally has no point at all?Bell we know was jumping down from his perch (where he had taken his first sequence) at pseudo Z105. He then either galloped around the end of the peristyle & onto the grass below the peristyle, or, he took up a position still in the peristyle (looking down onto Elm St), or, he jumped down from the peristyle onto the garden bed below the peristyle (& he then took his second sequence). Anyhow, Bell was bouncing or galloping when Oswald fired his shot-1 at pseudo Z105.
HSCA Volume VIII: Acoustics Study - Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (history-matters.com)
4 .3 Loudness and Apparent Size of Acoustic Image
All observers rated the rifle shots as very very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire . Only the pistol, which was subsonic, produced a moderate loudness . Practically all the rifle shots, whether fired from the knoll or the TSBD, appeared to be diffuse and to occupy a very large acoustic space . For example, the sound did not seem to come from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, but from the right upper side of the building. This apparently large source location may be a result of acoustic scatter of the muzzle blast - either because of the building in the case of the TSBD or because of the trees in the case of the knoll . Only the pistol shot appears to have a reasonably constrained acoustic image and, for that reason, could be localized with some precision .
Bell we know was jumping down from his perch (where he had taken his first sequence) at pseudo Z105. He then either galloped around the end of the peristyle & onto the grass below the peristyle, or, he took up a position still in the peristyle (looking down onto Elm St), or, he jumped down from the peristyle onto the garden bed below the peristyle (& he then took his second sequence). Anyhow, Bell was bouncing or galloping when Oswald fired his shot-1 at pseudo Z105.
Atlgens probly ran down along Main past the peristyle, & the peristyle was probly between Altgens & Oswald at shot-1. And Altgens was galloping for sure. So, Altgens did not hear shot-1. Or, as per a hundred other gawkers, he did hear but later forgot.
I could post it again as has been done numerous times. What would be the point if you continually demonstrate you are either unable or unwilling to understand them. It will not seem like such a waste of time if you would demonstrate you can read these witnesses statements and understand them by posting what has been explained to you endlessly. Jackie and Nellie both confirm JBC's statement or is that the confusing part.I don’t need you to post them. I just need the cites for JBC’s statements saying he was hit in the back on the first shot-the ones you chastised me for not mentioning.
Nice work. Why don't you quote the rest of her statement. It too has been posted for you endlessly. Even though her statement to the Dallas Morning News is a little hazy, you have identified the only eyewitness in Dealey Plaza who places the second shot as the throat shot confirming SBT. Then followed by the headshot. She also states the second shot does not take place until after JFK turns forward which is after Z207. Maybe she is not such a shiny witness for your theory.Mary Woodward said the first shot occurred after she waved to the President as he approached them and after he acknowledged them by turning toward them and waving. There is only one sequence where that happens and it is the turn from about z170 to 193.
Mary Woodward said the first shot occurred after she waved to the President as he approached them and after he acknowledged them by turning toward them and waving. There is only one sequence where that happens and it is the turn from about z170 to 193.
She said she did not think that JFK was hit by the first shot, although many others said he reacted. But she also said that the last two shots were close together. She described the last two shots as overlapping - the sound of the first of those last two had not died out when the last one sounded. She said the last shot hit him in the head.
Unfortunately she was never questioned. However, it is apparent that she described the second shot as occurring less than 5 seconds before the head shot. JFK is already reacting 5 seconds before the head shot. That necessarily means JFK was hit by the first shot
I don’t need you to post them. I just need the cites for JBC’s statements saying he was hit in the back on the first shot-the ones you chastised me for not mentioning.
It is obvious why you want to distance yourself from what Mary Woodward stated, because she completely craps on your whole storyline. You could not have picked a worse witness to quote. The only eyewitness to state the first shot missed and she does place the first shot as having occurred after z207.If she was confident about the first bullet not hitting anyone, she would not have prefaced her statement by "Things are a little hazy from this point" as in: "Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet." ("Witness from the News Describes Assassination", Dallas Morning News, Nov. 23, 1963).
Dallas Morning News 11/23-.-Mary Woodward
Index Frame (history-matters.com)
“After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to our right.”.... “I don’t believe anyone was hit by the first bullet”....
Once again JFK does not face forward again until after Z207
No, with you it serves no purpose to quote them, cite them or do anything with them, they have been shown numerous times. You need to post them to demonstrate you understand they stated more than what you are portraying. This is just another example of how ridiculous this theory really is.You seem to think that we are all aware of statements by JBC and Nellie saying that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot. That is not the case. If you want others to take you seriously, when you assert something you need to provide a source. If you can't, and it appears you can't in this case, why would anyone take your assertion seriously? You can use all the pejorative comments you want. It doesn't make a made-up fact a fact.
Once again. Jackie and Nellie both confirm JBC's statement. That is the part that is causing all your anguish.
If she was confident about the first bullet not hitting anyone, she would not have prefaced her statement by "Things are a little hazy from this point" as in: "Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet." ("Witness from the News Describes Assassination", Dallas Morning News, Nov. 23, 1963).
We don't know what she was looking at after the first shot. All we know is her belief based on that things that were a little hazy after the first shot.... This is why we look at recollections that were shared by others. Others - 20 and counting (https://ibb.co/zHh69VR) said that JFK reacted to the first shot in ways that we see him doing only after z195 - by moving left..etc.
