JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gary Craig on January 09, 2018, 06:01:48 PM

Title: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 09, 2018, 06:01:48 PM
from
"The xxxxxx Bullet"
by Raymond Marcus
1966

~snip~

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bbullet1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bbullet2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bbullet3.jpg)

~snip~
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 09, 2018, 07:01:11 PM
LOL! There's every reason to believe Connally was struck substantially earlier than Z338, and practically no reason to believe Kennedy was struck as "early as Z210."

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2b7jhu.jpg)  (http://i65.tinypic.com/35ity1g.jpg)  (http://i65.tinypic.com/2ngxugn.jpg)

Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226. This is consistent with both men being struck at about z223.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 09, 2018, 07:18:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226.

You realize that this isn't any more convincing than "Connally appears to be reacting to a bullet strike immediately prior to frame 238".  Right?

You see what you expect to see...
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 09, 2018, 07:27:49 PM
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound

of that shot startled him. A shot at Z-223 would require a second gunman as you well know the

alleged murder weapon couldn't be physically fired quickly enough to be responsible for both.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 09, 2018, 09:36:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the drawing at right, do you realize that if that was the way the two men were lined up, and the bullet entered JFK where shown, that bullet could not make it to Connally's right armpit without going through JFK's cervical vertebrae?


Thanks, Bob the Forensic Pathologist. And I was under the false impression the spinal column was at the body's midline.

__________

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound

of that shot startled him. A shot at Z-223 would require a second gunman as you well know the

alleged murder weapon couldn't be physically fired quickly enough to be responsible for both.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)

That's nice. But Willis specified the time of the first shot as being between his No.4 slide (Z133) and No.5 slide (Z202). He based this on the sound of the shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from Willis' side of the street to the opposite side.

I'm sure Willis figured he could sell more slides if he could get people believing the No.5 slide was taken "simultaneously" with the first shot and that the shot struck the President.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 10, 2018, 04:08:59 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound
of that shot startled him.   . . .



Phil Willis took his photograph when the first shot was fired. That photograph was taken at z190. Which time stamps the first shot at z190.

And James Altgens took his photograph when the first shot was fired. That photograph was taken at z255. Which time stamps the first shot at z255.



When are CTers going to learn not to accept the memory of witnesses as the Truth of God?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 10, 2018, 04:18:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks, Bob the Forensic Pathologist. And I was under the false impression the spinal column was at the body's midline.

__________

That's nice. But Willis specified the time of the first shot as being between his No.4 slide (Z133) and No.5 slide (Z202). He based this on the sound of the shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from Willis' side of the street to the opposite side.

I'm sure Willis figured he could sell more slides if he could get people believing the No.5 slide was taken "simultaneously" with the first shot and that the shot struck the President.

Willis photo #5 coincides with Z-205.

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 10, 2018, 04:24:47 PM
quote author=Martin Hinrichs

"What we see here is in my eyes clearly the impact-moment of the shot which hits Kennedy in his back."

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/Z229-235.gif)


"Credit Giuseppe Sabatino"

Martin
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 10, 2018, 06:10:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
quote author=Martin Hinrichs

"What we see here is in my eyes clearly the impact-moment of the shot which hits Kennedy in his back."

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/Z229-235.gif)


"Credit Giuseppe Sabatino"

Martin

LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 10, 2018, 08:44:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Phil Willis took his photograph when the first shot was fired. That photograph was taken at z190. Which time stamps the first shot at z190.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Willis photo was taken at Z190?

Quote
When are CTers going to learn not to accept the memory of witnesses as the Truth of God?

You accept the memory of witnesses when it suits you.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 10, 2018, 08:45:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.

Only if you actually believe that the bullet that hit him in the back exited through his throat.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2018, 10:29:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.

In frame 228 his hand was at his throat in response to being shot there, and not by the MB. The sequence from 228 to 235 shows his response to being shot in the back. Who knows where that bullet ended up, but it certainly wasn't the bullet planted on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition, if it even exited his body.

CE-399 is the smoking gun. Its journey to the gurney and its impossible trajectory thru JFK's back, zig-zagging around T1 and out of JFK's throat at C6 make it the smoking bullet of this conspiracy. Supposedly, it followed a straight path thru JFK without touching bone which is why it didn't tumble and create a much wider exit wound. This is also why a first responder doctor at Bethesda immediately "opened" the tiny bullet hole to make it look like an exit wound.

The following GIF shows the possible orientations of JFK's body as he sat in the backseat of the limo when the MB struck him. Adding a 17 degree trajectory from the TSBD and the limo, which includes a 5 degree grade on Elm, we can estimate how bent over JFK must have been to make the MB work.

(http://www.readclip.com/images/SBT_9d.gif)

(Cheap n' easy experiment. Use 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and do the experiment on yourself, if you dare. When the low laser strikes your throat, where does the high laser strike your back? Then prove to us all that the SBT is viable. Good luck!)

Why the hell isn't the exact relative location of the back wound on medical record? Example, 2.4 inches right of T1, 4.6 inches deep. Instead we got lame drawings with chicken scratch and a wandering wound..and Humes BURNING HIS NOTES!

Based on the autopsy photo, which has extremely poor provenance, JFK's back wound was just right of vertebrae T1. Supposedly, JFK had a fracture next to T1. However, there is no clean path from T1 to C6 even if JFK was bent over enough to make the MB work.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Mytton on January 10, 2018, 10:50:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(Cheap n' easy experiment. Use 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and do the experiment on yourself, if you dare. When the low laser strikes your throat, where does the high laser strike your back? Then prove to us all that the SBT is viable. Good luck!)



WOW, you just gotta talk to Weidmann, he did this exact same experiment with lasers in Dealey Plaza, maybe the both of you geniuses can solve case this with your laser beams. Hahaha!

Btw Einstein why are you running from your comments in the "How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?" thread because you really blew it this time!



JohnM
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2018, 11:36:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

WOW, you just gotta talk to Weidmann, he did this exact same experiment with lasers in Dealey Plaza, maybe the both of you geniuses can solve case this with your laser beams. Hahaha!

Btw Einstein why are you running from your comments in the "How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?" thread because you really blew it this time!



JohnM

Weidmann did not duplicate this exp and maybe you should take another look at your "100 frames" thread dufus. BURN! ;D
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 11, 2018, 12:14:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In frame 228 his hand was at his throat in response to being shot there, and not by the MB. The sequence from 228 to 235 shows his response to being shot in the back. Who knows where that bullet ended up, but it certainly wasn't the bullet planted on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition, if it even exited his body.


Just as likely he's still reacting to the sensation of the neck transit wound at Z223.

Quote

CE-399 is the smoking gun. Its journey to the gurney and its impossible trajectory thru JFK's back, zig-zagging around T1


Zig-zagging. LOL!

Quote

and out of JFK's throat at C6 make it the smoking bullet of this conspiracy. Supposedly, it followed a straight path thru JFK without touching bone which is why it didn't tumble and create a much wider exit wound.


The tightness of the shirt neckband at the throat exit site didn't allow the typical explosive-type exit wound. Lattimer demonstrated that the further away from the exit wound the neckband was, the larger the exit wound.

Quote

This is also why a first responder doctor at Bethesda immediately "opened" the tiny bullet hole to make it look like an exit wound.


The exit wound was extended to search for the bullet and to assess the missile channel damage to the trachea and surrounding muscles.

Quote

The following GIF shows the possible orientations of JFK's body as he sat in the backseat of the limo when the MB struck him. Adding a 17 degree trajectory from the TSBD and the limo, which includes a 5 degree grade on Elm, we can estimate how bent over JFK must have been to make the MB work.

(http://www.readclip.com/images/SBT_9d.gif)


That's not how the skeleton orients when seated.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)

It's more like the above if one has a bit of a slouch.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/canning/sbt/Z223-225-slope.jpg)

Quote

(Cheap n' easy experiment. Use 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and do the experiment on yourself, if you dare. When the low laser strikes your throat, where does the high laser strike your back? Then prove to us all that the SBT is viable. Good luck!)

Why the hell isn't the exact relative location of the back wound on medical record? Example, 2.4 inches right of T1, 4.6 inches deep. Instead we got lame drawings with chicken scratch and a wandering wound..and Humes BURNING HIS NOTES!


Critics have made the wound "wander".

Quote

Based on the autopsy photo, which has extremely poor provenance, JFK's back wound was just right of vertebrae T1. Supposedly, JFK had a fracture next to T1. However, there is no clean path from T1 to C6 even if JFK was bent over enough to make the MB work.

The autopsy photo shows an entry wound more opposite the C7 level and -- using the neck wrinkles also visible in a lateral-view autopsy photo -- well above the neck exit point. As the bullet was transiting downward, it would pass approximately between the right transverse processes of C& and T1, the latter suffering a non-displaced break due, it was suggested, to pressure from the missile channel.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 11, 2018, 12:35:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Weidmann did not duplicate this exp and maybe you should take another look at your "100 frames" thread dufus. BURN! ;D


Just ignore Mytton's lies and misrepresentations...

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Brown on January 11, 2018, 01:26:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Only if you actually believe that the bullet that hit him in the back exited through his throat.

What do YOU believe? 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 11, 2018, 07:14:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Only if you actually believe that the bullet that hit him in the back exited through his throat.

Junction of back/neck..
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 11, 2018, 07:31:13 AM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/backwoundautopsyphotos.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/backwoundwc_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/autopsybackwound.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 11, 2018, 07:35:56 AM
From the Clark Panel Report:

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage in part, because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 11, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
John F Kennedy - The Autopsy
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 15, 2018, 02:36:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From the Clark Panel Report:

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage in part, because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report.

"Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report."

Agreed!

Nothing the Clark Panel found would have changed their agreement with the official LN narrative.

Their job, like the WC, was to close doors not open them.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Allan Fritzke on January 15, 2018, 04:17:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound

of that shot startled him. A shot at Z-223 would require a second gunman as you well know the

alleged murder weapon couldn't be physically fired quickly enough to be responsible for both.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)

You have a choice here - either the Zapruder Film is the accepted version of the chain of events in the assassination and this one is false.   Or vice versa!  I believe the film taken by Zapruder was real - this was not!    How they worked this over to get the umbrella man below sign level and behind - I have no idea.  It is just misinformation!  Come on guys - look at reality.  Where do you get a correlation between an umbrella midway up the sign and to the front with those from Phil Willis - No correlation whatsoever!  Not even close!!  So, accept the film from Zapruder ($150,000 pay out) or say it is totally false.  Your choice as there is a conflict - actually lots of conflicts when comparing to all the other supposed camera shots of the day - none of which were worth money but surfaced much later!
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Anderson on January 16, 2018, 12:06:44 AM
(http://thecasualobserver.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kennedy_The-Umbrella_Man1-1024x426.jpg)

Camera angles can be misleading.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on January 31, 2018, 04:02:43 PM
“Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,” Sunday News (New York)
, 24 November 1963, p.25:

Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy’s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
 
“We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was

right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President’s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
 
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.
 
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I

might have been hit.

Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and

drew my gun.
 
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President’s car) got his wits about him and they took off.

The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward

and announced to the chief that the President had been shot.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following observation by Hargis confirms, IMO, that JBC was hit by the second shot.

JFK was bent over, hit by the first shot, yet JBC is able to turn toward him.

Something he stated over and over again and something he wouldn't have been able to do with a

collapsed lung, shattered rib and wrist.


"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."
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Joe Elliott on January 31, 2018, 09:28:09 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks, Bob the Forensic Pathologist. And I was under the false impression the spinal column was at the body's midline.


A lot of people have this false impression.

https://legallegacy.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/richardiii-5.jpg
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2018, 09:35:21 PM
JFK had scoliosis?  News to me.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 13, 2018, 02:57:07 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/marksman.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/marksman1.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/marksman2.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 13, 2018, 08:28:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
from
"The xxxxxx Bullet"
by Raymond Marcus
1966

Thanks for providing this interesting analysis from 1966.  I agree that there is a great deal of evidence against the SBT.

However, he points out that the WC found that the first shot would not have been before z210.  The WC also said that z210 was about the time Willis took his photo.  The WC had not bothered to determine the exact frame of Phil Willis' photo (which, he said, was taken an instant AFTER the first shot), which can be conclusively identified as z202.  This is done by aligning Willis in the zfilm with Zapruder and the head of the secret service agent Clint Hill as they are aligned in Willis' photo. They align only in frame z202.

The WC was also basing this finding on a seriously flawed re-enactment of the motorcade positions using the wrong car and looking at the tree in full spring foliage.  The actual view as seen at the time of the assassination was captured by the Secret Service in early December 1963.  The president is quite visible the entire time he passes under the uppermost branches of the oak tree and is clear of them when he was about half-way between the lamppost and Thornton Freeway sign on the north side of Elm St.  That position corresponds to the position at frame z195.

In my view, the evidence is very consistent that the first shot was after z186 (Hughes, Betzner), likely after z191 (motorcade witnesses) likely before z199 (Jack Ready starts turning around, which he said he did in response to hearing the first shot) and before z202 (Willis).  This is all consistent with witnesses along Elm who described the position of the president relative to where they were standing at the time of the first shot and is consistent with JFK being visible from the SN.

The WC conclusion is also based on an opinion from Robert Frazier of the FBI who gave the opinion that the Governor was turned too far to his right by z240 to have been struck by the bullet that impacted his right armpit.  Frazier qualified his opinion by stating that it was based on the assumption that the bullet did not deflect in passing through the Governor.  That was the basis on which the WC concluded that Connally was hit before z240. 

In my view, this is also flawed. First of all, it is by no means a fair assumption that the bullet which struck Connally did not change direction.  A change in direction requires the application of significant force to the bullet and, in this case, the force would have been supplied by the fifth rib which deflected significantly on impact.  The WC did not mention it, but the fifth rib was broken near the spine due to the bending of the rib due to the impact. The description of the impact felt by Connally is consistent with such a force.

Second, the "not after z240 second shot" conflicts with the overwhelming body of evidence from over 40 witnesses who clearly recalled the 1........2....3 spacing of the three shots.  It is also inconsistent with what Gov. Connally described - turning rearward to check on the President because he realized he had just heard a rifle shot and thought an assassination was underway.  He makes no such turn in prior to z200 and it is impossible for him to have turned around to look at JFK and turned back as he was in z224 while he was behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm.  Rather, the turn that begins about z230 and continues to z270 fits this description much better. JFK had leaned to his left toward Jackie and JBC could not see him out of the corner of his eye. 

If Connally was hit as he starts turning back just after z270, that would fit well with the last two shots being closer together and it would also fit with the description given by both Wm. Greer and Nellie Connally of the impact of the second shot.  Greer said he turned back after the second shot and then forward quickly and back again just before the third (he does all this between z278 and z305). Nellie said she did not look back after the second shot (she is looking back until about z269) and said she saw her husband recoil from being hit, reached over and pulled him down. She does this in the z280s.  It would also fit perfectly with what SA Hickey observed - that the hair on JFK's right side lifted at the moment of the second shot but that this shot did not do any damage to JFK.  That hair can be seen lifting at z273.

Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots.  The SBT was the solution to a problem that did not exist.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 14, 2018, 05:49:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for providing this interesting analysis from 1966.  I agree that there is a great deal of evidence against the SBT.

However, he points out that the WC found that the first shot would not have been before z210.  The WC also said that z210 was about the time Willis took his photo.  The WC had not bothered to determine the exact frame of Phil Willis' photo (which, he said, was taken an instant AFTER the first shot), which can be conclusively identified as z202.  This is done by aligning Willis in the zfilm with Zapruder and the head of the secret service agent Clint Hill as they are aligned in Willis' photo. They align only in frame z202.

The WC was also basing this finding on a seriously flawed re-enactment of the motorcade positions using the wrong car and looking at the tree in full spring foliage.  The actual view as seen at the time of the assassination was captured by the Secret Service in early December 1963.  The president is quite visible the entire time he passes under the uppermost branches of the oak tree and is clear of them when he was about half-way between the lamppost and Thornton Freeway sign on the north side of Elm St.  That position corresponds to the position at frame z195.

In my view, the evidence is very consistent that the first shot was after z186 (Hughes, Betzner), likely after z191 (motorcade witnesses) likely before z199 (Jack Ready starts turning around, which he said he did in response to hearing the first shot) and before z202 (Willis).  This is all consistent with witnesses along Elm who described the position of the president relative to where they were standing at the time of the first shot and is consistent with JFK being visible from the SN.

The WC conclusion is also based on an opinion from Robert Frazier of the FBI who gave the opinion that the Governor was turned too far to his right by z240 to have been struck by the bullet that impacted his right armpit.  Frazier qualified his opinion by stating that it was based on the assumption that the bullet did not deflect in passing through the Governor.  That was the basis on which the WC concluded that Connally was hit before z240. 

In my view, this is also flawed. First of all, it is by no means a fair assumption that the bullet which struck Connally did not change direction.  A change in direction requires the application of significant force to the bullet and, in this case, the force would have been supplied by the fifth rib which deflected significantly on impact.  The WC did not mention it, but the fifth rib was broken near the spine due to the bending of the rib due to the impact. The description of the impact felt by Connally is consistent with such a force.

Second, the "not after z240 second shot" conflicts with the overwhelming body of evidence from over 40 witnesses who clearly recalled the 1........2....3 spacing of the three shots.  It is also inconsistent with what Gov. Connally described - turning rearward to check on the President because he realized he had just heard a rifle shot and thought an assassination was underway.  He makes no such turn in prior to z200 and it is impossible for him to have turned around to look at JFK and turned back as he was in z224 while he was behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm.  Rather, the turn that begins about z230 and continues to z270 fits this description much better. JFK had leaned to his left toward Jackie and JBC could not see him out of the corner of his eye. 

If Connally was hit as he starts turning back just after z270, that would fit well with the last two shots being closer together and it would also fit with the description given by both Wm. Greer and Nellie Connally of the impact of the second shot.  Greer said he turned back after the second shot and then forward quickly and back again just before the third (he does all this between z278 and z305). Nellie said she did not look back after the second shot (she is looking back until about z269) and said she saw her husband recoil from being hit, reached over and pulled him down. She does this in the z280s.  It would also fit perfectly with what SA Hickey observed - that the hair on JFK's right side lifted at the moment of the second shot but that this shot did not do any damage to JFK.  That hair can be seen lifting at z273.

Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots.  The SBT was the solution to a problem that did not exist.

"Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots."

I disagree.
 
Everybody who micro analysis the Z-film seems to come up with their own theory.

IMO there were more than 3 shots and they came from more than one direction.

LHO was the patsy and the TSBD Carcano a prop.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 14, 2018, 03:19:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Ironically, the evidence is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots."

I disagree.
 
Everybody who micro analysis the Z-film seems to come up with their own theory.

IMO there were more than 3 shots and they came from more than one direction.

LHO was the patsy and the TSBD Carcano a prop.
That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false.  I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 16, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false.  I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.

Your previous post talks about evidence but comes to conclusions based on your interpretation and opinion of

that evidence. That's belief based and a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 16, 2018, 02:39:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your previous post talks about evidence but comes to conclusions based on your interpretation and opinion of

that evidence. That's belief based and a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
A conclusion based on a rational assessment of the evidence is fundamentally different than a belief in the existance of facts for which there is no evidence. While it is true that one has to carefully look at the evidence and apply some judgement to the evidence that is a process that can be rationally explained.