You seem to think that we are all aware of statements by JBC and Nellie saying that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot. That is not the case. If you want others to take you seriously, when you assert something you need to provide a source. If you can't, and it appears you can't in this case, why would anyone take your assertion seriously? You can use all the pejorative comments you want. It doesn't make a made-up fact a fact.
I doubt forgot. Altgens news flash of two shots was read on air within minutes of the assassination.Question (not a gotcha one either). How do you handle/see Jack Bell's description of the number of shots? He was the AP reporter riding alongside Merriman Smith and fought with him over the use of radio telephone.
Question (not a gotcha one either). How do you handle/see Jack Bell's description of the number of shots? He was the AP reporter riding alongside Merriman Smith and fought with him over the use of radio telephone.
Bell: "I grabbed the radiophone [from Smith], got the operator, gave the Dallas bureau number, heard someone answer. I shouted that three shots had been fired at the President’s motorcade. The phone went dead and I couldn’t tell whether anyone had heard me. Frantically, I tried to get the operator back. The phone was still out."
When he arrived at Parkland he again phoned in his report of hearing three shots.
More here: https://archives.cjr.org/fiftieth_anniversary/the_assassination_the_reporter.php
Really, all this terrible outcome just because I do not want to babysit you anymore. I think everybody has seen the quotes countless times and it is pointless to post it again. I know you cannot and will not post what Nellie, Jackie, and JBC confirmed in their statements. For someone who claims to be incredibly knowledgeable about witness testimonies, you sure are playing the dumb card on this, but for good reason.I just asked for a simple cite. We all know there are none. You have admitted as much by your refusal to provide any.
If you do not want to address what these witnesses really stated and confirmed in each other’s statements and instead press forward once again with this fantasy nonsense go for it. The statements of Nellie, Jackie and JBC cross confirming each other have been posted a myriad of times. The fact you choose to ignore them says it all.
I just asked for a simple cite. We all know there are none. You have admitted as much by your refusal to provide any.
Cite what? No, there is nothing new here. You are well aware of what these witnesses stated. Ignoring the key parts of the witness statements and pretend they did not say them. Doing it with Mary Woodwards as well as Nellies, Jackies, and JBC’s. All in an attempt to promote this bizarre theory. For the umpteenth time you expect to have your hand held and be walked through it.It would take fewer typing strokes to just provide a cite to where JBC and/or Nellie said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot.... But I can understand the difficulty in doing that. Either admit that there is no such source and save us time of responding to your posts, or provide the source.
It would take fewer typing strokes to just provide a cite to where JBC and/or Nellie said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot.... But I can understand the difficulty in doing that. Either admit that there is no such source and save us time of responding to your posts, or provide the source.
For the purposes of this discussion, my "theory" is simply that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot. How is that bizarre? You may disagree with it, but that does not make it bizarre. What is bizarre is maintaining that JBC and Nellie both said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot but being unable to provide a source...
This is just flat out pathetic. Actually, it is beyond pathetic but totally typical of your interpretive skills. Given how many times their collective corroborating statements have been posted you now are pretending you don’t know anything about their testimonies, but yet you just quoted JBC.Is it that hard to give us a cite for a statement by JBC stating that he was hit in the back on the first shot and not the second?
Just like Mary Woodward’s statement about the first shot after JFK turned and faced forward, once again being ignorant is your go to response.
Is it that hard to give us a cite for a statement by JBC stating that he was hit in the back on the first shot and not the second?
If such a statement exists as you say, it should take you much less time to provide it than it takes to think up new epithets for my beyond pathetic lack of interpretive skills. Besides it is not about interpreting his statements. He spoke English. It is about reading what he said.
If you are not interested enough to educate yourself then let it go. It was pointed out to you many times.I would have thought that a statement by Governor Connally or Nellie stating that he was hit in the back by the first shot would have been such a remarkable find that you would have no trouble finding it.
I would have thought that a statement by Governor Connally or Nellie stating that he was hit in the back by the first shot would have been such a remarkable find that you would have no trouble finding it.
Or perhaps I am misinterpreting your posts. Are you saying that I am supposed to interpret your posts saying that they said he was hit in the back by the second shot to mean that they didn't actually say this but said the opposite AND I am supposed to interpret their statements as if they meant the opposite of what they said.
Unfortunately, my interpretive skills are too pathetic to do that. So just give us the cite.
The interpretive skills assessment is proving to be spot on or you would already have the answer. Actually, what it shows is you already know which is the point.Ok, then the reference would be John and Nellie Connally's WC statements. So your accusation that I made a patently false statement when I stated what they actually said, actually means:
Interesting, Bell could be the first person to be recorded as having been influenced by the news media—Merriman Smith.
According to Merriman Smith, Jack Bell’s first statement upon arriving at Parkland was that he wasn’t sure if any shots had been fired. (Sloyan, American Journalism Review, May 1997). By 12:41 PM, just four minutes after arriving at Parkland. Bell called in a report to the AP stating that three shots had been fired. He went from not knowing to three shots. The car Smith and Bell were riding in was the first Press Pool car and was responsible for briefing the other reporters.
Ok, then the reference would be John and Nellie Connally's WC statements. So your accusation that I made a patently false statement when I stated what they actually said, actually means:Spare me the reprise or whatever that was. Snakebit attempt to evade comes to mind.