My point was that my conclusions are based on a rational assessment of the evidence that is fully explainable. If one has a "belief" in a fact scenario but cannot point to any evidence supporting such facts, it is a matter of faith.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 03:20:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That may be your belief. Rather, it is a belief based on a belief that the evidence is false.  I prefer to base conclusions on evidence.

Gary didn't say evidence is false.  He pointed out that different people look at the Z film and interpret what they see differently.  Of course you think your interpretation is the most rational.  Everybody does.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 17, 2018, 01:28:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A conclusion based on a rational assessment of the evidence is fundamentally different than a belief in the existance of facts for which there is no evidence. While it is true that one has to carefully look at the evidence and apply some judgement to the evidence that is a process that can be rationally explained.

My point was that my conclusions are based on a rational assessment of the evidence that is fully explainable. If one has a "belief" in a fact scenario but cannot point to any evidence supporting such facts, it is a matter of faith.

I got news for you.

You're not the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.

My rational assessment is:

Everybody who micro analysis the Z-film seems to come up with their own theory.

-------------

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/FBIreport%20of%20shots1.png)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/FBIreport%20of%20shots%202.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 17, 2018, 11:02:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gary didn't say evidence is false.  He pointed out that different people look at the Z film and interpret what they see differently.  Of course you think your interpretation is the most rational.  Everybody does.
I agree with your comment if you mean that one cannot determine when the shots other than the head shot occurred just by looking at the zfilm.  An opinion as to when the first two shots occurred based only on the zfilm that conflicts with the other evidence is bound to be wrong.  That is why the SBT is wrong.

However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.

For example, it is not possible to tell from the zfilm when the first shot occurred.  But there is a strong convergence on the first shot being after z191. A first shot earlier than that conflicts with a great deal of consistent evidence.  A first shot after z191 conflicts with no evidence.  (By "evidence" I do not include interpretations of what people think they see from the zfilm).  A first shot after z202 conflicts with other evidence, particularly Phil Willis whose z202 photo, he said, was taken an instant after the first shot. Jack Ready said he turned around to look behind him immediately after the first shot.  He removes his right hand from the handhold and begins turning around at z199.

Not surprisingly, a first shot between those brackets, around z195, conflicts with none of the evidence, including the view of the President from the SN on November 22, 1963.  The President is quite visible when he emerges from under the oak tree leaves when he is between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite the sign at z200. This means he was completely clear of the tree at z195, not z210 as the WC found.

(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg)
So the first shot is bracketed by z191 and z199.   That is not an interpretation of the zfilm. That is what the evidence says.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 18, 2018, 12:46:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with our comment if you mean that one cannot determine when the shots other than the head shot occurred just by looking at the zfilm.  An opinion as to when the first two shots occurred based only on the zfilm that conflicts with the other evidence is bound to be wrong.  That is why the SBT is wrong.

However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.

For example, it is not possible to tell from the zfilm when the first shot occurred.  But there is a strong convergence on the first shot being after z191. A first shot earlier than that conflicts with a great deal of consistent evidence.  A first shot after z191 conflicts with no evidence.  (By "evidence" I do not include interpretations of what people think they see from the zfilm).  A first shot after z202 conflicts with other evidence, particularly Phil Willis whose z202 photo, he said, was taken an instant after the first shot.


(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis04.jpg)
Willis 04 (ca. Z133)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
Willis 05 (Z202)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis05crop.jpg)
Jackie turned towards JFK (arrow)

Problem is that Willis pinpoints the first shot to a moment before Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite side.

    "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving
     and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling
     and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was
     fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more
     or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which
     caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively.
     It did cause me to wonder."

Quote

Jack Ready said he turned around to look behind him immediately after the first shot.  He removes his right hand from the
handhold and begins turning around at z199.


The hand movement is just a cute way of advancing when Ready might have first reacted to hearing the first shot. However his head first begins to turn rightward in the Z160s, within the same second when the Governor and Mrs. Kennedy exhibit rightward head turns. All three said the first shot cause them to turn their heads rightward.

(http://i58.tinypic.com/rcsuh3.jpg)
Ready lower-left inset

Quote

Not surprisingly, a first shot between those brackets, around z195, conflicts with none of the evidence, including the view of the President from the SN on November 22, 1963.  The President is quite visible when he emerges from under the oak tree leaves when he is between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite the sign at z200. This means he was completely clear of the tree at z195, not z210 as the WC found.

(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg)


This is stupid. Kennedy's head wasn't opposite the little sign on the lamppost. According to the Cutler map, JFK was slightly short of being opposite the base of the lamppost at Z190.

Quote
So the first shot is bracketed by z191 and z199.   That is not an interpretation of the zfilm. That what the evidence says.

It reflects your moonbeam-crazy pet theory.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Royell Storing on March 18, 2018, 02:10:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis04.jpg)
Willis 04 (ca. Z133)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
Willis 05 (Z202)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_willis05crop.jpg)
Jackie turned towards JFK (arrow)

Problem is that Willis pinpoints the first shot to a moment before Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite side.

    "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving
     and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling
     and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was
     fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more
     or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which
     caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively.
     It did cause me to wonder."

The hand movement is just a cute way of advancing when Ready might have first reacted to hearing the first shot. However his head first begins to turn rightward in the Z160s, within the same second when the Governor and Mrs. Kennedy exhibit rightward head turns. All three said the first shot cause them to turn their heads rightward.

(http://i58.tinypic.com/rcsuh3.jpg)
Ready lower-left inset

This is stupid. Kennedy's head wasn't opposite the little sign on the lamppost. According to the Cutler map, JFK was slightly short of being opposite the base of the lamppost at Z190.

It reflects your moonbeam-crazy pet theory.


          Casually rubber stamping the recollections of Willis with regard to what he HEARD is a mistake commonly made with other WW2 Vets that were present inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  Willis was a WW2 Vet and survived the BOMBING of Pearl Harbor. His Testimony based on anything he HEARD on 11/22/63 would be highly suspect.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 18, 2018, 03:09:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Problem is that Willis pinpoints the first shot to a moment before Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite side.

    "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving
     and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling
     and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was
     fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more
     or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which
     caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively.
     It did cause me to wonder."
In the photo, Jackie already has her head turned to JFK.  He said that the photo was an instant after the first shot.  When the car passed him she was looking to her left.  I don't see JFK suddenly leaning forward prior to z200.

Quote
The hand movement is just a cute way of advancing when Ready might have first reacted to hearing the first shot. However his head first begins to turn rightward in the Z160s, within the same second when the Governor and Mrs. Kennedy exhibit rightward head turns. All three said the first shot cause them to turn their heads rightward.
You are changing their evidence. Ready did not say he just turned to his right. He said he turned to look behind him. In order to do that he first had to remove his right hand from the handhold. He does not do that until z199. That is the evidence.

Besides, Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President as the car was approaching. They were standing just west of the lamppost. She said they all turned in her direction. She said that was BEFORE the first shot.  That is what you are seeing in your clip in the z170s.  No one is even attempting to turn to look rearward.

Quote
This is stupid. Kennedy's head wasn't opposite the little sign on the lamppost.
I am not saying he was.  The arrow is from the curb between the lamppost and the Thornton sign.
Quote

According to the Cutler map, JFK was slightly short of being opposite the base of the lamppost at Z190.
That is correct. I have the positions of JFK plotted here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf). On a map of Dealey Plaza a line from Zapruder to JFK when he was opposite a point midway between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign extends to the rounded end of the north reflecting pool. If you watch JFK in the zfilm this alignment occurs in frame z195.  So this photo, showing JFK clear when he is past the lamppost about halfway to the Thornton sign was his position at z195.  So the WC was wrong when it said he was not visible until z210.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 18, 2018, 07:01:50 PM
One fact is that as soon as Kennedy appears from behind the sign in Zapruder, his hands are seen as jerking up from about chest level. He's just been hit, before coming into view.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on March 18, 2018, 08:31:43 PM
Oswald was at the low end of the spectrum when it came to his ability to be proficient with a firearm and that comes from the fact that Oswald did what he did with a rifle in the Marine Corps with his low scores on the firing range. Had Oswald not have been in the Marine Corps or any other branch of the service then we might not have known what his capabilities were with a weapon. When you add a weapon that is not very good and a person who was not known for his shooting prowess then it makes it very doubtful that Oswald could have pulled off this shooting. Since the back wound was shallow and was thought to not have transversed the body until the throat wound became an exit wound , then the Magic Bullet appeared.

Go to  www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm       Governor Connally's wrist wound and CE 399
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 19, 2018, 03:44:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One fact is that as soon as Kennedy appears from behind the sign in Zapruder, his hands are seen as jerking up from about chest level. He's just been hit, before coming into view.
Ok. The question is: how long before? He would likely start a visible reaction when he discovered he could not breathe properly. But until that point he may have simply felt something odd in his throat. So how long would it take for him to realize he could not breathe? If he took a normal 15 breaths per minute and he was hit midway between breaths it could take 2 seconds before he started gasping for air.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 19, 2018, 03:59:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the photo, Jackie already has her head turned to JFK.  He said that the photo was an instant after the first shot. 


You're not getting it -- because you're so tied into your wacko pet theory. Willis said the first shot occurred while Jackie had her head turned towards his side of the street. That predates your "need" for a first shot at about Z200.

Quote

When the car passed him she was looking to her left.  I don't see JFK suddenly leaning forward prior to z200.


JFK has to "suddenly lean forward" for some reason? BTW, I don't see where the Governor's chest suddenly faces the side of the car to the extend you contend.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1469292768677/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-z197-shoulder-askew.jpg)

Quote

You are changing their evidence. Ready did not say he just turned to his right. He said he turned to look behind him. In order to do that he first had to remove his right hand from the handhold. He does not do that until z199. That is the evidence.


Even if Ready decided to respond (super-human fashion) to a ca.Z200 first shot by moving his hand within one-eighth of a second of the event, he's still doesn't begin to turn rearward between Z199 and Z207, the last frame before a splice. All he does between Z199 and Z207 is lower his right hand. His head and torso have a minimal turn.

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z200.jpg)
Z200 (clearer than Z199)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z207.jpg)

Ready moved his head to a greater extend between Z165 and Z169 than he does just after Z200.

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z165.jpg)(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z169.jpg)

I estimate a 60° head-turn within a one-quarter second time span.

Quote

Besides, Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President as the car was approaching.


Sure. Like they could have heard her.

Quote

They were standing just west of the lamppost. She said they all turned in her direction.


By "all", you mean just the Kennedys?

And where exactly does Mrs. Kennedy turn her head to be seen by Woodward? By the Z180s, the President is between Woodward and Jackie. And didn't Jackie say she turned her head rightward because she heard the first shot? Witnessed, by the way, by Phil Willis, who was nearby.

Quote

She said that was BEFORE the first shot. 


I think she was romanticizing a bit. The Kennedys were paying her exclusive attention. Really?

Quote

That is what you are seeing in your clip in the z170s.  No one is even attempting to turn to look rearward.


Since Ready doesn't seem to attempt an immediate rearward head-turn between Z199-Z207, maybe he released his right hand so he could better pay attention to Woodward.

Quote

I am not saying he was.  The arrow is from the curb between the lamppost and the Thornton sign.That is correct. I have the positions of JFK plotted here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf). On a map of Dealey Plaza a line from Zapruder to JFK when he was opposite a point midway between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign extends to the rounded end of the north reflecting pool. If you watch JFK in the zfilm this alignment occurs in frame z195.  So this photo, showing JFK clear when he is past the lamppost about halfway to the Thornton sign was his position at z195.  So the WC was wrong when it said he was not visible until z210.

More crap. You're comparing an overhead position on a 2D map to a still from the reenactment film, and not allowing for the subject's re-positioning due to the reenactment film's 3D oblique angle.

(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/WCR-Exh893.jpg)

Kennedy appears to be visible to some degree prior to Z210 but would it be enough for the gunman to acquire the target and track it? Meaning he took a shot with less than a second to frame the target rather than delaying the shot a reasonable amount to improve the odds.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. The question is: how long before? He would likely start a visible reaction when he discovered he could not breathe properly. But until that point he may have simply felt something odd in his throat. So how long would it take for him to realize he could not breathe? If he took a normal 15 breaths per minute and he was hit midway between breaths it could take 2 seconds before he started gasping for air.

Mason's wacko rationale to get the neck shot to occur at ca.Z200.

Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds. Similar to Connally -- who Mason says received Kennedy's neck bullet to his thigh -- being unaware of being struck in the leg at ca.Z200. Per Mason, Connally is not shot in the torso and arm until about Z270; he explains away the Governor's reactions in the Z220s and Z230s as "panic" and concern for the President.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 19, 2018, 02:31:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're not getting it -- because you're so tied into your wacko pet theory. Willis said the first shot occurred while Jackie had her head turned towards his side of the street. That predates your "need" for a first shot at about Z200.
We both agree that Willis said two different things that are inconsistent. He said that Jackie turned her head suddenly from looking left to looking right at the moment of the first shot AND he said that the first shot was so close in time to the exposure of his z202 photo that the loud sound caused him to press the shutter.  Those are conflicting statements because Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.

I was trying to resolve that conflict with the rest of the evidence. The rest of the evidence puts the first shot after z191 so his perception that Jackie turned her head in response to the first shot is false.  I suggested that it may have been his impression because when the car passed him, Jackie was looking left and in the photo she is looking right. 

You, on the other hand, want to take this reference to Jackie turning to argue that the rest of the evidence is false, including his recollection that the sound of the first shot caused him to reflexively press the shutter.

Quote
JFK has to "suddenly lean forward" for some reason?
Willis said that the shot caused him to lean forward. He is leaning forward in his photo (z202) but he is not leaning forward at z193. That is pretty sudden.

Quote
BTW, I don't see where the Governor's chest suddenly faces the side of the car to the extend you contend.u
His chest appears to be turned about 60 degrees to the right in z193.



Quote
Even if Ready decided to respond (super-human fashion) to a ca.Z200 first shot by moving his hand within one-eighth of a second of the event, he's still doesn't begin to turn rearward between Z199 and Z207, the last frame before a splice. All he does between Z199 and Z207 is lower his right hand. His head and torso have a minimal turn.
Unforturnately we do not see Ready after z207. But between z198 and z207 he goes from having his right hand on the hand hold to having it down by his left thigh and his torso has turned from a forward position to about 30 degrees to the right and his head has turned as well. That is 1/2 a second. That is where he begins to turn around to look rearward, as we see him looking in z255.

Quote
Ready moved his head to a greater extend between Z165 and Z169 than he does just after Z200.
Possibly. The point is that he keeps his right hand on the handhold so he is not preparing to turn rearward. He can't turn his head rearward without turning his shoulders and to do that he has to release the right hand from the handhold.  The fact that he keeps his hand on the handhold up to z199 means that his z165-9 head turn is not a turn to look rearward. It is a turn to look forward and to the right.

Quote
Sure. Like they could have heard her.
.... I think she was romanticizing a bit. The Kennedys were paying her exclusive attention. Really?
Have you read the article she wrote for the Dallas Morning News a few hours after the assassination?  That is what she said. She said they acknowledged their cheers. Why do you think the Kennedy's would not have heard them? You weren't there. She was.  Not a single witness has said that the sound of the motorcade prevented them from hearing people speak. Nellie had just spoken to JFK as they rounded the turn and he responded and both heard each other. Woodward said she shouted and they turned toward her and waved and smiled at them.

Quote
More crap. You're comparing an overhead position on a 2D map to a still from the reenactment film, and not allowing for the subject's re-positioning due to the reenactment film's 3D oblique angle.
Please explain. I speak English not pseudo-techie.  I say that JFK was midway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195. Where do you say that JFK was positioned at z195?

Quote
Kennedy appears to be visible to some degree prior to Z210 but would it be enough for the gunman to acquire the target and track it? Meaning he took a shot with less than a second to frame the target rather than delaying the shot a reasonable amount to improve the odds.
Watch the Secret Service film from about 10:24 and you can see that JFK is visible from Oswald's position throughout the entire time he passes beneath the tree branches. No problem tracking at all:


Quote
Mason's wacko rationale to get the neck shot to occur at ca.Z200.

Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds. Similar to Connally -- who Mason says received Kennedy's neck bullet to his thigh -- being unaware of being struck in the leg at ca.Z200. Per Mason, Connally is not shot in the torso and arm until about Z270; he explains away the Governor's reactions in the Z220s and Z230s as "panic" and concern for the President.
Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds?  He is obviously reacting before he appears from behind the Stemmons sign. The HSCA concluded he was beginning a reaction BEFORE he disappeared behind the sign. I can't tell for sure. You seem to be able to see that he is not reacting when he is behind the sign.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 19, 2018, 09:08:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

We both agree that Willis said two different things that are inconsistent. He said that Jackie turned her head suddenly from looking left to looking right at the moment of the first shot AND he said that the first shot was so close in time to the exposure of his z202 photo that the loud sound caused him to press the shutter.  Those are conflicting statements because Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.


Re:  Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.

Wow. You're so wedded to your pet theory dogma that you would deny the only place where, in Willis' words":

(http://i58.tinypic.com/rcsuh3.jpg)

    "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and
    facing more to my side of the street."

(http://i62.tinypic.com/2kosck.jpg)

    "When the first shot was fired, her head seemed
     to just snap in that direction ... when the first shot
     was fired, she turned to the right toward him"

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z172.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z174.jpg)

Above: Three frames (incl. two that are clear) showing when Mrs. Kennedy began her rightward head turn, the head turn described by Willis as a reaction to hearing the first shot.

Quote

I was trying to resolve that conflict with the rest of the evidence. The rest of the evidence puts the first shot after z191 so his perception that Jackie turned her head in response to the first shot is false.


The "rest of the evidence" meaning your subjective interpretation of what the witnesses said to conform it to your theory's "need" for a ca.Z200 first shot.

Quote

I suggested that it may have been his impression because when the car passed him, Jackie was looking left and in the photo she is looking right.

You, on the other hand, want to take this reference to Jackie turning to argue that the rest of the evidence is false,


Wrong. I'm using non-subjective indications, and near-to-the-event and verifiable eyewitness observation to counter your subjective interpretation to satisfy a wacko pet theory.

Quote

including his recollection that the sound of the first shot caused him to reflexively press the shutter.


Now that's what he was wrong about. Willis had a slide set he was marketing. How many white lies and exaggerated product claims has Donald T|rump made on his way to becoming rich and reaching the White House?

Quote

Willis said that the shot caused him to lean forward. He is leaning forward in his photo (z202) but he is not leaning forward at z193. That is pretty sudden.


(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z193.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z198.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z202.jpg)

There is no change in Kennedy's body posture between Z193 and Z202. There is glare on his shirt front in Z202 that might be making you think you see some sort of posture change.

(http://i61.tinypic.com/vp9i5v.jpg)
Right: clear frames morphed
  (http://i59.tinypic.com/4gt3pg.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png)

Willis, speaking of events that could be related to the Z170s:

    "when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right
     toward him and he more or less slumped forward"

Quote

His chest appears to be turned about 60 degrees to the right in z193.


I think your theory's requirement for that is making you see that.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/shoehorn-torso-twist.jpg)

Quote

Unforturnately we do not see Ready after z207. But between z198 and z207 he goes from having his right hand on the hand hold to having it down by his left thigh and his torso has turned from a forward position to about 30 degrees to the right and his head has turned as well. That is 1/2 a second.


(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z200.jpg)
Z200 (clearer than Z199)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z207.jpg)

One would expect that if Ready's torso really turned 30° between Z200 and Z207, there would a more significant change in his tie and handkerchief position. The right side "expands" because his right arm fills the area.

His right hand is at waist level in Z207. If his head has turned, it's very slightly. He seems to be holding his head up more between Z200 and Z207.

Quote

That is where he begins to turn around to look rearward, as we see him looking in z255.


But you can't say if Ready continued to delay turning rearward after Z207. Only that he achieves his goal by Z255.

Quote

Possibly. The point is that he keeps his right hand on the handhold so he is not preparing to turn rearward.


First give him a moment to decide to turn rearward. A good agent would check to see if the President was alright before deciding to remove his attention away from the man he was assigned to protect.

Quote

He can't turn his head rearward without turning his shoulders and to do that he has to release the right hand from the handhold.  The fact that he keeps his hand on the handhold up to z199 means that his z165-9 head turn is not a turn to look rearward. It is a turn to look forward and to the right.


Or... he's briefly checking on the President and the crowd nearest the President before committing to a full turn and not paying attention to what's ahead. Also Ready arguably said he didn't look behind until after he heard more than one shot:

    "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position.
     I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but
     was not able to determine the exact location."

Quote

Have you read the article she wrote for the Dallas Morning News a few hours after the assassination?  That is what she said. She said they acknowledged their cheers.


So where in the Zapruder film does Mrs. Kennedy turn towards Woodward and acknowledge her cheers?

Quote

Why do you think the Kennedy's would not have heard them? You weren't there. She was. 


How does Woodward know that her cheers were heard over the crowd by the Kennedys?

Quote

Not a single witness has said that the sound of the motorcade prevented them from hearing people speak. Nellie had just spoken to JFK as they rounded the turn and he responded and both heard each other. Woodward said she shouted and they turned toward her and waved and smiled at them.


LOL! Some comparison. Nellie was a few feet from Kennedy and I belive he might have leaned her way to hear her. Woodward was dozens of feet away, and more so if her interaction with the President occurred before the Zapruder film began at Z133.

Quote

Please explain. I speak English not pseudo-techie.  I say that JFK was midway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195. Where do you say that JFK was positioned at z195?


You've got the area between the Thornton sign and the lamppost all wrong. A map is 2D while a photo is typically oblique.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/misc/mason-claim-ss-film-jfk-position-z195.jpg)

Quote

Watch the Secret Service film from about 10:24 and you can see that JFK is visible from Oswald's position throughout the entire time he passes beneath the tree branches. No problem tracking at all:



Maybe the gunman did have extremely low-contrast vision, like the film.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/18/Photo_wcd88_024.jpg)  (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d3/Photo_wcd88_025.jpg)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d4/Photo_wcd88_026.jpg)  (https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/60/Photo_wcd88_027.jpg)

Interesting how you ferret out things to support your theory. It's as if the mechanics of your screwball theory pre-determine what you mine from research.

Quote

Kennedy doesn't react for two seconds?  He is obviously reacting before he appears from behind the Stemmons sign.

Hmmm. How is the President "reacting" in Z225?

His hands appear to redirect in Z226, Z227 is too blurred, and in Z228 he's exhibiting a pronounced slump. But in Z225 he's not exhibiting a reaction that I can see.

Quote

The HSCA concluded he was beginning a reaction BEFORE he disappeared behind the sign. I can't tell for sure.


They thought Kennedy had turned towards his wife as he went behind the sign. But clearer frames later showed Kennedy's right fingers (that are between him and Zapruder) are making his head seem in profile when it wasn't.

Quote

You seem to be able to see that he is not reacting when he is behind the sign.


Sounds like a CT demanding "proof" through time-travel. True colors?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 20, 2018, 06:03:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Re:  Jackie does not suddenly turn from looking left to looking right just before z202.

Wow. You're so wedded to your pet theory dogma that you would deny the only place where, in Willis' words":
    "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and
    facing more to my side of the street."

.....The "rest of the evidence" meaning your subjective interpretation of what the witnesses said to conform it to your theory's "need" for a ca.Z200 first shot.

Wrong. I'm using non-subjective indications, and near-to-the-event and verifiable eyewitness observation to counter your subjective interpretation to satisfy a wacko pet theory.

Now that's what he was wrong about. Willis had a slide set he was marketing. How many white lies and exaggerated product claims has Donald T|rump made on his way to becoming rich and reaching the White House?

No. I am not providing subjective impressions of the evidence. I am presenting it, just as it was given, so anyone can see that it is inconsistent with a first shot before z191.  You want to twist that evidence to say that it was all mistaken. 

For example:
You, on the other hand, want to take Willis' statement that is not only inconsistent with this evidence, but is inconsistent with his recollection that the shot was an instant before he exposed his z202 photo.  You allege that what these witnesses said was not what they meant by applying your subjective assessment of their evidence.  And to deal with Willis, you suggest that he was lying in order to sell pictures!

I will leave it to others to assess who is promoting a wacky theory.


Quote
There is no change in Kennedy's body posture between Z193 and Z202. There is glare on his shirt front in Z202 that might be making you think you see some sort of posture change.
You may be right.  But I see no discernible lean forward prior from z150 to z193.  He does raise his right hand to wave, however. It would be odd for someone describing his action during this period as leaning forward but not turning right and raising his right hand to wave.


Quote
One would expect that if Ready's torso really turned 30° between Z200 and Z207, there would a more significant change in his tie and handkerchief position. The right side "expands" because his right arm fills the area.

His right hand is at waist level in Z207. If his head has turned, it's very slightly. He seems to be holding his head up more between Z200 and Z207.

But you can't say if Ready continued to delay turning rearward after Z207. Only that he achieves his goal by Z255.
That is quite right. We cannot see him in the zfilm after z207.  But his right hand moved from holding the handhold in z198 to down by his right side in 8 frames (less than half a second). The next time we see him is in z255 (Altgens). 

You surely will admit that he cannot be turned around as he was by z255 with his right hand on the right handhold.  So he could not have begun a reaction before z199.

The question then is whether he delayed beginning his turn after the first shot by 3 seconds, as you are suggesting.  To conclude that he did, you must reject his evidence (CE1024 18 H 749):


I, on the other hand, see no reason to reject his evidence because it fits with the rest of the witnesses that the first shot was after z191 and before z202.

Quote
First give him a moment to decide to turn rearward. A good agent would check to see if the President was alright before deciding to remove his attention away from the man he was assigned to protect.
Your opinion of what you think a good agent would do is not evidence of what this agent did. Ready did not say he checked to see if the President was ok.  He said he thought he heard firecrackers and that he immediately turned to his right rear to locate the source of the sound.  It may be that he did not think a firecracker would be a danger to the President.

Quote
Or... he's briefly checking on the President and the crowd nearest the President before committing to a full turn and not paying attention to what's ahead. Also Ready arguably said he didn't look behind until after he heard more than one shot:

    "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position.
     I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but
     was not able to determine the exact location."
Ok.  It may not be completely clear from his evidence that he turned immediately after the first shot.  But it would be odd to say that he immediately acted if he waited 3 seconds after the first firecracker sound.  This is particularly odd since Altgens (as well as another 40+ shot pattern witnesses) said that when his z255 photo was taken there had been only one shot (7 H 520):


Quote
So where in the Zapruder film does Mrs. Kennedy turn towards Woodward and acknowledge her cheers?
She is turned left up to z168 and she begins to turn to her right.  She continues turning and faces forward by z178 and by she is turned to her far right by z190, and appears to be looking in the same direction as  Gov. Connally and JFK, which, oddly enough, appears to be in the direction of Mary Woodward and her cheering friends.

Quote
How does Woodward know that her cheers were heard over the crowd by the Kennedys?
I suppose the way anyone would know when you shout at someone and they immediately turn in your direction look at you and smile and wave.  Why do you think she would not be able to tell they were acknowledging her and her friends?

Quote
You've got the area between the Thornton sign and the lamppost all wrong. A map is 2D while a photo is typically oblique.

So, what point on the north side of Elm do you put JFK opposite in the frame I provided? How far ahead of the lamp post is he and how far in front of the Thornton sign is he?
Quote
Maybe the gunman did have extremely low-contrast vision, like the film.
The film has good contrast. It is movie film. The point is that one can see Kennedy the entire time through the thin foliage of the oak tree. Oswald also had a scope.  Even I could track him through the scope.  Why do you think it would be difficult to track JFK as he passed under those outer leaves?

Quote
Interesting how you ferret out things to support your theory. It's as if the mechanics of your screwball theory pre-determine what you mine from research.
Yeah. It is really interesting how all the evidence says that the first shot did not miss, was after z191, and the second shot was close to the third.  I just "ferret" it out and present it. No need to editorialize and tweak it the way you are doing.

Quote
Hmmm. How is the President "reacting" in Z225?

His hands appear to redirect in Z226, Z227 is too blurred, and in Z228 he's exhibiting a pronounced slump. But in Z225 he's not exhibiting a reaction that I can see.

They thought Kennedy had turned towards his wife as he went behind the sign. But clearer frames later showed Kennedy's right fingers (that are between him and Zapruder) are making his head seem in profile when it wasn't.

Sounds like a CT demanding "proof" through time-travel. True colors?
I am disappointed with you, Jerry.  You are using the Trump approach: "If I don't agree with the evidence, I try an ad hominem approach to attack those gathering and presenting the evidence". 

You have read my posts and you know I have ALWAYS maintained that Oswald fired all the shots and I have never, ever, supported, suggested or given any credence whatsoever to a conspiracy theory. 

My point about the SBT being in utter conflict with the rest of the evidence is that if one actually examines the evidence it does NOT support a conclusion that there was more than one shooter.  The shot spacing recalled by the vast majority of witnesses is consistent with Oswald firing the last two shots as the car was beginning to get out of range, the last coming 2.3 seconds after the second.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:47:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.

I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile all the eyewitness testimonies, I really do.  But you must realize that witness memories are hugely unreliable.  You and Jerry both are putting way too much stock in them.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 21, 2018, 04:04:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile all the eyewitness testimonies, I really do.  But you must realize that witness memories are hugely unreliable.  You and Jerry both are putting way too much stock in them.
Perhaps you can give us an example, then, of a group of witnesses having similar recollection of a fact that was proven to be wrong. Give us an example even remotely similar to the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as he is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm (ie. not by smiling and waving). 

While a witness can make a wrong observation or lie, absent collusion or some common factor that induces the same mistake, the mistakes or lies will be random and will not agree.  If it is a fact that is difficult for a human to observe correctly then witnesses will disagree with each other.  This was the case, for example, with witnesses trying to identify the location of source of the shots.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 21, 2018, 08:03:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No. I am not providing subjective impressions of the evidence. I am presenting it, just as it was given, so anyone can see that it is inconsistent with a first shot before z191.  You want to twist that evidence to say that it was all mistaken. 

For example:

    Betzner said he took his z186 photo before the first shot.


He said the shot was the first of two that he could associate with something he was doing; the other shot would seem to be the head shot. He also said he was looking down to wind his camera when he heard the first of the two shots he later recalled.

As Betzner goes out of the Zapruder film in Z207, he is still lowering his camera and is not looking down. This would seem to negate your ca.Z200 area for a first shot. However, it would better fit a proposed Z223 shot. A three-shot scenario would simply mean Betzner heard a third shot but had no reason to remember it, which in turn argues for an earlier shot (before the shot Betzner heard after taking his Z186 photo) that many witnesses dismissed as a backfire or firecracker.

Quote

Croft said he took his z161 photo long enough before the first shot that he had time to roll his film and snap another (that did not turn out) before the first shot.


I don't believe we have Croft stating those things verbatim. They're characterized that way in a FBI AirTel, which is hearsay and possibly misconstrued. It could be his Z161 photo was taken simultaneously with one of the shots.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_croft~0.jpg)
Croft Photo (Z162)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
   Willis 05 Photo (Z202)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
   Approximate size of
   Kennedy limousine
   relative to Willis photo,
   if Croft had taken a
   photo at Z313
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_fig13.jpg)
Altgens (Z255, three seconds before Z313) includes area where Croft would
have to move to take a photo at Z313, if he wanted less obstruction
   

Croft stepping out in the street (for a better sight-line) or remaining where he was to take a photo in which the limousine was barely visible seems farfetched. I believe Kennedy himself is obstructed from Croft's view by Clint Hill by Z255, and would have been fully obstructed by the Queen Mary relative to Croft by the Z280s.

We do, however, have verbatim statements from Jackie and the Connallys (saying they turned their heads to their right in response to hearing the first shot; the Connallys are seen in the Zapruder film to first do so in the Z160s while Mrs. Kennedy does so beginning in the early Z170s), and Phil Willis, who testified:

   "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and
     facing more to my side of the street."

   "When the first shot was fired, her head seemed
     to just snap in that direction ... when the first shot
     was fired, she turned to the right toward him"

Quote

Hughes said he stopped filming before the first shot. He continues to film to about z187.


Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. This doesn't work for your ca.Z200 "first shot" because he quits filming at Z185. My scenario that he might have not been that alarmed by a late-Z150 missed shot (and so didn't include its moment in time in his recollections) is in keeping with Hughes' claim that "Some of the people dropped to the ground at the first shot." From the photographic evidence (including the Dorman film), it would seem no one dropped to the ground until after the head shot.

Furthermore, if Hughes had stopped at Z185, about 2/3 second before your theory's first shot, then it's unlikely he would have characterized the lag as five seconds. A second shot at ca.Z223 is over two seconds from when he stopped filming, while the Z313 head shot (which Hughes alludes to with "first shot" and people dropping to the ground) is almost seven seconds from when he stopped filming.

Quote

Occupants of the VP car said they had just completed the turn and were going downhill on Elm when the first shot occurred. It is still turning at z191.


(http://i67.tinypic.com/11he78h.jpg)

By the Z160s, it had nearly completed 70° of the turn off from Houston. A 90° turn would be perpendicular to Houston. The animation stops at Z150 but we can picture the progression of the VP car to Z160.

Quote

Occupants of the VP security car said they were parallel to the TSBD/still in the turn when the first shot sounded.


The occupants probably aren't looking dead-center through the windshield, but rather where the car is turning towards. This would place their heads parallel to the Depository in the Z150s.

Quote

The car is still pointing somewhat toward the TSBD in z191.


(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z191.jpg)

You've got some remarkable visible to determine that from Z191.

Quote

Mrs. Cabell, in the car immediately behind the VP security car was seated behind the driver of the car. She said the car was in its turn and she was turned to her right toward her husband seated in the front passenger seat when the first shot rang out. At that point she was facing the TSBD and just looked straight up and saw the gun.  Her car has not quite reached the intersection by z190.

You, on the other hand, want to take Willis' statement that is not only inconsistent with this evidence, but is inconsistent with his recollection that the shot was an instant before he exposed his z202 photo. 


What he said about his photo being instantaneous with the first shot is how he chose to characterize his 05 slide. By then he had labels on copies of that slide claiming the same thing, that were being sold commercially. When asked specifically about the first shot, Willis testified under oath:

   "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and
     facing more to my side of the street."

   "When the first shot was fired, her head seemed
     to just snap in that direction ... when the first shot
     was fired, she turned to the right toward him"

Quote

You allege that what these witnesses said was not what they meant by applying your subjective assessment of their evidence.  And to deal with Willis, you suggest that he was lying in order to sell pictures!

I will leave it to others to assess who is promoting a wacky theory.


Right. He was selling sets of slides with the claim that his 05 slide was taken at the exact moment of the first shot. Under oath though, he pinpoints Mrs. Kennedy's head turn as the moment of the first shot, and claims (incorrectly) his slide corresponds with a Zapruder frame in which "he has already reached for his throat at that time" which means he introducing some reaction time, an admission of sorts that there was some time between his hearing the first shot and his taking his slide..

Quote

You may be right.  But I see no discernible lean forward prior from z150 to z193.  He does raise his right hand to wave, however. It would be odd for someone describing his action during this period as leaning forward but not turning right and raising his right hand to wave.


Willis couldn't see Kennedy's right hand or see if he was smiling. He was closer to Mrs. Kennedy and therefore witnessed her head turn in reaction, he thought, to the first shot. The head nod by Kennedy in the Z170s as seen from behind (as Willis saw it) could suggest to Willis what he termed "more or less slumped forward".

Quote

That is quite right. We cannot see him in the zfilm after z207.  But his right hand moved from holding the handhold in z198 to down by his right side in 8 frames (less than half a second). The next time we see him is in z255 (Altgens). 

You surely will admit that he cannot be turned around as he was by z255 with his right hand on the right handhold.  So he could not have begun a reaction before z199.


That's quite a reaction. 1/4-to-1/2 second to decide to turn around and forget about how the President was.

Quote

The question then is whether he delayed beginning his turn after the first shot by 3 seconds, as you are suggesting.  To conclude that he did, you must reject his evidence (CE1024 18 H 749):

    I heard what appeared to be fire-crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location.

I, on the other hand, see no reason to reject his evidence because it fits with the rest of the witnesses that the first shot was after z191 and before z202.


I would suggest some people use the term "immediately" in different ways. Ready said the first shot occurred as:

    "we began the approach to the Thornton Freeway"
    "The shooting occurred as we were approaching the
     Thornton Freeway [sign]"

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_betzner_3_crop.jpg)
Betzner (Z186)
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Willis5Large.jpg)
Willis 05 (Z202)

Which photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign? I would think that the Z150s/Z160s would even more so represent to Ready the beginning of the approach to the Thornton sign.

Quote

Your opinion of what you think a good agent would do is not evidence of what this agent did. Ready did not say he checked to see if the President was ok.  He said he thought he heard firecrackers and that he immediately turned to his right rear to locate the source of the sound.  It may be that he did not think a firecracker would be a danger to the President.


Not a danger? Even more reason to take his time to fully turn around. No reason though why he can't begin to turn his head rightward immediately.

Quote

Ok.  It may not be completely clear from his evidence that he turned immediately after the first shot.  But it would be odd to say that he immediately acted if he waited 3 seconds after the first firecracker sound. 


Ready reacts immediately with the turning of his head, within the same brief time span as the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy, all of whom said the first shot caused them to turn their heads rightward. Phil Willis witnessed Mrs. Kennedy turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite, testifying that he thought it was caused by her reacting to the first shot. She does this beginning in the early-Z170s.

Quote

This is particularly odd since Altgens (as well as another 40+ shot pattern witnesses) said that when his z255 photo was taken there had been only one shot (7 H 520):

    Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure in your mind, however, that there were no shots, a noise that sounded like shots, prior to the time at which you took the picture that has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 203; is that correct?
    Mr. ALTGENS. No, sir ; I did not-you see-all of these shots sounded the same. If you heard one you would recognize the other shots and these were all the same. It was a pop that I don’t believe I could identify it any other way than as a firecracker and this particular picture was made at the time the first firecracker noise was heard by me.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you don’t think that there could have been any other shots fired prior to that time that you wouldn’t have heard, you were standing right there and you would have heard them, would you not?
    Mr. ALTGENS. I’m sure I would have-yes, sir.