1. that I accurately stated what they said but
2. I intentionally omitted your interpretation that they meant the opposite of what they said, and
3. in so omitting your interpretation, I made a patently false statement.
Thanks for clarifying. It is important to understand the language the other person is using when engaging in a discussion.
Sloyan did not say he interviewed Smith. He was quoting some unknown source - possibly Bob Clark of ABC news - who described what Smith said to someone - ie. that he heard Jack Bell saying on the phone to his UPI office that he didn't know if there were any shots. The uncertainty appears to be about whether they were shots, not the number. Smith was a gun enthusiast and recognized them as rifle shots but the other reporters may have been initially unsure. [The correct cite is AJR, May 1998 (https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1672) by the way.]
You have all the time in the world to look this up, read this lengthy article, and realize I wrote Merriman Smith instead of Bob Clark, which in the grand scheme of things makes absolutely no difference, because they were both occupants of the car and both ways it ends up with Jack Bell making the statement, yet you cannot just finish posting the part of Mary Woodwards statement that you purposely omitted or the corroborating statements of JBC, Nellie, and Jackie. It must be because that they directly contradict your theory.It was you who used a triple hearsay statement to suggest that there were not three shots. It is apparent from the article that such a statement by Bell questioning whether they heard any shots was not about the number of shots.
It was you who used a triple hearsay statement to suggest that there were not three shots. It is apparent from the article that such a statement by Bell questioning whether they heard any shots was not about the number of shots.
As far as Woodward's statement is concerned, what part did I not deal with? What corroborating statements of JBC and Nellie are you referring to? I have been asking for a reference and you seem to be unable to provide it.
As far as Jackie is concerned, you tell us how many shots she said there were and what each one struck:
- Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left.I guess there was a noise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.”
Mr. RANKIN. Did he turn toward you?
Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort
of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if
he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.
And then I just remember falling on him and saying, “Oh, no, no, no,” I mean, “Oh, my God, they have shot my husband.” And “I love you, Jack,” I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity.
You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don’t remember that at all.
....- Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the flrst shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.
And I read there was a third shot. But I don’t know. Just those two.
Nice, now add Nellie and JBC's statements to Jackies. The collective statements of these three witnesses tell the story. If you can't tie them together I will.You have to try to fit Woodward's statement to other evidence. You are ignoring Phil Willis and other witnesses along Elm St who gave relative positions of the President at the time of the first shot.
Where is the omitted portion of Mary Woodwards Dallas Morning News article identifying the location of the first shot? It is much later than Z195.
It was you who used a triple hearsay statement to suggest that there were not three shots. It is apparent from the article that such a statement by Bell questioning whether they heard any shots was not about the number of shots.When you are using a statement of someone for proof of its contents, if the statement is reported by a person who heard it said, it is hearsay. Now if it is reported by someone who heard someone refer to a hearsay statement, it is double hearsay. And if someone refers to that person's repetition of a double hearsay statement, it is triple hearsay. Not generally regarded as reliable evidence.
Triple Hearsay? Bob Clark was also in the car and related the story. How is that any different than any other statement that has been taken?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the flrst shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him.
You have to try to fit Woodward's statement to other evidence. You are ignoring Phil Willis and other witnesses along Elm St who gave relative positions of the President at the time of the first shot.
When you are using a statement of someone for proof of its contents, if the statement is reported by a person who heard it said, it is hearsay. Now if it is reported by someone who heard someone refer to a hearsay statement, it is double hearsay. And if someone refers to that person's repetition of a double hearsay statement, it is triple hearsay. Not generally regarded as reliable evidence.
In this case the fact you are attempting to prove is the state of Jack Bell's mind regarding his auditory perception of the events in Dealey Plaza. The alleged statement about his auditory perception was made by Jack Bell himself. It was allegedly heard by Merriman Smith. So if Merriman Smith reported it, it would be hearsay. But he didn't. Rather it was Bob Clark that heard Smith mention what he heard Bell say. That is double hearsay. But Clark did not write the article. Sloyan heard Clark's statement about what Smith said Bell said and passed it along to the reader. That is triple hearsay
You were quoting Woodward and now you are not. She was specific as to when.She said that as he passed by he turned forward and there was a "horrible ear-shattering noise":
Bob Clark was in the car with Bell and SmithThat may be. But Sloyan was not quoting Clark saying Bell said it. Sloyan was quoting Smith saying it. But Sloyan didn’t interview Smith (who died in 1970) so he was quoting someone, possibly Clark, saying Smith said that Bell said it. So it is: Sloyan<someone (Clark)<Smith<Bell.
Post the Connally’s testimony or is that the point of this evasion?I did. He said it was inconceivable that the shot he felt was the first shot (4 H 135-136). Again, which part of the following statement is difficult to understand?:
She said that as he passed by he turned forward and there was a "horrible ear-shattering noise":
"But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed.... As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd. After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible ear-shattering noise...."
Where do you see JFK turn forward? Here are the frames where JFK turns from looking right to forward. The turn occurs between z193 and 198:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjSTwpM4/JFK-turn-183-203.gif)
That may be. But Sloyan was not quoting Clark saying Bell said it. Sloyan was quoting Smith saying it. But Sloyan didn’t interview Smith (who died in 1970) so he was quoting someone, possibly Clark, saying Smith said that Bell said it. So it is: Sloyan<someone (Clark)<Smith<Bell.