    "I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks
     explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took
      place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot,
     but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."

Altgens told Trask in 1985:

    "My first instinct was 'well, they’re shooting firecrackers up there,'
     or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
     I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
     idea that something was taking place."

Seems he heard an unusual noise before the car came down to where he took his photo at Z255.

Quote

She is turned left up to z168 and she begins to turn to her right.  She continues turning and faces forward by z178 and by she is turned to her far right by z190, and appears to be looking in the same direction as  Gov. Connally and JFK, which, oddly enough, appears to be in the direction of Mary Woodward and her cheering friends.


Except how can Woodward see Jackie's face and her reaction, if the President is blocking the view by then? Also Jackie is not waving.

And when does she see the Kennedys look around as if bewildered after the first shot if it's not when Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in the Z170s? Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. That's about the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they disappeared behind the sign.

I figure it's doubtful they moved their heads while behind the sign because their head orientation seems to be same between Z207 and Z225 (the first post-sign when JFK's head comes fully into view). Compare Jackie's hat and the President's hairline; they seem unchanged.

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399757190594/mpi/z200-z249/z207.jpg)
Kennedy's eyes blocked by part of his right hand
  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z225.jpg)
Only the right hand being lowered naturally from a wave has changed

Quote

I suppose the way anyone would know when you shout at someone and they immediately turn in your direction look at you and smile and wave.  Why do you think she would not be able to tell they were acknowledging her and her friends?


I think she assumed that. But she has no way of actually knowing.

Quote

So, what point on the north side of Elm do you put JFK opposite in the frame I provided? How far ahead of the lamp post is he and how far in front of the Thornton sign is he?The film has good contrast. It is movie film. The point is that one can see Kennedy the entire time through the thin foliage of the oak tree. Oswald also had a scope.  Even I could track him through the scope.  Why do you think it would be difficult to track JFK as he passed under those outer leaves?


You can fuzz out fine details if you reduce the contrast enough.

(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.jpg)

But you're left with a blurry indistinct target blob.

Quote

Yeah. It is really interesting how all the evidence says that the first shot did not miss, was after z191, and the second shot was close to the third.  I just "ferret" it out and present it. No need to editorialize and tweak it the way you are doing.


You must have tweaked Woodward's comment that the first shot was a miss. And that Kennedy first slumped on the second shot.

Quote

I am disappointed with you, Jerry.  You are using the Trump approach: "If I don't agree with the evidence, I try an ad hominem approach to attack those gathering and presenting the evidence".


Guess you've forgotten that I said you have a brilliant mind (for other things) and that your theory is not as bad as others.

Quote

You have read my posts and you know I have ALWAYS maintained that Oswald fired all the shots and I have never, ever, supported, suggested or given any credence whatsoever to a conspiracy theory.

My point about the SBT being in utter conflict with the rest of the evidence is that if one actually examines the evidence it does NOT support a conclusion that there was more than one shooter.  The shot spacing recalled by the vast majority of witnesses is consistent with Oswald firing the last two shots as the car was beginning to get out of range, the last coming 2.3 seconds after the second.

Really. Eyewitness assessment by consensus. The Parkland witnesses mostly described a head wound further back than the Zapruder film and autopsy photos show. Many witnesses (ask Palamara) said the limousine stopped after the fatal shot.

I suppose you're now going to suggest that I'm claiming most of the shot-spacing witnesses had a mass hallucination?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 22, 2018, 02:19:46 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ctidiocy.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 23, 2018, 04:56:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Re: Betzner, Croft, Willis, Hughes....
Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value.  You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.

Quote
That's quite a reaction. 1/4-to-1/2 second to decline to turn around and forget about how the President was.

I would suggest some people use the term "immediately" in different ways. Ready said the first shot occurred as:

    "we began the approach to the Thornton Freeway"
    "The shooting occurred as we were approaching the
     Thornton Freeway [sign]"


Which photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign? I would think that the Z150s/Z160s would even more so represent to Ready the beginning of the approach to the Thornton sign.
Jerry, he said he turned around to look behind him "immediately" after the first shot.  Do you really think 3 seconds (z151-z199) before even beginning the turn could be considered "immediately" by anyone? 

The issue is not what photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign.  He was approaching the Thornton Freeway sign up to the time he passed it, which would have been about z225 as he was about 25-30 feet behind JFK and JFK passed it about z200. There is no way to tell from just that statement how far in front of it he was. But he was definitely in front of it and moving toward it at z195.

Quote
Not a danger? Even more reason ....
Altgens....
Again, thanks for demonstrating that one cannot take Ready's or Altgens' evidence as they gave it if you want to stick to your early missed first shot fantasy (with two shots well before the midpoint between first and last).
Quote

Except how can Woodward see Jackie's face and her reaction, if the President is blocking the view by then? Also Jackie is not waving.
There you go again trying to second guess a witness' observation and say the witness did not observe what they said they observed.  Woodward said:
 

The fact is that one can only see Jackie's head in the zfilm so we cannot say that she did not wave.  Woodward said she waved. You were not there. She was.

Quote
And when does she see the Kennedys look around as if bewildered after the first shot if it's not when Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in the Z170s? Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. That's about the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they disappeared behind the sign.
Again, you are changing evidence.  First of all, Woodward said the first shot occurred AFTER the President acknowledged their cheers.


Second, if that turn of JFK from looking to his left at z154 to looking forward and slightly right at z161 as the turn acknowledging Mary Woodward, then you have to conclude that she was wrong that JFK waved and she was wrong that Jackie even turned toward them let alone smiled and waved and acknowledged them. The JFK wave does not begin until z173 and Jackie does not being to turn until z172. Their actions post-z172 are the only actions that fit what Woodward described.

As far as the President and Jackie looking around after the first shot, it appears that even she was not sure about events post-first-shot:


Quote
Really. Eyewitness assessment by consensus. The Parkland witnesses mostly described a head wound further back than the Zapruder film and autopsy photos show. Many witnesses (ask Palamara) said the limousine stopped after the fatal shot.
There was blood everywhere on JFK's head and Jackie had tried to put his skull back together.  I am not sure that anyone other than those who closely treated JFK's head wound could give an accurate observation of its location.  On the other hand, the witnesses who could see what JFK did in response to the first shot or hear the relative shot spacings, were able to make those observations without difficulty.  As far as "consensus" is concerned, it depends on how you define consensus.  It is not a simple majority. Significant proportions of witnesses giving conflicting accounts indicates confusion or inability to observe accurately.  But if there are statistically significant numbers of witnesses who agree on a simple fact observations and only a smattering who disagree, one cannot ignore that evidence.

Here we have 20+ witnesses who observed JFK react to the first shot as if hit by it and 40+ witnesses who observed a shot pattern that necessarily MEANS he was hit by the first shot, and 20 or so witnesses who put the first shot at a time/location that means there could not have been a missed first shot before JFK began reacting, then we can draw a reliable conclusion that JFK was hit by the first shot.

Quote
I suppose you're now going to suggest that I'm claiming most of the shot-spacing witnesses had a mass hallucination?
No. You are going to change their evidence so that none of them actually heard the 1.......2...3 shot spacing that they said they heard.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 05:45:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value.  You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.

That's the fatal flaw in most LN arguments.  When there is contradictory evidence, it's always reconciled as "the evidence that I don't like must have been the product of a mistake or error".
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 23, 2018, 09:23:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's the fatal flaw in most LN arguments.  When there is contradictory evidence, it's always reconciled as "the evidence that I don't like must have been the product of a mistake or error".
I will grant you that it is the fatal flaw in most SBT arguments.  The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence, just a lot of arguments that the evidence that exists could be wrong.

For example, Buell Frazier said that Oswald took a paper wrapped package to work on Nov 22/63 that Oswald told him contained curtain rods. 

CTers make a big issue about the statements of Frazier regarding the length of the package, its exact colour, and how Oswald carried it, even though by his own admission, Frazier said that he did not pay much attention to it or how Oswald carried it.  CTers seize on this evidence as if it were ironclad proof that Oswald could not have taken the gun to work.

But the critical part of Frazier's evidence is that it puts Oswald carrying a paper wrapped longish package and that Oswald lied about its contents. Frazier expressed no uncertainty about what Oswald said or that he carried a package that was consistent with what he said it contained.  The disassembled rifle fit entirely into the package recovered in the SN (CE364) and it had Oswald's palmprint on it as well as fibres matching the blanket found the the Paine's garage that Marina said was used to wrap the rifle. No paper package other than CE364 was found. No curtain rods were found.  Oswald did not carry curtain rods or a paper package out of the TSBD. Yet all of this evidence is dismissed by CTers as unreliable.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 10:01:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence

Or really any supporting evidence for that matter...


Quote
For example, Buell Frazier said that Oswald took a paper wrapped package to work on Nov 22/63 that Oswald told him contained curtain rods. 

CTers make a big issue about the statements of Frazier regarding the length of the package, its exact colour, and how Oswald carried it, even though by his own admission, Frazier said that he did not pay much attention to it or how Oswald carried it.  CTers seize on this evidence as if it were ironclad proof that Oswald could not have taken the gun to work.

LNers assume that this bag was used to carry a rifle, even though there is no evidence to support that whatsoever.

Quote
But the critical part of Frazier's evidence is that it puts Oswald carrying a paper wrapped longish package and that Oswald lied about its contents.

That doesn't follow.  We don't know what the bag was or what it contained.

Quote
Frazier expressed no uncertainty about what Oswald said or that he carried a package that was consistent with what he said it contained.  The disassembled rifle fit entirely into the package recovered in the SN (CE364) [sic]

Yes, but there is no evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw.  It fact they explicitly said it was not.

Quote
and it had Oswald's palmprint on it as well as fibres matching the blanket found the the Paine's garage that Marina said was used to wrap the rifle.

The fibers could not be matched to any specific blanket.  And Marina only saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle in the blanket.  So it certainly doesn't follow that any particular rifle was in that bag.

Quote
No paper package other than CE364 [sic] was found.

Not you too.  There's no evidence that any other packages were ever looked for.

Quote
No curtain rods were found.

Curtain rods were found in the Paines' garage.

Quote
  Oswald did not carry curtain rods or a paper package out of the TSBD.

How could you possibly know that?

Quote
Yet all of this evidence is dismissed by CTers as unreliable.

No, it's the conclusions that you make based upon this evidence that is unreliable.  It contains a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 24, 2018, 03:39:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That doesn't follow.  We don't know what the bag was or what it contained.
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

Quote
Yes, but there is no evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw.  It fact they explicitly said it was not.
CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.


Quote
No, it's the conclusions that you make based upon this evidence that is unreliable.  It contains a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.
No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.
Can you explain to me the difference between your use of "speculation and assumptions" and inferences?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 25, 2018, 11:09:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents.

You don’t actually know that, because
a) you don’t know exactly what he said during interrogation
and
b) you don’t know what the contents were


Quote
Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

“Hiding something” tells you that he killed someone?

Quote
CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.

They showed CE142 to Frazier the night of 11/22.

Quote
Can you explain to me the difference between your use of "speculation and assumptions" and inferences?

I don’t see any distinction in the way you’re “inferring” things.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 26, 2018, 03:51:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Croft said he took his z161 photo long enough before the first shot that he had time to roll his film and snap another (that did not turn out) before the first shot.

You are misusing Croft.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 26, 2018, 07:46:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are misusing Croft.
If so, please explain how you would use the interview he gave to Robert Trask.






Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2018, 07:54:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

Pretty flimsy evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt that they assassinated the POTUS.

You fail to distinguish the difference between Oswald the patsy and Oswald the lone nut. Oswald was fully aware that he was being sheep-dipped to be the patsy, but he assumed (hoped) he was granted an escape route out of the country and portrayed as a lone nut who got lucky then got away. It is obvious to any critical thinker that Oswald was the patsy that got double-crossed, which is why he needed to be silenced.

Otherwise, why did Oswald leave a useless scope on the disassembled rifle that was supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in the curtain rod bag? Fact is, an unpracticed military marksman would know that disassembling/reassembling a rifle would require sighting in the scope, which was not an option for him. So if Oswald knew he would be using the iron sights why did he keep the scope on the rifle? Ans: so the rifle would match the BYPs as part his sheep-dipping that linked him to the assassination.

The bottom line is that the MC was just a plant and never used, while the scopeless Mauser was probably used to take any token shots from the TSBD. And if this was a conspiracy, which it likely was, then there is no way in hell the conspirators would rely on Oswald alone to take any shots. Like Thomas Vallee was for Plan A, Oswald was the patsy for Plan B.

Quote
CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.

Speaking of fingerprints, how come there weren't any on the MC? Didn't Oswald handle it extensively when he disassembled it and placed it into CE142, then extracted it from CE142 and reassembled it in the TSBD?

Quote
No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.

But what evidence suggests that he was not a patsy and acted alone?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 26, 2018, 09:41:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don’t actually know that, because
a) you don’t know exactly what he said during interrogation
and
b) you don’t know what the contents were
The point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package.  First of all, he didn't need curtain rods.  His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them.  Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods. He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't. Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work.  He knew he had to do this because the next question would have been: then where are they? There was no answer to that question.  Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage. Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long. The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21.  So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.

This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

Quote

“Hiding something” tells you that he killed someone?
No. It tells us that did not wish to reveal the contents of the package.  I am unable to conceive of any innocent reason why an innocent Oswald would lie about the contents of this package.  But he did.  The only reason for lying about its contents was a non-innocent one. His gun then turns out to be a murder weapon. Hmmm. Let me see. Why did he not tell Frazier what was in the package.  hmmm.  Tough one.....

Quote

I don’t see any distinction in the way you’re “inferring” things.
The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence.  Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred.  Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tom Sorensen on March 26, 2018, 09:59:52 PM
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

Not unless you can prove that Frazier did not fabricate that story.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package.  First of all, he didn't need curtain rods.

How do you know that?

Quote
  His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods

(http://www.jfkindex.com/photos/LHO-Room.jpg)

Quote
and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them.

Mary Bledsoe had nothing to do with the Beckley St house.

Quote
  Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods.

What makes you think his visit was urgent, or that curtain rods were his primary motivation to go to Irving that night?

Quote
He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't.

How do you know what he took with him when he left?

Quote
Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work.

That doesn't necessarily mean he was lying.  But even if he was, that doesn't somehow prove there was a rifle in the bag.  Particularly when the bag wasn't long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.

Quote
Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage.

I think you skipped "fifth".  In any case, there's no evidence that the C2766 rifle was ever in the Paine garage.  And very little evidence to suggest that C2766 was even his gun.

Quote
Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long.

How could you possibly know that?

Quote
The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21.  So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.

That's begging the question.  You don't know he ever brought a gun to work.  You're just assuming he did.

Quote
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

Quote
The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence.  Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred.

Everybody thinks his own conclusions are rational.  The problem is that your inferences are made based upon conclusions about the evidence that aren't proven or even well supported by the actual evidence.

Quote
  Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.

You haven't even come close to showing that all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.

A guy may have lied to a coworker about the contents of a package, therefore he murdered the president?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 27, 2018, 03:55:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

Not unless you can prove that Frazier did not fabricate that story.
I think you mean "prove that Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude and fabricate the story about the package."  First of all, why would they do that? AND How would they have known to make up and describe a package that was very similar to the package actually found in the SN?

One way to test credibility is to ask questions and expose inconsistencies or conflicfs with the other evidence. Frazier was questioned at great length and no one as able to find any conflicts or inconsistencies.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2018, 05:51:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A guy may have lied to a coworker about the contents of a package, therefore he murdered the president?

Translation for newbies:

'We declare that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the President based solely on his lying about the contents of the bag. The prosecution rests"

Are you sure any LNer is claiming that?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 27, 2018, 07:02:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you mean "prove that Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude and fabricate the story about the package."  First of all, why would they do that?  AND How would they have known to make up and describe a package that was very similar to the package foun in the SN? One way to test credibility is to ask questions and exposd inconsistencies or conflicfs with he other evidence. Frazier was questioned at great length and no one as able to find any conflicfs or inconsistencies.

Neither BWF nor LMR ever saw Lee with CE 142. Neither did anyone else that day or the day prior.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tom Sorensen on March 27, 2018, 08:02:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you mean "prove that Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude and fabricate the story about the package."  First of all, why would they do that?  AND How would they have known to make up and describe a package that was very similar to the package foun in the SN? One way to test credibility is to ask questions and exposd inconsistencies or conflicfs with he other evidence. Frazier was questioned at great length and no one as able to find any conflicfs or inconsistencies.

You didn't address what I wrote.

To support your claim that Oswald lied about any curtain rods you need to at least prove the curtain rod story was known on the 21st.

To that end you need LMR and, speaking of credibility, she sunk that tale even before she got started:

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Neither BWF nor LMR ever saw Lee with CE 142. Neither did anyone else that day or the day prior.

Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6
Randle called police and said the bag she saw Oswald carrying was big enough to hold a rifle, didn't she?

Buell said he saw a 'big bag' approx 2' x 5" when he glanced into the back seat. How such a bag qualifies as 'big' is beyond me.

Police like to get first impressions from each separate witness before said witnesses have a chance to compare notes. Boy meets girl and all-of-a-sudden the bag shape-shifts to a size potentially keeping Buell's arse out of the electric chair.

And you characters call us naive.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 27, 2018, 04:15:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6
Randle called police and said the bag she saw Oswald carrying was big enough to hold a rifle, didn't she?

Buell said he saw a 'big bag' approx 2' x 5" when he glanced into the back seat. How such a bag qualifies as 'big' is beyond me.

Police like to get first impressions from each separate witness before said witnesses have a chance to compare notes. Boy meets girl and all-of-a-sudden the bag shape-shifts to a size potentially keeping Buell's arse out of the electric chair.

And you characters call us naive.

"Randall's reported first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6.

There fixed it for you Chappers.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:42:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
AND How would they have known to make up and describe a package that was very similar to the package foun in the SN?

It wasn't very similar to the package supposedly found in the SN.  I don't know how many ways from Sunday this point needs to be made.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:46:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Translation for newbies:

'We declare that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the President based solely on his lying about the contents of the bag. The prosecution rests"

Are you sure any LNer is claiming that?

That's exactly the case that Andrew was trying to make.  Did you not read it?

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.
No. It tells us that did not wish to reveal the contents of the package.  I am unable to conceive of any innocent reason why an innocent Oswald would lie about the contents of this package.  But he did.  The only reason for lying about its contents was a non-innocent one. His gun then turns out to be a murder weapon. Hmmm. Let me see. Why did he not tell Frazier what was in the package.  hmmm.  Tough one.....
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:49:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6

Correction:  James Bookhout reported that Randle stated that.  She never stated that in her testimony, or in a signed affidavit, or in any recorded interview.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 05:55:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It wasn't very similar to the package supposedly found in the SN. 

Where do you get that from?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:35:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where do you get that from?

Different size, different length, different paper.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 06:44:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Different size, different length, different paper.

Where do you get those from?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 07:08:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where do you get those from?

Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle.  The only people to ever have claimed to have seen the bag in question.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2018, 08:11:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correction:  James Bookhout reported that Randle stated that.  She never stated that in her testimony, or in a signed affidavit, or in any recorded interview.

Was her affidavit taken before she spoke to Buell? Was her affidavit Q&A and did any interviewer ask her a direct question about the length of the bag before she spoke to her brother?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 08:49:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle.  The only people to ever have claimed to have seen the bag in question.

Citations required.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 09:02:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Citations required.

Seriously, Tim?  I know you saw this thread -- you commented in it.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 09:09:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Seriously, Tim?  I know you saw this thread -- you commented in it.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html)

Sorry but linking to another discussion on the forum will not suffice.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 10:22:44 PM
Well then you're just playing games because the citations are in the thread.

Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_298_300.png)

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/anderton-memo.png)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_302_300.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 12:43:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well then you're just playing games because the citations are in the thread.

Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

27 inches in length eh? And Oswald had one end of that cupped in his right hand and the other end tucked under his right armpit?  :o  Assuming that you can find signed copies of transcripts of their testimonies then at best what you've got there is different length. Your claim is that the bag was of different size, different length, different paper.

Quote
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_298_300.png)

Vincent Drain reported that Det. Lewis stated that Frazier said.....

Quote
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/anderton-memo.png)

SA James Anderton said what?

Quote
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10408/images/img_10408_302_300.png)

Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely reported that Frazier stated that....

Sorry but you fail by your own standard.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 28, 2018, 12:46:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
27 inches in length eh? And Oswald had one end of that cupped in his right hand and the other end tucked under his right armpit? :o  Assuming that you can find signed copies of transcripts of their testimonies then at best what you've got there is different length. Your claim is that the bag was of different size, different length, different paper.

Vincent Drain reported that Det. Lewis stated that Frazier said.....

SA James Anderton said what?

Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely reported that Frazier stated that....

Sorry but you fail by your own standard.

Do you believe BWF when he saw Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 12:50:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you believe BWF when he saw Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand?

Did BWF see Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand? How do you know? When did Frazier ever say that?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 28, 2018, 01:00:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did BWF see Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand? How do you know? When did Frazier ever say that?

I think that was common knowledge since 1964 - did you somehow miss that Tim?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 01:04:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think that was common knowledge since 1964 - did you somehow miss that Tim?

Just answer the question Tony. When did Frazier say that he saw Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 28, 2018, 01:24:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just answer the question Tony. When did Frazier say that he saw Lee, from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand?

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TIM


Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.


Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

This was 1964 and you carry on as if your naive.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 01:48:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TIM


Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.


Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

This was 1964 and you carry on as if your naive.

He did not say that he saw Lee from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand.

He said the Oswald carried it under his arm. When he said that one end of the package was tucked under the armpit he was just assuming that it was because he couldn't see it sticking above the shoulder.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 28, 2018, 02:20:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He did not say that he saw Lee from a few feet away, place a paper bag tucked under his armpit and cupped in the palm of his right hand.

He said the Oswald carried it under his arm. When he said that one end of the package was tucked under the armpit he was just assuming that it was because he couldn't see it sticking above the shoulder.

Tim - debating with you on CE 142 is a waste of bandwidth and time.  >:(

If you want to debate paper bags you know where my thread is.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 28, 2018, 02:52:40 AM
Derailed also!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on March 28, 2018, 03:15:34 AM
What bag was discovered in the SN? All I see in the photograph is a dotted line.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 28, 2018, 04:33:57 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz.jpg)
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz1.jpg)
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz3.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on March 28, 2018, 04:34:26 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shotz6.jpg)
~snip~
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 28, 2018, 06:28:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know that?
He did not have an apartment and the room he was renting on N. Beckley already had curtains and blinds. Why do you think he needed curtain rods?
Quote
Mary Bledsoe had nothing to do with the Beckley St house.
Sorry. Earlene Roberts or Gladys Johnson would have had to have given permission.  Bledsoe was his previous landlady. 

Quote
What makes you think his visit was urgent, or that curtain rods were his primary motivation to go to Irving that night?
Buell Frazier's testimony at 2H222:

"and I said, “Why are you going home today?” And he says, “I am going home to get some curtain rods.” He said, “You know, put in an apartment.”
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, “Very well.” And I never thought more about it ...

The "urgency" is evident from the fact that went to Irving on a Thursday night.  He was normally going to go to Irving for the weekend.  He needed them for Friday, rather than Monday.  And he would not be in his room on the weekend as he would be in Irving.  Again, why? This, along with all the other evidence, tends to support the conclusion that he went to Irving to get his gun. 
Quote
How do you know what he took with him when he left?
Mary Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus, minutes after the assassination, and did not mention that he was carrying anything. She described his shirt with a hole in the elbow. But she missed the curtain rod package, it appears.  The taxi driver, Wm. Whaley, also never mentioned him carrying anything, nor did Earlene Roberts who was at home when Oswald arrived. Funny that.

Quote
That doesn't necessarily mean he was lying.  But even if he was, that doesn't somehow prove there was a rifle in the bag.  Particularly when the bag wasn't long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.
That was my original point.  He was carrying a longish package in which he lied about its contents and you cling to the discrepancy of a few inches from what Buell Frazier estimated to be its length, even though he admitted he didn't pay much attention to it.

Quote
I think you skipped "fifth".  In any case, there's no evidence that the C2766 rifle was ever in the Paine garage.  And very little evidence to suggest that C2766 was even his gun.
Marina's evidence is not evidence? The blanket fibres are not evidence? The backyard photos are not evidence? The paper trail to and from Klein's is not evidence? The "A.J.Hidell" identity card found on Oswald is not evidence?

Quote
How could you possibly know that?

That's begging the question.  You don't know he ever brought a gun to work.  You're just assuming he did.
It is a reasonable inference from the evidence that we have. An assumption is a fact that is accepted as being true without proof.  An inference is a conclusion of fact that is based on indirect proof: ie. evidence and a logical thought process. You seem to be confusing the two concepts.

Quote
False premises lead to false conclusions.
There are no premises. Just reasoning based on evidence.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 07:50:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He did not have an apartment and the room he was renting on N. Beckley already had curtains and blinds. Why do you think he needed curtain rods?

I don't know if he needed them or not.  Maybe he just wanted new ones.  Maybe the ones that were there were broken and the story about a news reporter breaking them was contrived to explain an inconvenient photo.

Quote
Sorry. Earlene Roberts or Gladys Johnson would have had to have given permission.

Why would they have "had to have given permission"?  Have you seen the lease?

Quote
The "urgency" is evident from the fact that went to Irving on a Thursday night.  He was normally going to go to Irving for the weekend.  He needed them for Friday, rather than Monday.  And he would not be in his room on the weekend as he would be in Irving.  Again, why?

I don't see how that makes anything "urgent".

Quote
This, along with all the other evidence, tends to support the conclusion that he went to Irving to get his gun.

No it doesn't.  You're assuming that he went to Irving to get his gun and then interpreting his actions under that light.  There's no evidence that he ever got a gun.

Quote
Mary Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus, minutes after the assassination, and did not mention that he was carrying anything.

Does that mean he couldn't have been carrying anything?  Does that mean he couldn't have taken something with him when he left and dropped it somewhere else, given it to somebody, left it at the bus station, or any number of other possibilities?

Quote
That was my original point.  He was carrying a longish package in which he lied about its contents and you cling to the discrepancy of a few inches from what Buell Frazier estimated to be its length, even though he admitted he didn't pay much attention to it.

How do you know he lied about the contents when you don't know what the contents were or even exactly what he said about it?  The answer is, you don't.

Quote
Marina's evidence is not evidence?

Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle rolled up in a blanket in early October.  How is that evidence that the C2766 rifle was in the Paine's garage on 11/21-22?

Quote
The blanket fibres are not evidence?

Evidence of what?  3 fibers that couldn't be tied to any specific blanket?

Quote
The backyard photos are not evidence?

Evidence of what.  That Oswald was holding a rifle that may or may not have been C2766 in a photo taken in March or April?

Quote
The paper trail to and from Klein's is not evidence?

Evidence of what?  That unscientific handwriting analysis of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon was claimed to have been written by Oswald?

Quote
The "A.J.Hidell" identity card found on Oswald is not evidence?

Evidence of what?  That an ID card that nobody ever mentioned in any report or interview prior to Oswald's death suddenly turned up in the evidence stream?

Quote
It is a reasonable inference from the evidence that we have. An assumption is a fact that is accepted as being true without proof.  An inference is a conclusion of fact that is based on indirect proof: ie. evidence and a logical thought process. You seem to be confusing the two concepts.

No, you are confusing the two concepts as everything you're claiming to be evidence doesn't actually support your claim that "his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage".  You're accepting that as true without proof.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 28, 2018, 09:41:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
27 inches in length eh? And Oswald had one end of that cupped in his right hand and the other end tucked under his right armpit?  :o  Assuming that you can find signed copies of transcripts of their testimonies then at best what you've got there is different length. Your claim is that the bag was of different size, different length, different paper.

Vincent Drain reported that Det. Lewis stated that Frazier said.....

SA James Anderton said what?

Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely reported that Frazier stated that....

Sorry but you fail by your own standard.

The real question is; did he fail by your standard? The documents shown to you are the same kind as those you have relied upon since the first post I've read from you on this forum and probably even longer.

Could it possibly be that you are now questioning and/or disbelieving documents the veracity of which you have been defending for years?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 28, 2018, 09:47:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if he needed them or not.  Maybe he just wanted new ones.  Maybe

I don't see how that makes anything "urgent"

No it doesn't.  You're assuming that he went to Irving to get his gun and then interpreting his actions under that light.  There's no evidence that he ever got a gun.

Does that mean he couldn't have been carrying anything?  Does that mean he couldn't have taken something with him when he left and dropped it somewhere else, given it to somebody, left it at the bus station, or any number of other possibilities?

How do you know he lied about the contents when you don't know what the contents were or even exactly what he said about it?  The answer is, you don't.

Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle rolled up in a blanket in early October.  How is that evidence that the C2766 rifle was in the Paine's garage on 11/21-22?

Evidence of what?  3 fibers that couldn't be tied to any specific blanket?

Evidence of what.  That Oswald was holding a rifle that may or may not have been C2766 in a photo taken in March or April?

Evidence of what?  That unscientific handwriting analysis of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon was claimed to have been written by Oswald?

Evidence of what?  That an ID card that nobody ever mentioned in any report or interview prior to Oswald's death suddenly turned up in the evidence stream?

No, you are confusing the two concepts as everything you're claiming to be evidence doesn't actually support your claim that "his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage".  You're accepting that as true without proof.

According to Ruth Paine, Oswald had always called to ask her permission to visit.

Not this time.

That was the smart move: don't risk being turned down. Make sure to be in position to plead with the 'trouble & strife' for reconciliation. And maybe rifle through his stuff and see if there might be something, a tool of some sort maybe... that he could use to accommodate any activity he may or may not have planned for the next day.

Like hanging curtain rods, for example.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 09:58:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to Ruth Paine, Oswald had always called to ask her permission to visit.

Not this time.

Is this supposed to be evidence of murder too?

Quote
And maybe rifle through his stuff and see if there might be something, a tool of some sort maybe... that he could use to accommodate any activity he may or may not have planned for the next day.

Too bad you have no evidence of him "rifling through his stuff" while he was there.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 29, 2018, 01:11:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder too?

Too bad you have no evidence of him "rifling through his stuff" while he was there.

Ironically we know one person who definitely went into the garage on the 21/11/1963.

Just have a read of this:

Mrs. PAINE - We had dinner as usual, and then I sort of bathed my children, putting them to bed and reading them a story, which put me in one part of the house. When that was done I realized he had already gone to bed, this being now about 9 o'clock. I went out to the garage to paint some children's blocks, and worked in the garage for half an hour or so. I noticed when I went out that the light was on.
Mr. JENNER - The light was on in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - The light was on in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Was this unusual?
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, it was unusual for it to be on; yes. I realized that I felt Lee, since Marina had also been busy with her children, had gone out to the garage, perhaps worked out there or gotten something. Most of their clothing was still out there, all of their winter things. They were getting things out from time to time, warmer things for the cold weather, so it was not at all remarkable that he went to the garage, but I thought it careless of him to have left the light on. I finished my work and then turned off the light and left the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Have you completed that now?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You stated that he was in the garage, how did you know he was in the garage?
Mr. McCLOY - She didn't state that.
Mrs. PAINE - I didn't state it absolutely. I guessed it was he rather than she. She was busy with the children and the light had been on and I know I didn't leave the light on.
Mr. JENNER - Then, I would ask you directly, did you see him in the garage at anytime from the time you first saw him on the lawn until he retired for the night?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Until you retired for the night?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Was he out on the lawn after dinner or supper?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe so.
Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.
Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - The only thing that arrested your attention was the fact that you discovered the light on in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.
Mr. JENNER - Before you retired?
Representative FORD - You discovered that when you went out to work there?
Mrs. PAINE - When I went out to work there.

Mr. JENNER - At anytime while you were preparing dinner was Lee Oswald in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - At anytime during the dinner period, did Lee Oswald leave your home?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You have a firm recollection of that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did Marina?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - At anytime during that period did Lee Oswald enter the garage area?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You would have heard it. And it is your recollection that at no time that evening were you conscious of that garage door having been raised.
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.


Mr. DULLES - Did you have any words with Marina about the light in the garage? Was that a subject of conversation between you?
Mrs. PAINE - No; we didn't discuss it.


The WC took this as proof positive that Lee went into the garage and took a disassembled rifle from the blanket and placed it in CE 142 - a 38 inch x 8.5 inch bag that Ruth failed to notice anywhere.

Neither Marina nor Ruth saw Lee go anywhere near the garage.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 29, 2018, 01:57:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The real question is; did he fail by your standard? The documents shown to you are the same kind as those you have relied upon since the first post I've read from you on this forum and probably even longer.

Could it possibly be that you are now questioning and/or disbelieving documents the veracity of which you have been defending for years?

I don't know if I should feel insulted by you , annoyed at you, or just feel sorry for you.  How could the gist of my response to Iacoletti possibly have escaped you?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 29, 2018, 06:23:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ironically we know one person who definitely went into the garage on the 21/11/1963.

Just have a read of this:

Mrs. PAINE - We had dinner as usual, and then I sort of bathed my children, putting them to bed and reading them a story, which put me in one part of the house. When that was done I realized he had already gone to bed, this being now about 9 o'clock. I went out to the garage to paint some children's blocks, and worked in the garage for half an hour or so. I noticed when I went out that the light was on.
Mr. JENNER - The light was on in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - The light was on in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Was this unusual?
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, it was unusual for it to be on; yes. I realized that I felt Lee, since Marina had also been busy with her children, had gone out to the garage, perhaps worked out there or gotten something. Most of their clothing was still out there, all of their winter things. They were getting things out from time to time, warmer things for the cold weather, so it was not at all remarkable that he went to the garage, but I thought it careless of him to have left the light on. I finished my work and then turned off the light and left the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Have you completed that now?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - You stated that he was in the garage, how did you know he was in the garage?
Mr. McCLOY - She didn't state that.
Mrs. PAINE - I didn't state it absolutely. I guessed it was he rather than she. She was busy with the children and the light had been on and I know I didn't leave the light on.
Mr. JENNER - Then, I would ask you directly, did you see him in the garage at anytime from the time you first saw him on the lawn until he retired for the night?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Until you retired for the night?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Was he out on the lawn after dinner or supper?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe so.
Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.
Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - The only thing that arrested your attention was the fact that you discovered the light on in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.
Mr. JENNER - Before you retired?
Representative FORD - You discovered that when you went out to work there?
Mrs. PAINE - When I went out to work there.

Mr. JENNER - At anytime while you were preparing dinner was Lee Oswald in the garage?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - At anytime during the dinner period, did Lee Oswald leave your home?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You have a firm recollection of that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did Marina?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - At anytime during that period did Lee Oswald enter the garage area?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You would have heard it. And it is your recollection that at no time that evening were you conscious of that garage door having been raised.
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.


Mr. DULLES - Did you have any words with Marina about the light in the garage? Was that a subject of conversation between you?
Mrs. PAINE - No; we didn't discuss it.


The WC took this as proof positive that Lee went into the garage and took a disassembled rifle from the blanket and placed it in CE 142 - a 38 inch x 8.5 inch bag that Ruth failed to notice anywhere.

Neither Marina nor Ruth saw Lee go anywhere near the garage.

There you go again. No one saw him therefore it didn't happen.
Don't quit your day job, Clouseau
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 29, 2018, 07:00:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this supposed to be evidence of murder too?

Too bad you have no evidence of him "rifling through his stuff" while he was there.

No, just evidence that Oswald went out to visit the Paine residence without first gaining permission, something he had never failed to do before. In doing so, the possibility of him being able to access his belongings was thereby established.

Too bad for whom, exactly? Oswald was on the property, as were his belongings. The night before the assassination. That's all I got.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2018, 07:29:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if I should feel insulted by you , annoyed at you, or just feel sorry for you.  How could the gist of my response to Iacoletti possibly have escaped you?

Be insulted or annoyed as much as you like...

The gist of your response was beyond obvious and an extremely weak cop out. You were confronted with information you didn't like and you couldn't refute so rather than dealing with it you came up with that ridiculous reply to John.

But my question (which of course you ignored) still stands. You have defended the veracity of those kinds of documents for as long as I can remember. Do you feel that the documents John has shown you are authentic and their content correct?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2018, 07:31:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

There you go again. No one saw him therefore it didn't happen.
Don't quit your day job, Clouseau


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No, just evidence that Oswald went out to visit the Paine residence without first gaining permission, something he had never failed to do before. In doing so, the possibility of him being able to access his belongings was thereby established.

Too bad for whom, exactly? Oswald was on the property, as were his belongings. The night before the assassination. That's all I got.


Hilarious!

That's all I got.

That ain't much, Sherlock!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 29, 2018, 01:15:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be insulted or annoyed as much as you like...

The gist of your response was beyond obvious and an extremely weak cop out. You were confronted with information you didn't like and you couldn't refute so rather than dealing with it you came up with that ridiculous reply to John.

But my question (which of course you ignored) still stands. You have defended the veracity of those kinds of documents for as long as I can remember. Do you feel that the documents John has shown you are authentic and their content correct?

You still do not grasp the one and only point I was making in my response to John Iacoletti. That the sole gist of my response to his post is not obvious to you indicates that your excessive alcohol consumption has caught up to you and the havoc that you've inflicted on your brain cells has your IQ now hovering at a level just above that of an idiot.

I accept the documents that John Iacoletti presented as being authentic and the content within them as being recorded accurately.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 29, 2018, 01:56:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if he needed them or not.  Maybe he just wanted new ones.  Maybe the ones that were there were broken and the story about a news reporter breaking them was contrived to explain an inconvenient photo.

Why would they have "had to have given permission"?  Have you seen the lease?

I don't see how that makes anything "urgent".

No it doesn't.  You're assuming that he went to Irving to get his gun and then interpreting his actions under that light.  There's no evidence that he ever got a gun.

Does that mean he couldn't have been carrying anything?  Does that mean he couldn't have taken something with him when he left and dropped it somewhere else, given it to somebody, left it at the bus station, or any number of other possibilities?
If he actually had curtain rods, why would he not take them home?  Let's suppose that he was carrying a package of curtain rods when he left the TSBD that the police,  the bus driver, bus passengers, taxi driver and Earlene Roberts all missed. Where are the curtain rods?
Quote
How do you know he lied about the contents when you don't know what the contents were or even exactly what he said about it?  The answer is, you don't.
Oswald denied he had curtain rods. Why would he say that if he actually had curtain rods?  If Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude to fabricate their evidence, then Oswald lied about the curtain rods.  So you are essentially saying that BF/LMR lied. So I guess they were in on the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. That does not explain Oswald's behaviour in leaving the TSBD getting his gun, killing Officer Tippit, and pulling his gun in the Texas Theater and saying "It's all over now".  Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.