Here is the source quote (“Total Domination”, Patrick Sloyan, American Journalism Review, May 1998):
“ Smith recounted how Bell began pounding his head and back. Smith, doubling his body over the handset, kept the phone from Bell until the car pulled up at the hospital emergency entrance. When the sedan stopped, Smith said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone, saying, "No one knows if there was any gunfire." In the AP Dallas bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – "This is Jack Bell.." – before the line went dead.”
I did. He said it was inconceivable that the shot he felt was the first shot (4 H 135-136). Again, which part of the following statement is difficult to understand?:
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest,
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have
been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I
don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle
has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound
of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached
that far, and after I heard that shot. I had the time to turn to my right, and
start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
Where do you see JFK turn forward?Buf he does turn forward between z193 and z198. We can see it:
He turns after Z207 Which is confirmed by Jean Newman “just after her” and then “just before” the Chisms. It was not Z193, more like Z214 to Z218.
I will try it a different way. Bob Clark was in the car also. Bell is just one more person who says he heard three shots. The point is Bell did not originally know what the sound was.Only if you accept this triple hearsay as reliable evidence. It is interesting that Clark did not say that he heard Bell say it. Given the extreme competitiveness of Smith who would seize every opportunity to put down his competition ie. Bell, I don’t find it very reliable evidence. Clark never said he disputed the three shots.
I did. He said it was inconceivable that the shot he felt was the first shot (4 H 135-136).Not according to Connolly. (But why should we believe him over your superior interpretive skill?)…
No, it is what did he say not think, you know what both JBC and Nellie said because of all the times it was posted. Are you afraid of it?
Additionally, there seems to be very little time difference between the first shot and his feeling it.
Buf he does turn forward between z193 and z198. We can see it:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjSTwpM4/JFK-turn-183-203.gif)
Only if you accept this triple hearsay as reliable evidence. It is interesting that Clark did not say that he heard Bell say it. Given the extreme competitiveness of Smith who would seize every opportunity to put down his competition ie. Bell, I don’t find it very reliable evidence. Clark never said he disputed the three shots.Not according to Connolly. (But why should we believe him over your superior interpretive skill?)…
But he does turn forward between z193 and z198. We can see it:Smith was not confused. He was sure they were shots and he was sure there were three. He was too competitive to not get the facts right. So if he was unsure he would not have said three shots in his first dispatch:
No, you see him waving and looking at the last group of people on that side of the street and then after he looks forward. You think he is continuing to wave through the shock of being shot?
Only if you accept this triple hearsay as reliable evidence
What triple hearsay. They obviously weren’t sure at the time. Merriman Smith told them all. Clark refers to the confusion and then Smith reacts. They obviously were not sure.
Not according to Connally. (But why should we believe him over your superior interpretive skill?)Seems? Nay it is, I know not "seems".
It is yes according to Connally, actually. The hospital bed interview is entirely different. Neither of the statements do not seem to have much time between sound of the first shot and him feeling it. He was also talking about an automatic gun to help explain how close they were.
Smith was not confused. He was sure they were shots and he was sure there were three. He was too competitive to not get the facts right. So if he was unsure he would not have said three shots in his first dispatch:
"DALLAS NOV. 22 (UPI) -- THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S MOTORCADE TODAY IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS. JT1234PCS”
Seems? Nay it is, I know not "seems".
There was enough time, as JBC explained, to realize he had heard a rifle shot and realize that an assassination was unfolding, and to look around to try to see JFK and then decide to turn to his left. Nellie said that he also uttered "Oh, no, no" after the first shot and before the second shot. She also said that she looked at JFK after the first shot but not after the second. She is looking back at JFK past z260.
Nellie said that he also uttered "Oh, no, no" after the first shot and before the second shot. She also said that she looked at JFK after the first shot but not after the second. She is looking back at JFK past z260It depends on when he was asked. In 1964 he said he said “oh,no,no” as he was hit. In 1966 he is quoted in Life Magazine (Nov.25,1966, p.48) saying that he said “oh, no, no” between the time he heard the first shot and when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit him in the right armpit. In 1978 he said he uttered “oh,no,no” before he was hit and then changed his mind saying it must have been after he was hit.
You know what Jackie stated now what did JBC state?
Smith was not confused. He was sure they were shots and he was sure there were three. He was too competitive to not get the facts right. So if he was unsure he would not have said three shots in his first dispatch:Over 40 witnesses recalled not only the number but the 1……..2….3 pattern of the shots. The media did not report on the shot pattern. How did that happen if there were only two shots?
He was not confused as much as he did not know for sure if all three were shots. Smith is what the WC and the HSCA committees were referring to when they mentioned the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots.
It depends on when he was asked. In 1964 he said he said “oh,no,no” as he was hit. In 1966 he is quoted in Life Magazine (Nov.25,1966, p.48) saying that he said “oh, no, no” between the time he heard the first shot and when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit him in the right armpit. In 1978 he said he uttered “oh,no,no” before he was hit and then changed his mind saying it must have been after he was hit.Over 40 witnesses recalled not only the number but the 1……..2….3 pattern of the shots. The media did not report on the shot pattern. How did that happen if there were only two shots?There is more information than just the collective statements of Nelli, Jackie, and JBC. Also in the car were Greer and Kellerman, Greer is a two shot witness, Kellerman relates the second shot was the head shot based on the car accelerating before a third shot.