Quote
Marina saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle rolled up in a blanket in early October.  How is that evidence that the C2766 rifle was in the Paine's garage on 11/21-22?
By itself, it is not conclusive. But there is evidence that Oswald owned only one rifle and no evidence that he owned more than one rifle. So if she saw a rifle stock, that is evidence that tends to show that Oswald's rifle was there.  The paper trail linking C2766 to Oswald via his mail box and his use of the A.J. Hidell ID card is evidence that Oswald's rifle was the C2766 rifle. The back-yard photos are consistent with Oswald holding a gun that is identical to C2766 in every respect.  Add to that the behaviour of Oswald subsequent to the assassination and you can conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was involved in the assassination. Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.

Quote
Evidence of what?  3 fibers that couldn't be tied to any specific blanket?

Evidence of what.  That Oswald was holding a rifle that may or may not have been C2766 in a photo taken in March or April?
What evidence is there that he owned or possessed another rifle? Marina said it was the same rifle that he used to shoot at Gen. Walker.

Quote
Evidence of what?  That unscientific handwriting analysis of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon was claimed to have been written by Oswald?

Evidence of what?  That an ID card that nobody ever mentioned in any report or interview prior to Oswald's death suddenly turned up in the evidence stream?

No, you are confusing the two concepts as everything you're claiming to be evidence doesn't actually support your claim that "his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage".  You're accepting that as true without proof.
Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.  You believe the evidence to be false. You believe the police and FBI were all in on an enormous conspiracy.  I don't. Let's leave it at that.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 29, 2018, 02:10:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hilarious!

That's all I got.

That ain't much, Sherlock!

I'm not at all surprised that you would give honesty such short shrift.

One can only observe the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made an unannounced, first-time-ever-surprise appearance at the Paine home. On the eve of the assassination. And that attached to that home was a garage. And that inside that garage was a blanket belonging to the Oswalds. And that inside that blanket were some Oswald belongings that afforded Dirty Harvey an opportunity to rifle through... for whatever reason.

On the eve of the assassination.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2018, 06:17:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You still do not grasp the one and only point I was making in my response to John Iacoletti. That the sole gist of my response to his post is not obvious to you indicates that your excessive alcohol consumption has caught up to you and the havoc that you've inflicted on your brain cells has your IQ now hovering at a level just above that of an idiot.

I accept the documents that John Iacoletti presented as being authentic and the content within them as being recorded accurately.

What happened to Tim? You know, the guy who prefered to argue and debate and leave insults to others...

In recent days I have seen your normally relatively good nature turn really ugly towards those who disagree with you. Why is that? Is this the new Tim, or just the real Tim coming through because he has no persuasive arguments left and is left frustrated because people don't see things the way he does?

In any event, hurling insults at other people doesn't really make you smatter or superior, Tim.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2018, 06:24:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not at all surprised that you would give honesty such short shrift.

One can only observe the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made an unannounced, first-time-ever-surprise appearance at the Paine home. On the eve of the assassination. And that attached to that home was a garage. And that inside that garage was a blanket belonging to the Oswalds. And that inside that blanket were some Oswald belongings that afforded Dirty Harvey an opportunity to rifle through... for whatever reason.

On the eve of the assassination.

Hey, don't forget the ring he left behind......  :)

Too bad you still don't know for sure and nor can you provide any kind of proof that Oswald was even in the garage that evening or night.


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 29, 2018, 06:40:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If he actually had curtain rods, why would he not take them home?

I have no idea.  I'm merely objecting to your assertion that Oswald didn't carry any package out of the TSBD when you don't actually know that to be true.

Quote
Oswald denied he had curtain rods. Why would he say that if he actually had curtain rods?

I don't know.  I don't even know that he ever said this.  But let's say that he actually told Frazier that he had curtain rods and actually told Fritz that he never told Frazier that.  How do you get from that to he had a C2766 rifle in a bag?

Quote
If Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall did not collude to fabricate their evidence, then Oswald lied about the curtain rods.  So you are essentially saying that BF/LMR lied.

No not really.  It could be Fritz who was lying/mistaken/confused in his recollection several days later about what Oswald said during interrogation.  Besides, Linnie Mae wouldn't have had any independent knowledge that Oswald ever said anything to Frazier about curtain rods.

Quote
So I guess they were in on the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

That's another giant leap.  Oswald may or may not have been carrying curtain rods.  He may or may not have lied to Frazier about what was in the package.  Where's the evidence of murder?

Quote
That does not explain Oswald's behaviour in leaving the TSBD

Lots of people left the TSBD.

Quote
getting his gun,

You don't know that either.

Quote
killing Officer Tippit,

Or that.

Quote
and pulling his gun in the Texas Theater

That's just plain false -- even by McDonald's account.

Quote
and saying "It's all over now".

Nobody but McDonald ever claimed to have heard him say that.

Quote
Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.

They are all assumptions.  And none of those assumptions get you to who killed JFK anyway.

Quote
By itself, it is not conclusive. But there is evidence that Oswald owned only one rifle and no evidence that he owned more than one rifle.

That's not true.  There's evidence that Oswald owned a rifle in the Soviet Union (Marina's affidavit as translated by Mamantov).  What evidence leads you to believe that he owned only one rifle in the US?  Just because Marina didn't see or mention more than one?  She didn't know a rifle from a shotgun.

Quote
So if she saw a rifle stock, that is evidence that tends to show that Oswald's rifle was there.

IF she saw a rifle stock.  She just assumed that it was a rifle stock that she saw.

Quote
  The paper trail linking C2766 to Oswald via his mail box

Where is the evidence that such a package was ever sent through the US mail and delivered to that PO box?  Where's the evidence that Lee Oswald picked up such a package from that PO box?

Quote
and his use of the A.J. Hidell ID card is evidence that Oswald's rifle was the C2766 rifle.

Where is the evidence that he ever used this ID card?

Quote
The back-yard photos are consistent with Oswald holding a gun that is identical to C2766 in every respect.

How did you determine that they are identical in every respect?

Quote
  Add to that the behaviour of Oswald subsequent to the assassination and you can conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was involved in the assassination. Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.

I believe that this evidence exists, I just don't think the conclusions you are making about the evidence is sound.  And for good reason.

Quote
What evidence is there that he owned or possessed another rifle? Marina said it was the same rifle that he used to shoot at Gen. Walker.

She did?  When?  How did she determine that?

Quote
Oh, right, you don't believe that evidence so it is not evidence - just assumptions.  You believe the evidence to be false. You believe the police and FBI were all in on an enormous conspiracy.  I don't. Let's leave it at that.

When did I ever say that the police and FBI were all in on an enormous conspiracy?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 29, 2018, 06:41:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not at all surprised that you would give honesty such short shrift.

One can only observe the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made an unannounced, first-time-ever-surprise appearance at the Paine home. On the eve of the assassination. And that attached to that home was a garage. And that inside that garage was a blanket belonging to the Oswalds. And that inside that blanket were some Oswald belongings that afforded Dirty Harvey an opportunity to rifle through... for whatever reason.

On the eve of the assassination.

If that's really all you got, then case dismissed!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 29, 2018, 11:00:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no idea.  I'm merely objecting to your assertion that Oswald didn't carry any package out of the TSBD when you don't actually know that to be true.
I don't have to "know" it to be true by itself.  I know it to be true because Oswald not carrying a package out of the TSBD fits with all the rest of the evidence and Oswald carrying a package out fits with none of the evidence (no one noticed him carrying anything and no package was found, no curtain rods were found but a package similar to the one he carried into the TSBD was found and the gun that is linked to Oswald was found in the TSBD).

Quote
I don't know.  I don't even know that he ever said this.  But let's say that he actually told Frazier that he had curtain rods and actually told Fritz that he never told Frazier that.  How do you get from that to he had a C2766 rifle in a bag?
By looking at the rest of the evidence and trying to fit that evidence to a scenario in which Oswald was not involved and concluding, as Marina and Robert Oswald did, that no such reasonable scenario can be found.

Quote
Lots of people left the TSBD.
No employee left the TSBD after the assassination except Oswald.

A friendly suggestion: Watch a few episodes of Forensic Files and tell us whether you agree with their conclusions.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 29, 2018, 11:22:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't have to "know" it to be true by itself.  I know it to be true because Oswald not carrying a package out of the TSBD fits with all the rest of the evidence and Oswald carrying a package out fits with none of the evidence (no one noticed him carrying anything and no package was found, no curtain rods were found but a package similar to the one he carried into the TSBD was found and the gun that is linked to Oswald was found in the TSBD).

So, in other words, you're guessing that Oswald didn't carry a package out of the TSBD.

And really?  If something is not found then it never existed?  Is that your position?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?  How about Oswald's black shirt?

Quote
A friendly suggestion: Watch a few episodes of Forensic Files and tell us whether you agree with their conclusions.

I've seen a lot of Forensic Files and they only give you one side of the story.  Not unlike the Warren Commission.

But this isn't a forensic case.  It would be interesting though to check the evidence that hasn't yet gone "missing" for DNA.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 30, 2018, 01:45:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, in other words, you're guessing that Oswald didn't carry a package out of the TSBD.

And really?  If something is not found then it never existed?  Is that your position?  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?  How about Oswald's black shirt?

I've seen a lot of Forensic Files and they only give you one side of the story.  Not unlike the Warren Commission.

But this isn't a forensic case.  It would be interesting though to check the evidence that hasn't yet gone "missing" for DNA.
Let me ask you: would you agree that there were grounds to arrest Oswald?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 30, 2018, 01:59:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't have to "know" it to be true by itself.  I know it to be true because Oswald not carrying a package out of the TSBD fits with all the rest of the evidence and Oswald carrying a package out fits with none of the evidence (no one noticed him carrying anything and no package was found, no curtain rods were found but a package similar to the one he carried into the TSBD was found and the gun that is linked to Oswald was found in the TSBD).
By looking at the rest of the evidence and trying to fit that evidence to a scenario in which Oswald was not involved and concluding, as Marina and Robert Oswald did, that no such reasonable scenario can be found.
No employee left the TSBD after the assassination except Oswald.

A friendly suggestion: Watch a few episodes of Forensic Files and tell us whether you agree with their conclusions.

Who saw Lee with CE 142?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Zeon Wasinsky on March 30, 2018, 07:15:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who saw Lee with CE 142?

No one did Tony  :)

how many times did that paper have to have been touched and gripped in differnent places? Taken from a roll of paper in TSBD. Folding it. Constructing it. Taping it. Picking it up, inserting rifle parts, folding over the ends. Carrying it to BW Fraziers car. Placing in backseat. Picking it up again from the seat. Placing it between armpit and palm. Carrying it up to 6th floor. Removing rifle parts. folding bag again, carrying it to SN  ::) And yet there is only 1 single finger tip print at the top of package and a palm print at the bottom? Even though Linnie May Randle saw Oswald carrying it gripped with just one hand around top of the package?

How did the tape get taken from the dispenser and how was it applied and yet no fingerprints left on the tape?

This all before even getting into why the bag was unable be photographed at all in the SN. Or that neither BWFrazier nor Linnie May Randle could positively identify the paper type as same or the length of bag as same as one they saw Oswald carrying.

Or that 50 years later, Frazier does not believe there was a rifle in the bag he saw Oswald carrying.



 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on March 30, 2018, 07:41:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one did Tony  :)

how many times did that paper have to have been touched and gripped in differnent places? Taken from a roll of paper in TSBD. Folding it. Constructing it. Taping it. Picking it up, inserting rifle parts, folding over the ends. Carrying it to BW Fraziers car. Placing in backseat. Picking it up again from the seat. Placing it between armpit and palm. Carrying it up to 6th floor. Removing rifle parts. folding bag again, carrying it to SN  ::) And yet there is only 1 single finger tip print at the top of package and a palm print at the bottom? Even though Linnie May Randle say Oswald carrying it gripped with just one hand around top of the package?

How did the tape get taken from the dispenser and how was it applied and yet no fingerprints left on the tape?

This all before even getting into why the bag was unable be photographed at all in the SN. Or that neither BWFrazier nor Linnie May Randle could positively identify the paper type as same or the length of bag as same as one they saw Oswald carrying.

Or that 50 years later, Frazier does not believe there was a rifle in the bag he saw Oswald carrying.

Absolutely no doubt about it Zeon. The DP were informed of this on the first day.

Constructing, folding and transporting CE 142 meant extensive handling of it.

Day and Studebaker failing to photograph CE 142 in situ was inexplicable, unless CE 142 wasnt crime scene evidence.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Zeon Wasinsky on March 30, 2018, 08:03:19 AM
my problems with CE 399:

1. No experiment so far which shoots MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet thru 2 bodies, then exits spinning and enters a wrist backwards, goes thru, and looks like CE 399 when recovered.

2. No experiment involving shooting an MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet through 2 bodies has demonstrated the straight line trajectory of the SBT proposed by Myers computer animation.

2b. Nor has any shooting experiment demonstated the bullet trajectory zig zagging as an alternative explanation for all the wounds.

3. The finding of CE 399, and the subsequent chain of custody is in doubt, given the revelation that FBI agent Odum denied  having made report that O.P.Wright had positively identified CE 399 as the bullet he found on stretcher. O.P Wright thought the bullet appeared to be more pointed, as opposed to ball shaped. 

4. No blood splatter on Governor Connallys white hat, which was in proximity to bullet exit point in his chest and close to his wrist, since he still had it gripped in hand after the fact.

5. The convoluted position necessary to explain how Gov Connally could be holding hat upside down and no part of hat be in the bullet trajectory path is problematic and the Z film position at Z 223 does not appear to support a right arm crossed over far enough to be holding hat upside down on the outer left side of JCs left thigh as in this diagram:

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-68b1f05ec78555607750319242e0a90f)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2018, 05:01:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let me ask you: would you agree that there were grounds to arrest Oswald?

At the time he was arrested, no.  Hypothetically after evidence was gathered, yes.  But then he gets acquitted because of reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2018, 07:03:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
my problems with CE 399:

1. No experiment so far which shoots MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet thru 2 bodies, then exits spinning and enters a wrist backwards, goes thru, and looks like CE 399 when recovered.

2. No experiment involving shooting an MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet through 2 bodies has demonstrated the straight line trajectory of the SBT proposed by Myers computer animation.

2b. Nor has any shooting experiment demonstated the bullet trajectory zig zagging as an alternative explanation for all the wounds.

3. The finding of CE 399, and the subsequent chain of custody is in doubt, given the revelation that FBI agent Odum denied  having made report that O.P.Wright had positively identified CE 399 as the bullet he found on stretcher. O.P Wright thought the bullet appeared to be more pointed, as opposed to ball shaped. 

4. No blood splatter on Governor Connallys white hat, which was in proximity to bullet exit point in his chest and close to his wrist, since he still had it gripped in hand after the fact.

5. The convoluted position necessary to explain how Gov Connally could be holding hat upside down and no part of hat be in the bullet trajectory path is problematic and the Z film position at Z 223 does not appear to support a right arm crossed over far enough to be holding hat upside down on the outer left side of JCs left thigh as in this diagram:

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-68b1f05ec78555607750319242e0a90f)

Lets see you post an image of CE399
It'll be a first for CTers if you also post the butt-end view.
But then they'll label you an LNer for being so honest.

FMJ ammo is designed to remain as intact as possible when passing through human flesh.
The proof is in the pudding, as even today gun owners are warned not to use FMJ ammo for home defence since although you may land a couple on the intruder, you have a good chance of inadvertently scoring a twofer* involving a family member who might be caught behind him, what with rushing around in all that excitement.

* ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2018, 07:23:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lets see you post an image of CE399
It'll be a first for CTers if you also post the butt-end view.

Demonstrably false.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2018, 07:28:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Demonstrably false.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11340-there-was-no-bullet-wound-in-john-f-kennedys-throat/?page=77&tab=comments#comment-335601)

Haven't seen any one here do so
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 30, 2018, 07:39:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Haven't seen any one here do so

You just did, didn't you?

Or does posting a link to the subject matter not count?

And it has been done in the past on the old forum as well.

Btw, I would be interested to see even a shred of evidence that shows conclusively that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is actually the same bullet as the one Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Do you have such evidence or know where it can be found?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2018, 07:51:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You just did, didn't you?

Is this a schoolyard...
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2018, 07:55:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At the time he was arrested, no.  Hypothetically after evidence was gathered, yes.  But then he gets acquitted because of reasonable doubt.

Pretty sure anyone who resists arrest is going to be cuffed... Yeah, that's it!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 30, 2018, 08:07:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
my problems with CE 399:

1. No experiment so far which shoots MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet thru 2 bodies, then exits spinning and enters a wrist backwards, goes thru, and looks like CE 399 when recovered.

2. No experiment involving shooting an MC 6.5 ball FMJ bullet through 2 bodies has demonstrated the straight line trajectory of the SBT proposed by Myers computer animation.

2b. Nor has any shooting experiment demonstated the bullet trajectory zig zagging as an alternative explanation for all the wounds.

3. The finding of CE 399, and the subsequent chain of custody is in doubt, given the revelation that FBI agent Odum denied  having made report that O.P.Wright had positively identified CE 399 as the bullet he found on stretcher. O.P Wright thought the bullet appeared to be more pointed, as opposed to ball shaped. 

4. No blood splatter on Governor Connallys white hat, which was in proximity to bullet exit point in his chest and close to his wrist, since he still had it gripped in hand after the fact.

5. The convoluted position necessary to explain how Gov Connally could be holding hat upside down and no part of hat be in the bullet trajectory path is problematic and the Z film position at Z 223 does not appear to support a right arm crossed over far enough to be holding hat upside down on the outer left side of JCs left thigh as in this diagram:

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-68b1f05ec78555607750319242e0a90f)

Agreed! We can never know if all the injuries were caused by 1 bullet as unlikely as that was.  So if the bullet passed thru JFK and exited tumbling into Connally, then why did the bullet start tumbling after exiting cleanly thru a small hole, which was later obliterated by post-mortem surgery? Is that even possible?

Re the graphic that pretends to bust a myth and given the 7 wounds, this should be followed up with a laser exp to position JFK and Connally in the needed positions to make the MB work. Simple graphics don't cut it, especially when you can do a simple re-enactment.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

Position JFK and Connally between the 2 lasers so that all the wounds line up, then find the Z-frame that matches their body positions (unless they are out of view behind the Stemmons sign). Connally said he had turned a hard right to look back at JFK when he was struck.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 30, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this a schoolyard...

Stupid remark.

You claimed that you had not seen anybody here do so, just after John posted a link showing exactly that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Pretty sure anyone who resists arrest is going to be cuffed... Yeah, that's it!



More stupidity.

Being cuffed after resisting arrest doesn't say anything about whether the arrest itself was legal or even warranted in the first place.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2018, 08:47:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Haven't seen any one here do so

Maybe not since the restart....
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2018, 08:48:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty sure anyone who resists arrest is going to be cuffed... Yeah, that's it!

To "resist arrest", you have to be told you're being arrested.  And to be arrested, the police have to have probable cause that you committed the crime you are being arrested for.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 30, 2018, 10:46:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agreed! We can never know if all the injuries were caused by 1 bullet as unlikely as that was.  So if the bullet passed thru JFK and exited tumbling into Connally, then why did the bullet start tumbling after exiting cleanly thru a small hole, which was later obliterated by post-mortem surgery? Is that even possible?

Re the graphic that pretends to bust a myth and given the 7 wounds, this should be followed up with a laser exp to position JFK and Connally in the needed positions to make the MB work. Simple graphics don't cut it, especially when you can do a simple re-enactment.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

Position JFK and Connally between the 2 lasers so that all the wounds line up, then find the Z-frame that matches their body positions (unless they are out of view behind the Stemmons sign). Connally said he had turned a hard right to look back at JFK when he was struck.

Agreed! We can never know if all the injuries were caused by 1 bullet as unlikely as that was.  So if the bullet passed thru JFK and exited tumbling into Connally, then why did the bullet start tumbling after exiting cleanly thru a small hole, which was later obliterated by post-mortem surgery? Is that even possible?

John,...The in shot by Connally was not by a tumbling bullet!!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/815/39941127005_cfa3b22806_o.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2018, 11:08:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To "resist arrest", you have to be told you're being arrested.  And to be arrested, the police have to have probable cause that you committed the crime you are being arrested for.

'Probable cause'  for sure... Lee Harvey Oswald probably caused the deaths of Officer Tippit and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

To me, it seems that using terminology such as 'detained under suspicion of being involved in the shooting of Officer Tippit' is somewhat fairer to the one about to be detained.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2018, 11:54:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'Probable cause'  for sure... Lee Harvey Oswald probably caused the deaths of Officer Tippit and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

<facepalm>  You're hopeless.  You can't even demonstrate that now.  The police certainly had no basis for that assessment at the time Oswald was arrested.  None.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 31, 2018, 12:06:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At the time he was arrested, no.  Hypothetically after evidence was gathered, yes.  But then he gets acquitted because of reasonable doubt.
He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK.  Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit?  Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 12:41:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK.  Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit?  Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?

Andrew, Oswald punched officer McDonald. That alone was sufficient cause for arrest.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 12:43:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John,...The in shot by Connally was not by a tumbling bullet!!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/815/39941127005_cfa3b22806_o.png)

Both the shirt and jacket of Connally were laundered and pressed,  effectively eliminating the ability to make any determinations from examining the bullet holes in them. Robert Frazier said so himself in his WC testimony.

The bullet that struck Connally was most definitely tumbling. In his Operative Medical Report written soon after completion of his portion of the surgery, Dr Shaw recorded the wound as being approximately 3 cm in its longest diameter. Shaw never actually measured it so it may not have been quite that long but even at 2 cm long, or even as little as 1.5 cm, it would still be indicative of a yawed bullet entry.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 01:16:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both the shirt and jacket of Connally were laundered and pressed,  effectively eliminating the ability to make any determinations from examining the bullet holes in them. Robert Frazier said so himself in his WC testimony.

The bullet that struck Connally was most definitely tumbling. In his Operative Medical Report written soon after completion of his portion of the surgery, Dr Shaw recorded the wound as being approximately 3 cm in its longest diameter. Shaw never actually measured it so it may not have been quite that long but even at 2 cm long, or even as little as 1.5 cm, it would still be indicative of a yawed bullet entry.

You are babbling again Tim.

You fall completely through the basket.

First of all his shirt was not cleaned as you can see.

Yes they tamper the possible evidence to bring some of his clothes to the laundry shop.

What you wrote was not stated by Dr. Shaw about the tumbling bullet. (most definitely tumbling).




 8)

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 02:13:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First of all his shirt was not cleaned as you can see.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to determine from your examination of the Governor's clothing whether or not they had been cleaned and pressed prior to the time you saw them?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they had.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that different from or the same as the condition of the President's clothing which you have just described this morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is different in that the President's clothing had not been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed.
.........................................
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show at this point that Mr. Frazier is examining the shirt heretofore identified on the back side with a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 685 and on the front side with a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 686. Now, referring to that shirt, Mr. Frazier, what, if anything, did you observe on the rear side by way of an imperfection, hole or defect?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found a hole which is very ragged. An L-shaped tear actually is what it amounted to in the back of the shirt near the right sleeve, 2 inches from the seam line where the sleeve attaches to the shirt, and 7 1/2 inches to the right of the midline of the shirt, the right side being as you look at the back of the shirt. This tear amounted to a five-eights of an inch long horizontal and approximately one-half inch long vertical break in the cloth, with a very small tear located immediately to its right, as you look at the back of the shirt, which was approximately three-sixteenths of an inch in length. This hole corresponds in position to the hole in the back of the coat, Governor Connally's coat, identified as Commission No. 683.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from the rear of the wearer toward his front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


Quote
What you wrote was not stated by Dr. Shaw about the tumbling bullet. (most definitely tumbling).

It makes no difference whether Shaw said that the bullet had been tumbling or not. Shaw was a surgeon, not a wound ballistics expert.

Dr. SHAW - I would only have to say that I'm not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
Mr. SPECTER - You mean the wound on his back?
Dr. SHAW - The wound on his back--yes, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling. In other words, it was not a spherical puncture wound.

========================================

From HSCA TESTIMONY OF LARRY STURDIVAN, PHYSICAL SCIENTIST, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND VULNERABILITY LABORATORY, ABERDEEN, MD.

Mr. STURDIVAN - As I recall from reviewing the same material that the forensic pathologists reviewed, the entry hole had been excised and destroyed by the surgeons at Parkland Memorial, but that a subsequent description of that hole was given which, as I recall, was elliptical, and in attempting to make a drawing of the shape of that hole, the surgeon drew an ellipse on a piece of paper. The ellipse that was drawn measured 8 millimeters by 15 millimeters. However, I am not sure that indicated the size of the hole so much as the elliptical shape.
Mr. FITHIAN - So, is it your judgment, then, that the bullet had to have struck something else and was tumbling when it hit Governor Connally?
Mr. STURDIVAN - If it indeed had the shape that was described, then it would have to have been yawed and having been yawed, it would require that it struck something else before it struck the Governor.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 02:18:01 AM
It makes no difference whether Shaw said that the bullet had been tumbling or not. Shaw was a surgeon, not a wound ballistics expert.

Yes it does, because you brought it up! You better start watching the X-ray and the bullet hole in the shirt.



Frazier LOL!




Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 02:22:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It makes no difference whether Shaw said that the bullet had been tumbling or not. Shaw was a surgeon, not a wound ballistics expert.

Yes it does, because you brought it up! You better start watching the X-ray and the bullet hole in the shirt.


That doesn't make any sense.

Quote
Frazier LOL!

What's so funny? That shirt was cleaned. Frazier noted it but it's plain for anyone to see that it was washed.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 02:25:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That doesn't make any sense.

What's so funny? That shirt was cleaned. Frazier noted it but it's plain for anyone to see that it was washed.

Make no sense.... For you not who going by the numbers.

 :)

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 02:36:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Make no sense.... For you not who going by the numbers.

 :)

What you posted makes no sense because it's nonsensical.

I am going by the numbers. Even if the entry hole was only 1.5 cm in it's longest diameter that still indicates that the bullet was tumbling. Shaw reported on the appearance of the wound. It makes no difference whether thought it was created by a tumbling bullet or not.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 02:38:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What you posted makes no sense because it's nonsensical.

I am going by the numbers. Even if the entry hole was only 1.5 cm in it's longest diameter that still indicates that the bullet was tumbling. Shaw reported on the appearance of the wound. It makes no difference whether thought it was created by a tumbling bullet or not.

It make differents that the SBT is a lie and BS.


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 02:41:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It make differents that the SBT is a lie and BS.


If you are unable to challenge the SBT on its merits then what's the point in your yapping about it? 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 02:42:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you are unable to challenge the SBT on its merits then what's the point in your yapping about it?

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,50.630.html


No challenge... huh challenge???


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 02:46:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,50.630.html


No challenge... huh challenge???


That's not challenging the SBT in any real way. No one takes the nonsense that you carry on about there seriously.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on March 31, 2018, 02:54:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's not challenging the SBT in any real way. No one takes the nonsense that you carry on about there seriously.

I think when you would have this conversation with Dr. Weight he will call you out something like a lunar!!!

Goodbey Tim and good luck with all your own fantasy merits


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 31, 2018, 03:02:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think when you would have this conversation with Dr. Weight he will call you out something like a lunar!!!

Goodbey Tim and good luck with all your own fantasy merits


Who in the heck is Dr Weight? Could you possibly mean Dr. Wecht?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 31, 2018, 02:28:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew, Oswald punched officer McDonald. That alone was sufficient cause for arrest.
He could have been arrested for entering the theater without paying.  He not only punched the arresting officer, he pulled his gun on him and during the struggle in which he resisted being arrested, he tried to fire the gun as he said "Well, its over now".  The police were looking for a man in that area with a gun who fit Oswald's description. More than enough evidence already to arrest him.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 31, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He was arrested for the shooting of Officer Tippit, not JFK.

He was arrested for both.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)

Quote
  Are you saying there was not enough evidence to arrest him for the murder of Officer Tippit?  Or are you saying there was no evidence at all?

That's exactly what I'm saying.  What evidence did they have at the time of his arrest that he had anything to do with either murder?  Because a shoe salesman thought he looked funny?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 31, 2018, 04:05:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew, Oswald punched officer McDonald. That alone was sufficient cause for arrest.

It's debatable whether he actually punched McDonald.  But it doesn't matter, because he wasn't arrested for punching McDonald.  The arrest report doesn't mention that at all.  The box for "officer(s) injured" isn't even checked.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 31, 2018, 04:11:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He could have been arrested for entering the theater without paying.  He not only punched the arresting officer, he pulled his gun on him and during the struggle in which he resisted being arrested, he tried to fire the gun as he said "Well, its over now".

There's no evidence that he "pulled his gun on him" or "tried to fire the gun".  How many times are you going to repeat those myths?

Quote
  The police were looking for a man in that area with a gun who fit Oswald's description. More than enough evidence already to arrest him.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of "probable cause".
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2018, 05:43:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He was arrested for both.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)

That's exactly what I'm saying.  What evidence did they have at the time of his arrest that he had anything to do with either murder?  Because a shoe salesman thought he looked funny?

Funny 'strange' or funny 'ha-ha', John? The distinction is importart in this situation. You seem to be belittling the use of the word so as to mock the observation of an alert citizen.

Maybe put yourself in Brewer's shoes* for a moment and think about which use of the word would be the more reasonable, given the gravity of the situation.


*Yeah, I know, eh?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 31, 2018, 05:59:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny 'strange' or funny 'ha-ha', John? The distinction is importart in this situation. You seem to be belittling the use of the word so as to mock the observation of an alert citizen.

Maybe put yourself in Brewer's shoes* for a moment and think about which use of the word would be the more reasonable, given the gravity of the situation.


*Yeah, I know, eh?

I'm not "belittling" Brewer, I'm saying that doesn't constitute probable cause for the police to search, beat up, and arrest somebody for murder.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2018, 06:15:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's debatable whether he actually punched McDonald.  But it doesn't matter, because he wasn't arrested for punching McDonald.  The arrest report doesn't mention that at all.  The box for "officer(s) injured" isn't even checked.

See any other boxes checked there, John?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2018, 06:44:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not "belittling" Brewer, I'm saying that doesn't constitute probable cause for the police to search, beat up, and arrest somebody for murder.

Are you certain that police had the intent to beat somebody up for looking funny?

Are you certain the surrounding events, in combination, wouldn't at least be enough reason to check out what Brewer noticed? I liken Brewer's response to the present-day Homeland Security caution for citizens to 'see-say'... a kind of 'just in case' proposition.

Are you sure Oswald didn't somehow provoke the police into trying to subdue him?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 01, 2018, 01:06:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you certain that police had the intent to beat somebody up for looking funny?

What difference does it make what their "intent" was?  They did what they did without probable cause.

Quote
Are you certain the surrounding events, in combination, wouldn't at least be enough reason to check out what Brewer noticed?

Are you equating an illegal search, police brutality, and illegal arrest with "checking out what Brewer noticed"?

Quote
Are you sure Oswald didn't somehow provoke the police into trying to subdue him?

Are you sure the police didn't provoke Oswald into defending himself?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on April 04, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas3.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on April 04, 2018, 03:34:11 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas5.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas6.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on April 04, 2018, 03:36:12 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas7.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas8.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas9.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/thomas10.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 04, 2018, 05:40:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's no evidence that he "pulled his gun on him" or "tried to fire the gun".  How many times are you going to repeat those myths?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of "probable cause".
So are you saying that it is a myth that McDonald actually said this (3 H 300):

Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
....

Mr. Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. When this hand-we went down into the seats.
Mr. BALL. When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?
Mr. MCDONALD. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt
movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap.
I didn’t know what it was at the time.
Mr. BALL. Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation
came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be
the cylinder or the hammer.
Mr. BALL. Across your left palm?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this
manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.

? Because that is evidence on which one could easily conclude that Oswald pulled his gun on the arresting officer and pulled the trigger with the gun pointing at the officer.  You may not believe it, but that does not make that evidence mythical. It exists.

Or perhaps you were suggesting that this was evidence of a mythed shot...
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 04, 2018, 09:46:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So are you saying that it is a myth that McDonald actually said this (3 H 300):

Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.

Do you not see any difference between "he was drawing it" and "pulled a gun"?  By McDonald's account, was the gun still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand?  If so, then by McDonald's account, Oswald did not pull a gun.

....

Quote
Mr. Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. When this hand-we went down into the seats.
Mr. BALL. When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?
Mr. MCDONALD. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt
movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap.
I didn’t know what it was at the time.

So as far as you're concerned, "I heard a snap" is the same as "Oswald tried to fire the gun"?  How many different hands were on this gun when this "snap" supposedly was heard?

Quote
? Because that is evidence on which one could easily conclude that Oswald pulled his gun on the arresting officer and pulled the trigger with the gun pointing at the officer.

Was it pointed at the officer?  Not according to Officer Walker:

"The gun finally got out of his belt, and it was about waist high and pointed out at about a 45 degree angle. I turned around and I was holding Oswald trying to get his arm up behind him in a hammerlock, and I heard it click. I turned around and the gun was still pointing at approximately a 45 angle. Be pointed slightly toward the screen, what I call.

And not according to Officer Hutson either:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know which way the pistol was pointing when you heard the snap?
Mr. HUTSON. Was pointing toward the back of the seat.
Mr. BELIN. It was pointing toward the back of the seat?
Mr. HUTSON. Yes; toward the screen in the front of the theatre, in that direction.

Quote
You may not believe it, but that does not make that evidence mythical. It exists.

Yes, it exists.  It just doesn't support the conclusions that you have made.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Alice Thorton on April 05, 2018, 02:00:35 AM
Magic Bullet??

Governor Connally's wife even said they were shot at 2 different times. There is no way one single bullet shot them both. But at the same time, people say they only heard 3 single shots. Also, I thought the first shot was shot at the curb? Then the second hit Kennedy in the neck and the third was the fatal shot to the head?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 05, 2018, 02:18:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Magic Bullet??

Governor Connally's wife even said they were shot at 2 different times. There is no way one single bullet shot them both. But at the same time, people say they only heard 3 single shots. Also, I thought the first shot was shot at the curb? Then the second hit Kennedy in the neck and the third was the fatal shot to the head?

Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.

(https://i.imgur.com/UZP7ht1.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/uFqBHiv.gif)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Alice Thorton on April 05, 2018, 02:27:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.

(https://i.imgur.com/UZP7ht1.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/uFqBHiv.gif)

Yeah, now that I look at it again you're right. I figured to believe her since she was in the vehicle as well. It crazy how a bullet can exit from one person to another so fast. It looks as if they were hit at the exact same time though? But everyone only heard 3 shots. The head, neck, and curb... Could there have been a 4th shot?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 05, 2018, 02:45:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, now that I look at it again you're right. I figured to believe her since she was in the vehicle as well. It crazy how a bullet can exit from one person to another so fast. It looks as if they were hit at the exact same time though? But everyone only heard 3 shots. The head, neck, and curb... Could there have been a 4th shot?

Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Alice Thorton on April 05, 2018, 03:35:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.

 That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 05, 2018, 03:53:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Magic Bullet??

Governor Connally's wife even said they were shot at 2 different times. There is no way one single bullet shot them both. But at the same time, people say they only heard 3 single shots. Also, I thought the first shot was shot at the curb? Then the second hit Kennedy in the neck and the third was the fatal shot to the head?

Alice study frame 223 and let me know if you see a impact or reaction from JBC, JFK is already hit behind the Stemmons sign and going with his arm up to this throat!

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 05, 2018, 03:54:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.
That is certainly the case if you believe that CE399 was from the second shot.

But the only evidence we have as to which shot caused James Tague's cheek cut indicates that it was the second shot.  Tague initially was not sure when asked but thought about it and said it was not the first shot and he recalled a shot after being struck and he was sure there were only three shots. 

Also, Greer said he heard or felt a "concussion" from the second shot. He did not experience this on the other shots. There was significant damage to the windshield frame just above and to the right of his head, so it seems reasonable that he would have heard a sound from that.

We also have George Hickey who said that the second shot appeared to miss JFK's head on the right side because he saw his hair fly up on the second shot.  He was looking rearward at z256 (Altgens). The only time JFK's hair flies up is from z273-276.  A shot missing JFK on the right side would have to have struck Gov. Connally on the right side. That fits with everything else. A shot exiting JBC's chest would have struck his wrist which was pressed against his chest.  If it fragmented upon striking the wrist and those fragments deflected away from the point of contact, the fragments would deflect up and forward.  That fits with the evidence of Greer and Tague and the windshield damage.

So the notion that the damage to the windshield and Tague's injury occurred due to fragments from the third shot is inconsistent with the evidence we have.  It is also difficult to understand how fragments deflected upward after passing through JFK's skull.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 05, 2018, 04:09:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is certainly the case if you believe that CE399 was from the second shot.

But the only evidence we have as to which shot caused James Tague's cheek cut indicates that it was the second shot.  Tague initially was not sure when asked but thought about it and said it was not the first shot and he recalled a shot after being struck and he was sure there were only three shots. 

Also, Greer said he heard or felt a "concussion" from the second shot. He did not experience this on the other shots. There was significant damage to the windshield frame just above and to the right of his head, so it seems reasonable that he would have heard a sound from that.

We also have George Hickey who said that the second shot appeared to miss JFK's head on the right side because he saw his hair fly up on the second shot.  He was looking rearward at z256 (Altgens). The only time JFK's hair flies up is from z273-276.  A shot missing JFK on the right side would have to have struck Gov. Connally on the right side. That fits with everything else. A shot exiting JBC's chest would have struck his wrist which was pressed against his chest.  If it fragmented upon striking the wrist and those fragments deflected away from the point of contact, the fragments would deflect up and forward.  That fits with the evidence of Greer and Tague and the windshield damage.

So the notion that the damage to the windshield and Tague's injury occurred due to fragments from the third shot is inconsistent with the evidence we have.  It is also difficult to understand how fragments deflected upward after passing through JFK's skull.


How do you explain the fragments UNDER Nelly's sheet?