There is more information than just the collective statements of Nelli, Jackie, and JBC. Also in the car were Greer and Kellerman, Greer is a two shot witness, Kellerman relates the second shot was the head shot based on the car accelerating before a third shot.You keep saying that Greer was a two shot witness. You must be interpreting his first statement (CE1024, 18 H 723), in which he describes the first shot and what he did after the second shot, as "there were only two shots". But that is not what he says. Here is his WC testimony (2 h 118):
You forgot the hospital interview: “Almost simultaneously as I turned I was hit.”Right. I don't think that helps your theory though. He turned after he heard the first shot and realized it was a rifle shot and an assassination was unfolding so he decided to turn around to check JFK BEFORE he was hit by the bullet he felt in the right armpit. How does he feel it AFTER hearing it and doing all that?
Jackie, Nellie, and JBC himself all state after the first shot and after he is wounded he cries out Oh No,No, No.JBC is saying (in that statement) that he said "oh, no, no, no" after the shot that hit him in the back, but he said that the shot he felt was the second shot. So that doesn't really help you.
JBC; I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----
Nellie: Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.So... Not Nellie, either. She makes it clear that the second shot came after JBC said "oh, no, no" and before he was hit.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Jackie: Describing Gov.Connally cries out Oh No No No after he was wounded by the first shot.And Jackie doesn't help you either.
“I guess there was a noise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.””
“I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed.”
Correct. She is one of 6 witnesses by my count who thought the first two were closer.
Over 40 witnesses recalled not only the number but the 1……..2….3 pattern of the shots. The media did not report on the shot pattern. How did that happen if there were only two shots?
Nellie does not support your claim of the shot pattern.
Rather selective. You forgot to include the part:
In fact there are 40 + two shot witnesses that are eyewitnesses, including Greer, and about an equal number who describe the second shot as the headshot, including Kellerman. All five people in the car stated or described there were only two shots either in affidavits or press interviews.
Jackie stated three different times she felt there were only two shots. Including mentioning the media and then dismissing the media reporting.
Jackie: So I was looking to the left.I guess there was a noise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.”
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling...... I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the flrst shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.
And I read there was a third shot. But I don’t know. Just those two.
You keep saying that Greer was a two shot witness. You must be interpreting his first statement (CE1024, 18 H 723), in which he describes the first shot and what he did after the second shot, as "there were only two shots". But that is not what he says. Here is his WC testimony (2 h 118):
- "Mr. GREER. I know there was three that I heard-three. But I cannot remember any more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard."
...And his evidence is fully corroborated by the zfilm. We can see him turn to look over his shoulder around z280 as JBC falls over. He then looks forward and then looks back over his shoulder again in the z290s and then another shot.
- Mr. GREER I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after.
Right. I don't think that helps your theory though. He turned after he heard the first shot and realized it was a rifle shot and an assassination was unfolding so he decided to turn around to check JFK BEFORE he was hit by the bullet he felt in the right armpit. How does he feel it AFTER hearing it and doing all that?
JBC is saying (in that statement) that he said "oh, no, no, no" after the shot that hit him in the back, but he said that the shot he felt was the second shot. So that doesn't really help you.
So... Not Nellie, either. She makes it clear that the second shot came after JBC said "oh, no, no" and before he was hit.And Jackie doesn't help you either.
You are assuming that JBC said "oh, no, no, no" because he was hit. But he never said that. In fact, in his testimony before the HSCA he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he was hit but because he could see the tragedy unfolding for the President (1 HSCA 43):Correct. She is one of 6 witnesses by my count who thought the first two were closer.
- When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit-no, I guess it was after I was hit-I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President had been so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment, this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no." Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Rather selective. You forgot to include the part:
"And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three "
But he said he turned BEFORE he felt the impact of the shot in the back and that he turned AFTER hearing the first shot. If he was hit by the first shot and heard it, he would have felt the impact before he heard it.
“As he turned” means just that.
Bill Newman – “I could not tell which man was hit first.” Bill clearly states there was only two shots to Jay Watson. Does not know about a third shot.Newman said in his statement to the FBI on 24Nov63 that there were two shots in rapid succession followed by a third that hit the President in the head. But in his second interview with Jay Watson on 22Nov63 he did say that he heard only two shots. So the best we can say is that Newman was not sure. However, Watson and Jerry Haines who was with Watson in DP recalled and described three shots.
That Is Correct, Thanks For pointing this out too.--JBC states he said he shouted Oh No No No after he was hit.Well, at best you can say he was not sure. Otherwise, he would not have said this in 1966 :
No, she makes it clear it was after the first but before the second that he cried out Oh No no no. Again JBC states he cried out Oh No No No after he was hit.Your whole theory is based on JBC saying "oh, no, no, no" because he was hit. He never said that and actually said that he did not say "oh, no, no, no" because he was hit. He said it because the thought the President had been hit. If he was sure he said it because he was hit, he would have had no confusion as to when it occurred in relation to when he was hit, would it?
....
Andrew: “JBC is saying (in that statement) that he said "oh, no, no, no" after the shot that hit him in the back,”
Now you are switching gears and you want JBC to be stating something else? A third or fourth completely different statement. It is becoming obvious he has no recall as to what happened to him due to his injuries and Nellie changed her statement to conform to his. Thanks for pointing that out.
Correct. She is one of 6 witnesses by my count who thought the first two were closer.They were:
Weren't all six of them really two shot witnesses?
But not one of the 40+ you are claiming in the shot pattern describes what Nellie describes. If anything Nellies shot pattern would support the idea of a second gunman. Are you proposing a second gunman and a conspiracy?No second gunman is needed. Everything points to Oswald and there is certainly no evidence of anyone involved other than Oswald.
Nellie also initially stated through Spokesman Julian Read, when asked about the third shot, that she did not know about a third shot.You still haven't provided a cite for that source.
But he said he turned BEFORE he felt the impact of the shot in the back and that he turned AFTER hearing the first shot. If he was hit by the first shot and heard it, he would have felt the impact before he heard it.Newman said in his statement to the FBI on 24Nov63 that there were two shots in rapid succession followed by a third that hit the President in the head. But in his second interview with Jay Watson on 22Nov63 he did say that he heard only two shots. So the best we can say is that Newman was not sure. However, Watson and Jerry Haines who was with Watson in DP recalled and described three shots.
Well, at best you can say he was not sure. Otherwise, he would not have said this in 1966 :
- "Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”
(https://i.postimg.cc/vB8ptZyp/Life-25-Nov66-p48-2.jpg)
And how about that statement:Your whole theory is based on JBC saying "oh, no, no, no" because he was hit. He never said that and actually said that he did not say "oh, no, no, no" because he was hit. He said it because the thought the President had been hit. If he was sure he said it because he was hit, he would have had no confusion as to when it occurred in relation to when he was hit, would it?
- "My recollection of that time gap, the distinct separation between the shot that hit the President and the impact of the one that hit me, is as clear today as it was then.”
They were:
Kenneth O'Donnell (3 shots) 7 H 448 [18May64]
Nellie Connally (3 shots) 4 H 149 [21Apr64]
Cecil Ault (3 shots) 24 H 534 [9Jan64]
Gayle Newman (3 shots) 22 H 842 [24Nov63]
William Newman (2 or 3 shots) 22 H 842 [24Nov63]
Steven Wilson (3 shots) 22 H 685 [25Mar64]
What do all these statements have in common? They either had to be asked if they recalled the spacing of the shots or they did not volunteer the shot spacing in earlier statements. With the exception of the Newmans, they were all taken months after the events.
By contrast, most of the witnesses who recalled the last two being closer together, volunteered that information without prompting and in their first statement.
No second gunman is needed. Everything points to Oswald and there is certainly no evidence of anyone involved other than Oswald.
You still haven't provided a cite for that source.
JBC’s Hospital Interview. “Almost simultaneously as I turned, I was hit.”The point you seem to be missing is the time it takes to process the sound and decide to turn. Did the bullet just stop between JFK and JBC and wait for him to turn around?
There seems to be confusion. Let us read it again “Almost simultaneously as I turned, I was hit.”
This is from JBC’s hospital bed and is his very first recollection of the shooting. There is not a second way to interpret what he said happened. He heard the shot and immediately he knew he was hit as he turned. Then he starts crying out. Just like he said he did. Just like Jackie stated he did.He always said he tried to see JFK and decided to turn to his left before he was hit. So "almost simultaneously as I turned" just refers to a very short, but perceptible, period of time after he turned. Bottom line: he heard the shot before he felt the impact. That necessarily requires two shots.
-------------------------------------------JBC twice said he uttered "oh, no, no, no" before the second shot. He said it in the Life article 25Nov66 p. 48 and he said it to the HSCA (1 HSCA 43). The HSCA testimony shows that he wasn't sure:
JBC stated he cried out Oh No No No after he was hit, Nellie stated it was after the first shot and before the second shot.
Jackie stated that he said it after the first shot. Jackie three different times stated there was only two shots. Gov Connally stated he only heard two shots and was struck immediately upon turning. I guess you can pretend all you like but the information pretty much speaks for itself.I guess you can pretend all you like that Jackie never contradicted herself and was not very confused. She said she first remembered that there were three shots.
Can you really claim you have studied these witness statements and then keep on posting this crap that you do? You put up a bunch of witnesses whose statement point to a second shooter due to the cycle time of the carcano. The cycle time of the carcano was 2.3 seconds. The first shot at Z214+ and JBC visually reacting at Z224 or less. How in any way does that resemble this shot pattern you have been pushing all these years.The evidence is that the first shot was after z186 and before z202. The evidence is also that the last two were closer together but still about a couple of seconds apart. The movement of JBC together with the flip of JFK's hair that Hickey observed after he turned forward, puts the second shot at z271-272, just before Greer's turn to the rear at about z280 which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot. That is sufficient time for Oswald to have fired three shots (reload, aim and fire twice).
This has to be the most scatter gun approach to analyzing the assassination. Taking witness statements and pretending the differing statements somehow promote what this theory just by pretending to explain away the obvious contradictions between the statements.Witnesses are generally reliable in recalling details of high salience, but they are still only about 90-95% accurate. There will often be a few outliers (e.g. Jean Newman who said she saw a dog in the back seat of the limo, and A.C. Millican who reported hearing 8 shots over 5 minutes). But when a high percentage of witnesses independently recall a detail, they are very reliable. The key is "independent". The shot pattern was not mentioned in the media before the statements recalling the 1...........2....3 pattern were taken. It is difficult to conceive of how all of the 47 witnesses who recalled that pattern were not independent.
This list and its importance is known only to you. These are two shot witnessesI was going by what they said, not your interpretation that they really meant they heard only two.
Steve Wilson-2 shot- It is my opinion there was a greater space of time between the second and third shots than between the first and second. How in any way is he being considered a witness like Nellie about shot spacing?Because he recalled 1..2.......3
Gayle Newman -2 shots -the 50th Anniversary interview. “I did not hear the third shot.” How in any way is she being considered a witness like Nellie about shot spacing?Because they both said this in their 24Nov63 statements.
Bill Newman, -2 shots-“ I don’t know about a third shot” not once but twice in the same interview. Why is he even listed here.
Nellie; -2 shots-Parkland Hospital Press Conference 11/22. Read said Nellie thought the first shot hit the president and the second shot hit her husband. Read said that Nellie “does not know about a third shot”.We are still waiting for the cite for that source.
(https://i.imgur.com/eISbE93.gif)It is only a fact if it fits the evidence. It conflicts with an awful lot of evidence. All I am saying is that there is a much simpler explanation for the shots that does fit the evidence without the need to make up a phantom missed shot. And it fits perfectly not only with the 1.......2...3 shot pattern, the first shot hitting JFK as dozens said it did, but also with Oswald firing all three shots.
The Single Bullet Fact - Enhanced version
If 2 shooters were firing with loud sounding rifles at Z210-Z224, such that one hit JFK and the other hit JC to produce what appears to be the simultaneous reaction of 2men hit by one bullet, then those 2 shots would be only about 0.5 sec apart.JBC said he turned to his right after hearing the first shot, recognizing it as a rifle shot and fearing that the President was being assassinated. To do that, he has to lean forward and lift his right arm a bit, which he does. That is not just another explanation. It is what JBC said he did after the first shot and before he was hit in the back.
Then there would be the 4.8 sec of time passing before the Z313 shot occurs.
That would be a pattern of 1.2…….3 which is distinctly opposite of the 1…..2..3 pattern that majority of witness describe.
If one of the shooters had silenced rifle of .223 for example, then there would be just 2 loud shots which would be spaced 4.8 sec apart.
That’s 1…….2. which is certainly contrary to the 1…..2..3 pattern that majority of witness heard.
what other explanation there is for JCs sudden shoulder turn and he moving forward after Z224?
Can you really plausibly entertain that JC is simply reacting to having heard a shot that hit JFK at Z195-200 by “ducking” himself forward ,ie “taking cover” at Z225 , only to then be hit somewhat later around Z285 or so?A bit earlier than z285. SA Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and he is already turned around at z285. JBC starts sailing forward at z271-272 to z278 or so, just before Nellie grabs him and pulls him down. SA George Hickey said that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up at the moment of the second shot. We can see that occurring at z273-276. No one else's hair moves at that time. Also there appears to be movement of the left sun visor between z271 and z272. So I would put the second shot at z271-272, which, incidentally, is 2.3 seconds before the third shot. Shots at z195, z271 and z313 are separated by 76 frames and 42 frames, respectively. That is almost a 2:1 ratio that several people estimated (Yarborough and Jackson, for example).
A bit earlier than z285. SA Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and he is already turned around at z285.
JBC starts sailing forward at z271-272 to z278 or so, just before Nellie grabs him and pulls him down.
SA George Hickey said that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up at the moment of the second shot. We can see that occurring at z273-276. No one else's hair moves at that time.
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/14/1c/c6IJ91jb_o.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Animation_Alt-Wieg.gif)Hickey (on right edge of photo) is looking backwards and his head is lower than the standing agents, one second before Mason says Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly up. |
Also there appears to be movement of the left sun visor between z271 and z272.
(https://i.ibb.co/k0KSRZj/greer-head-turn-Z240-260.gif)Tell us how you can see Greer's head turn from z240. We can see his chest but not his head. And his chest does not turn.
Greer appears to turn his head beginning in the Z240s. Sorry that doesn't do much for your trying to tie him into your s--t-for-brains second shot at Z271-72.
Connally doesn't "sail forward" because your Pet Theory has him struck in the back. He falls backwards towards his wife. Nellie doesn't "grab" the Governor and pull him towards her. LOL.Do you see anything happen at z271-272 that prompts what you say is a backward fall? Like a muscle movement or something in his body indicating that he is deciding to fall back?
Kennedy's hair doesn't fly up. A small lock falls downward and briefly flutters because Kennedy's head is tilted downward. Where that lock is can't be seen by Hickey. I have "Hickey" standing but the Altgens Photo shows he wasn't as high as that.
That visor moves all through the film, because it's a little loose and the wind is moving it. Not because a bullet fragment struck it. Holy cow.The film analysis alone does not prove that the second shot occurred around there. The rest of the evidence does that, particularly the consistent evidence that the first shot struck JFK and was after z186 and before z202 and the shot pattern evidence of the 1..........2.....3 spacing. The film analysis just allows us to pinpoint the frames when it occurred.
Tell us how you can see Greer's head turn from z240. We can see his chest but not his head. And his chest does not turn.
Besides, Greer said that when he turned he saw JBC falling onto his wife. That does not occur until about z280:
(https://i.ibb.co/yPDPxNh/Greer-turn-fromz240-and-fromz270.gif)
So you are not only imagining something we cannot see, you are rejecting Greer's statements about what he saw when he turned without any reason to do so. Besides, we can see that he is turned at z286. How long do you think he stayed turned around while driving the car?
Do you see anything happen at z271-272 that prompts what you say is a backward fall? Like a muscle movement or something in his body indicating that he is deciding to fall back?
His hair does not lift? You have to stop drinking before 5 pm Jerry:
(https://i.ibb.co/XZm4Bn6/JFK-hair-flip.gif)
The film analysis alone does not prove that the second shot occurred around there. The rest of the evidence does that, particularly the consistent evidence that the first shot struck JFK and was after z186 and before z202 and the shot pattern evidence of the 1..........2.....3 spacing. The film analysis just allows us to pinpoint the frames when it occurred.
Tell us how you can see Greer's head turn from z240.
We can see his chest but not his head. And his chest does not turn.
Besides, Greer said that when he turned he saw JBC falling onto his wife.
That does not occur until about z280:
So you are not only imagining something we cannot see, you are rejecting Greer's statements about what he saw when he turned without any reason to do so. Besides, we can see that he is turned at z286. How long do you think he stayed turned around while driving the car?
Do you see anything happen at z271-272 that prompts what you say is a backward fall? Like a muscle movement or something in his body indicating that he is deciding to fall back?
His hair does not lift? You have to stop drinking before 5 pm Jerry:
The film analysis alone does not prove that the second shot occurred around there. The rest of the evidence does that, particularly the consistent evidence that the first shot struck JFK and was after z186 and before z202 and the shot pattern evidence of the 1..........2.....3 spacing. The film analysis just allows us to pinpoint the frames when it occurred.
"Unquestionably, when the first shot was fired, I recognized it as a shot. I thought of nothing else but that it was a rifle shot. I turned to my right; I had time to think; I had time to react, and I turned to my right to look back over my right shoulder to see if I could see anything unusual and particularly to see if I could catch him out of the corner of my eye. Because I immediately thought him. You mean the President, the President. Because I immediately thought of an assassination attempt. I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye. And I was in the process of turning back to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again when I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me. I am convinced, beyond question of a doubt, that the first shot that was fired did not hit me, then I was hit, and I was not then, and I'm not I have no memory, no recollection of the sound of the shot that hit me, and beyond any question of a doubt the third shot did not hit me."
Governor John Connally leaves no doubt whatsoever that the Single-Bullet Theory is an uncomplicated and straightforward Single-Bullet Fact.Except that Governor John Connally always maintained that the SBT was false.
(https://i.ibb.co/k0KSRZj/greer-head-turn-Z240-260.gif)That is consistent with Greer turning to his right to speak to Kellerman. That does not mean he was turned to the rear. Greer was specific on the number of turns to the rear. He made two such turns: 1. when he turned immediately after and "almost simultaneous with" the second shot and saw JBC falling back onto his wife. 2. he turned forward and then turned rearward again when the third and final shot occurred.
When the GIF starts, there are facial features above the collar that then disappear as the animation progresses. Within the same second, Kellerman quickly turns his head from looking forward.
BTW, the GIF shows the driver's-side sun visor rocking in the wind, well before you contend it was moved by a fragment during your clown-parade second-shot at Z271/272.I will check again but, as I said, it is just another small piece of consistent evidence. It means nothing, however, unless a fragment struck the visor. While the visor does appear to have some marks that are consistent with fragment damage, I don't have any confirmation of that. So you may be right - just a coincidence.
If you think that's some defense attorney tactic to sow doubt, I see why you don't make headlines as a lawyer. For most people, it's possible to turn one's head a certain amount without turning the chest.It is not about creating doubt. It is about finding evidence to support what you say occurred. It isn't there.
The Altgens Photo shows Greer's head in profile. Enough to see Connally.Or to show that he is talking to Kellerman. I notice that JBC is not falling back at that point so it does not fit what Greer said he saw when he turned to look back after the second shot.
As shown before, the Governor is falling back towards Nellie in the Z270s. Even if Connally "sailed forward", it doesn't mean he was struck by a bullet.The motion is unusual in that it does not appear to be preceded by a change in any part of his body.
Except that he said he felt no pain until he tried getting up at Parkland.
Connally's been bend over in pain since the late-Z220s, reacting to having received a bullet through the torso.
I used the term fluttered, for the little one-frame bounce. It's more accurate than you assigning "flew up" to it. Besides, Hickey can't see to that part of Kennedy's head. And as pointed out, Greer is referring to the head shot when he says "the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward".As I have pointed out, the 39 witnesses did not say that they were evenly spaced. I will look at the 15 who you say had the last two more closely together.
Phil Willis said the first shot caused Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite side, and that it occurred between Willis04 (ca.Z133?) and Willis 05 (Z202). She does this in the Z170s. During a one-second span beginning in the Z160s, Jackie and the Connallys turned their heads rightward.
As for shot-spanning (just how did people accurately gauge that without foreknowledge and the anticipation of a murder?), you think an equal number who didn't describe the shot-spanning that way are wrong. See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. "
I said I would review Reitzes' tabulation and here is my tally:
As for shot-spanning (just how did people accurately gauge that without foreknowledge and the anticipation of a murder?), you think an equal number who didn't describe the shot-spanning that way are wrong. See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o) ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. "