(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4786/40927506021_95831be3f6_o.png)

JBC was hit by seperate bullets.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 05:26:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.

That's how you want to interpret it.  That doesn't equate to "no doubt".
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 05:28:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice,the best explanation for a strike on the curb is a fragment from the head shot. One fragment struck the inside of the limo windshield. Another struck the chrome piece of the windshield. And a third passed over the top of the windshield and went on the strike the curb.

Except Tague said there was another shot after his cheek was stung.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 05:32:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun...

Both of these claims are untrue.  Brennan was the only one who ever claimed to see Oswald on the 6th floor and he only did so several days later after initially failing to identify him.

There were witnesses who claimed to see a person with a gun on or near the knoll (Jean Hill, Rosemary Willis, Ed Hoffman).
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 05, 2018, 06:48:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both of these claims are untrue.  Brennan was the only one who ever claimed to see Oswald on the 6th floor and he only did so several days later after initially failing to identify him.

There were witnesses who claimed to see a person with a gun on or near the knoll (Jean Hill, Rosemary Willis, Ed Hoffman).

Was this person seen to be aiming the weapon by any chance? Pretty sure Brennan saw a rifle being aimed downrange at the exact time of the shooting sequence... and by the way Euins saw the trigger being pulled at the exact time of the second shot.

Brennan chose not to ID Oswald out of fear for the safety of his family. Buell Frazier left Dallas out of fear for his family's safety. Are you now going to once again laugh at the concept of a man putting the safety of his family ahead of everything else in life?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 05, 2018, 06:57:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.

Google 'freeway man MacAdams'
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 09:04:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was this person seen to be aiming the weapon by any chance? Pretty sure Brennan saw a rifle being aimed downrange at the exact time of the shooting sequence... and by the way Euins saw the trigger being pulled at the exact time of the second shot.

Brennan chose not to ID Oswald out of fear for the safety of his family. Buell Frazier left Dallas out of fear for his family's safety. Are you now going to once again laugh at the concept of a man putting the safety of his family ahead of everything else in life?

I don't laugh at the concept -- I laugh at Brennan's use of that as an after-the-fact excuse for his embellishing.  He's afraid for his family's safety so he gives his name to reporters.  He's afraid for his family's safety, but he doesn't say anything to his wife.  He's afraid that he'll be a target because he's the only one who saw a shooter, but he was there when Euins said he saw a shooter.  He's afraid it's a "communist activity" but at the same time not afraid once he hears they "have the man for murder" (which they did not have at the time of the lineup).
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 09:05:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Google 'freeway man MacAdams'

It's McAdams, and don't.  Not unless you want more of the same rhetoric you get here from LNers.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 02:30:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.

Yeah,  the headshot does look like it came from the front. No doubt that's how the vast majority of people felt upon first viewing the Zapruder film. However, those familiar with ballistics, or with any real knowledge of physics, knew better. The momentum of a bullet striking the head would not have resulted in the degree of backward movement that we see in the Zapruder film. The momentum of the bullet striking kennedy's head did result in some movement but only a couple of inches. That was a forward movement. John Mytton has a Gif that shows it quite nicely.

A couple of Mythbusters episodes looked into whether a bullet striking a body could violently propel it backwards. They found that they couldn't even do it with a 50 caliber bullet.

James Tague believed that he was hit by either the second or third shot but he wasn't sure of which one.

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.


It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.

The violent backward movement of Kennedy resulting from the head shot was a neuromuscular reaction.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 02:49:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah,  the headshot does look like it came from the front. No doubt that's how the vast majority of people felt upon first viewing the Zapruder film. However, those familiar with ballistics, or with any real knowledge of physics, knew better. The momentum of a bullet striking the head would not have resulted in the degree of backward movement that we see in the Zapruder film. The momentum of the bullet striking kennedy's head did result in some movement but only a couple of inches. That was a forward movement. John Mytton has a Gif that shows it quite nicely.

A couple of Mythbusters episodes looked into whether a bullet striking a body could violently propel it backwards. They found that they couldn't even do it with a 50 caliber bullet.

James Tague believed that he was hit by either the second or third shot but he wasn't sure of which one.

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.


It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.

The violent backward movement of Kennedy resulting from the head shot was a neuromuscular reaction.

JFK might have been hit simultaneously from the front and back, but you being a physicist, why wouldn't a "blast-out" from the back not push the head forward? (then violently back and to the left)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 03:08:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
JFK might have been hit simultaneously from the front and back, but you being a physicist, why wouldn't a "blast-out" from the back not push the head forward? (then violently back and to the left)

A "blast-out" from the back could have pushed the head forward a couple of inches if there had been a "blast-out" from the back. There wasn't.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 03:11:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A "blast-out" from the back could have pushed the head forward a couple of inches if there had been a "blast-out" from the back. There wasn't.

According to over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who were there, there was a blast-out from the back. Why should I believe you?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 03:16:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who were there, there was a blast-out from the back. Why should I believe you?

Name the over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who maintained that there was a blast-out from the back.

You don't have to believe me . The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the autopsy report speak for themselves.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 06, 2018, 05:19:38 AM

Location of JFK’s skull wound according to the earliest statements of witnesses at Parkland Hospital.


1. WILLIAM KEMP CLARK, MD
2. ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD
3 MARION T. JENKINS, MD
4. CHARLES J. CARRICO, MD
5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD
6. RONALD COY JONES, MD
7. GENE AKIN, MD
8. PAUL PETERS, MD
9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD
10. CHARLES R. BAXTER, MD
11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD
12. RICHARD B. DULANY, MD
13. ADOLPHE GIESECKE, MD*
14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD
15. KENNETH E. SALYER, MD
16. PAT HUTTON, RN
17. DORIS NELSON, RN
18. WILLIAM GREER
19. CLINTON J. HILL
20. DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON, RN
21. WILLIAM MIDGETT, MD
22. PATRICIA GUSTAFSON

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 06, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's McAdams, and don't.  Not unless you want more of the same rhetoric you get here from LNers.

As opposed to your endless proclamations of what witnesses saw or meant. To wit: Are you certain Brennan wasn't still concerned, even after finding out that Euins was a second witness?

And is it within the realm of possibilty that he would hold back from telling his wife (according to you) so as to not upset her unnecessarily?

Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.

And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh. You forgot to mention that this lady in red told a TV station back then that she didn't see a shooter, only heard the shot. Then in 1992, said she saw the shooter firing from behind a tree.

Is that your definition of rhetoric?

Go ask Alice.

 ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 07, 2018, 09:35:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As opposed to your endless proclamations of what witnesses saw or meant. To wit: Are you certain Brennan wasn't still concerned, even after finding out that Euins was a second witness?

And is it within the realm of possibilty that he would hold back from telling his wife (according to you) so as to not upset her unnecessarily?

Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.

And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh. You forgot to mention that this lady in red told a TV station back then that she didn't see a shooter, only heard the shot. Then in 1992, said she saw the shooter firing from behind a tree.

Is that your definition of rhetoric?

Go ask Alice.

 ;)

Hoffman changed his story over time

So did Brennan! Kinda destroys the point you foolishly tried to make.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 07, 2018, 10:34:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hoffman changed his story over time

So did Brennan! Kinda destroys the point you foolishly tried to make.

Brennan's story remains consistent with his stated fear for the safety of his family. Show us third-party confirmation of any persons who knew Brennan (relatives, friends) as anything but truthful.

On the contrary, even Hoffman's own kin said he had a propensity for telling tall tales, FFS.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 07, 2018, 10:49:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brennan's story is consistent with his stated fear for the safety of his family. Show us third-party confirmation of any persons who knew Brennan (relatives, friends) as anything but truthful.

Even Hoffman's own kin said he had a propensity for telling tall tales, FFS.

Brennan's story is consistent

Read his book and compare it to his initial statements.... maybe you learn something.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 07, 2018, 11:19:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brennan's story is consistent

Read his book and compare it to his initial statements.... maybe you learn something.

Do you mean the book ghost-written some 42 years after the fact? And here I thought you characters (Oswald apologists) were such champions of first-day (even first-minute, it seems) information

Why not pull out a statement of two from his book and show us how the basic conclusion changes what he swore to in his affidavit and WC testimony? Or are you taking what he said and deciding for yourself what he actually meant?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 09, 2018, 03:40:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you mean the book ghost-written some 42 years after the fact? And here I thought you characters (Oswald apologists) were such champions of first-day (even first-minute, it seems) information

Why not pull out a statement of two from his book and show us how the basic conclusion changes what he swore to in his affidavit and WC testimony? Or are you taking what he said and deciding for yourself what he actually meant?

Show us how he described the shooter against the LEFT window sill. And show how Mr. Frazier, FBI... the shooter described vs the so called evidence!!!

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 09, 2018, 04:26:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us how he described the shooter against the LEFT window sill. And show how Mr. Frazier, FBI... the shooter described vs the so called evidence!!!

Why do you need someone to do that
You're in denial
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 09, 2018, 11:08:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you need someone to do that
You're in denial

Probably not!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2018, 10:24:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.

Why?  Just because you believe that CE399 was the second shot?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2018, 10:33:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.

Quote
And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh.

What was that you were saying about proclaiming what witnesses saw or meant?  Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The "little white dog" was a lambchop puppet that somebody handed Jackie at Love Field.

(http://ss100x.com/lambchop.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2018, 10:36:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you mean the book ghost-written some 42 years after the fact? And here I thought you characters (Oswald apologists) were such champions of first-day (even first-minute, it seems) information

Was this somehow supposed to refute that Brennan's story changed over time?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mark Valenti on April 11, 2018, 12:30:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The "little white dog" was a lambchop puppet that somebody handed Jackie at Love Field.



You're wrong. It was a bunch of flowers.
(https://i.imgur.com/gpzQSWT.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 11, 2018, 12:41:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're wrong. It was a bunch of flowers.

A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this?  But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat.  It looks like it could be a little white dog.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mark Valenti on April 11, 2018, 12:56:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this?  But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat.  It looks like it could be a little white dog.

It did look like Lambchop, especially because Shari Lewis' show had been so successful. (It was taken off the air a few months before the JFK assassination but the character of Lambchop was still popular).
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2018, 02:05:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this?  But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat.  It looks like it could be a little white dog.

Oh, so you've already walked back she was definitely handed a dog to 'could be' seen as a dog. By whom, exactly? Jean Hill? Are you going to afford Brennan such generous leeway?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2018, 04:38:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A different picture taken at a different time from a different angle is supposed to prove this?  But either way, Bill's attempt to mock and belittle Jean Hill for this falls flat.  It looks like it could be a little white dog.

Hypocrite. What falls flat is you completely ignoring what Jean Hill said about not seeing a shooter in 1964 (just heard a shot) then years later her saying she saw the shooter firing while standing near a tree.

Jean Hill: The Lady in Red
Cite McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/

[Excerpt]

A little more than an hour after the shooting, on the afternoon of the assassination, she was interviewed by WBAP-TV. (See right. Hill is on the left in the picture, and her friend Mary Moorman, who was standing next to Hill on the Dealey Plaza infield, is on the right).

Q. "Did you see the person who fired the . . ."
A. "No . . . I didn't see any person fire the weapon . . ."
Q. "You only heard it?"
A. "I only heard it."

And in an interview with Jim Marrs in the late '80s she told him 'I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence. I saw a puff of smoke and some sort of movement on the Grassy Knoll where he was'

Yeah, that's consistent. Great witness.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 11, 2018, 04:52:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hypocrite. What falls flat is you completely ignoring what Jean Hill said about not seeing a shooter in 1964 (just heard a shot) then years later her saying she saw the shooter firing while standing near a tree.

How convenient.

  Happy to be corrected but I don't think she has said that Unless your just reading between the lines or something
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2018, 05:08:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  Happy to be corrected but I don't think she has said that Unless your just reading between the lines or something

She said a lot of conflicting things.

Sorry if I posted to you by mistake. My post was meant for Iacoletti.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 11, 2018, 05:25:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was this somehow supposed to refute that Brennan's story changed over time?

Can you present a passage or two (thus showing the context) from Brennan's book that could be seen as being at odds with his testimony and/or affidavit. Are you certain that the ghost writer wasn't being somewhat flowery in describing what Brennan saw? Are you now going to snatch out a word or two and make an entire thread out of it?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on April 11, 2018, 06:46:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you present a passage or two (thus showing the context) from Brennan's book that could be seen as being at odds with his testimony and/or affidavit. Are you certain that the ghost writer wasn't being somewhat flowery in describing what Brennan saw? Are you now going to snatch out a word or two and make an entire thread out of it?

Even the WC said he couldn't have seen what he said he saw. According to them he was "mistaken". 

His observation was then re-explained to fit the official narrative.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 11, 2018, 09:36:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hypocrite. What falls flat is you completely ignoring what Jean Hill said about not seeing a shooter in 1964 (just heard a shot) then years later her saying she saw the shooter firing while standing near a tree.

What gave you the silly idea that I ignored anything?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 26, 2018, 01:01:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Nellie Connally said that they were shot at 2 different times. Nellie Connally was wrong. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt the Kennedy and Connally were hit at virtually the same time.


Then why did the governor himself say that he was hit by a different shot?
Sure everybody jumped at sound of rifle shots.

Quote
This brief interview alone discredits the Warren Commisson's "findings". Clearly the Connally's say that JFK hit first in the throat, a separate bullet hits Connally, and then the final blow to the President's head.

 





 
 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 26, 2018, 03:43:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then why did the governor himself say that he was hit by a different shot?
Sure everybody jumped at sound of rifle shots.

 


                            Begin watching at at 51:40.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

(https://i.imgur.com/UZP7ht1.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/uFqBHiv.gif)



Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 26, 2018, 04:14:35 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
                 Begin watching at at 51:40

Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
He had no doubts [so he said] but I have mine.
In another post someone said that was fine...then called me a buff [whatever that is]
In those frames 225-226, Jackie's jumping too...did she get hit also?
 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 26, 2018, 04:20:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
He had no doubts [so he said] but I have mine.
In another post someone said that was fine...then called me a buff [whatever that is]
In those frames 225-226, Jackie's jumping too...did she get hit also?

Jackie is not seen to be reacting in those frames. JFK and Connally unmistakably are.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on April 26, 2018, 05:06:29 AM
Bullet entry in JFK's back that Humes probed with his little finger (indicating a point on the little finger which did not go past the first knuckle, less than one inch).

       The Tell-Tale Back Wound
     
        www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/icebulls.htm
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 26, 2018, 06:52:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jackie is not seen to be reacting in those frames. JFK and Connally unmistakably are.
You are assuming that JFK's hand positions are not part of his reaction. That's not exactly beyond doubt. 

Even if they did both react at the same time, why does that mean that JBC is reacting to being hit? He and Nellie said he reacted to the first shot by turning to look at JFK and shouting "Oh, no, no, no".

There is, after all, a not insignificant body of evidence that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 with the last two quite close together, which means that there had been only one shot to that point.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 26, 2018, 11:20:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are assuming that JFK's hand positions are not part of his reaction. That's not exactly beyond doubt. 

Even if they did both react at the same time, why does that mean that JBC is reacting to being hit? He and Nellie said he reacted to the first shot by turning to look at JFK and shouting "Oh, no, no, no".

There is, after all, a not insignificant body of evidence that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 with the last two quite close together, which means that there had been only one shot to that point.

Don,t worry Andrew.
If you look at those 2 frames and I mean the complete frames then you can see that there is a difference in perspective.
Tim will never admit, don't spend to much energy in him.
The fact that JBC and his wife stated (there whole life) that he was hit by 2 different shots tells me enough!
Of course in nutter letters ..... They were mistaken,... he,he,he.





Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 26, 2018, 01:57:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[                            Begin watching at at 51:40.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Cronkite sums it up rather well beginning at 54:30 or so when he says: "In our own view, on the evidence, it is difficult to believe the Single Bullet Theory..."   His rejection of Gov. Connally and Nellie Connally's "theory" that there were three shots all of which hit occupants of the car on the grounds that it is "even more difficult to believe" is based solely on the ground that a high speed bullet that struck JFK on the first shot (which he acknowledges has much evidence for support) magically disappeared without striking the car.  So if that first bullet did not magically disappear but was CE399 that came out of his leg, that problem with 3 shots 3 hits disappears. That possibility was never considered.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 26, 2018, 03:01:17 PM
 David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shots

 Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 26, 2018, 03:23:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shots
You are right: that is speculation.

Quote
Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?
Maybe because the bullet that entered his upper back went through his neck.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 26, 2018, 04:59:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are right: that is speculation.

It is not speculation that there is coordinated movement of all the bodies, it would be a logical inference to connect such movement with a flinch from the shot What is your conclusion?

Maybe because the bullet that entered his upper back went through his neck.

 Now we have some speculation Regardless the wound is in the back not the neck, Funny how such happenstance works for the ends of LN's
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 26, 2018, 07:17:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Name the over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who maintained that there was a blast-out from the back.

Paul Ernst posted 22 of them, well? How many maintained otherwise, 1?

Quote
You don't have to believe me . The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the autopsy report speak for themselves.

LOL, gullible much? But let's stick to the MB. There is a simple test, which apparently not a single 1 of you LNers has done to support the MB, which would shove the MB down CTer's throats. And I can assure you that every LNer that gives a damn about the truth and has done my MB laser challenge has either stopped posting on this forum or refuses to post their results showing the MB was even possible. Myttonhead comes to mind.

Here it is again. Point 2 lasers at one another and get in between them to show JFK's body orientation when the MB struck his back at T1/T2 and exited at C6/C7 with a 17 degree downward trajectory. Good luck!

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 26, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.
He had no doubts [so he said] but I have mine.
In another post someone said that was fine...then called me a buff [whatever that is]
In those frames 225-226, Jackie's jumping too...did she get hit also?

(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)

People see what they expect to see.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 26, 2018, 11:45:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)

People see what they expect to see.

I expected to see JFK & JBC reacting separately. In fact, I think JBC was swatting at the bullet from the ghost shooter in the sewer.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2018, 12:05:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I expected to see JFK & JBC reacting separately. In fact, I think JBC was swatting at the bullet from the ghost shooter in the sewer.

No, the sewer guy took the head shot.  :)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 27, 2018, 05:30:23 AM
 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 27, 2018, 05:48:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL The bullet would have hit his hands.
Why would he have put his hands up before he was hit..LOL
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 28, 2018, 12:14:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why would he have put his hands up before he was hit..LOL

Chapman thinks when he raised his hands up that the president was faster then the speed of a bullet Ray. LOL!!!!!

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 29, 2018, 06:19:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Paul Ernst posted 22 of them, well?

Did not.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 29, 2018, 06:25:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Saw it 50 years ago. Cronkite's dead as Kennedy.

And Connally's as dead as both of them. What does that have to do with what Connally said on film?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 29, 2018, 09:25:18 PM
Getting back on track.
Same topic different thread.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,638.msg13151.html#msg13151
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 02, 2018, 04:25:38 AM
Go to this clip and start @ 13:40 JBC interview statements. Again.....same as before..."the first shot did not hit me"


Throughout the 'trial' episodes, Bugliosi just made stuff up. He was worse than the commission!
He was basically unchallenged for the most part by Oswald's 'defense attny' Gerry Spence.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 06, 2018, 06:23:58 PM
Sam Kinney speaks with neighbor friend Gary Loucks about putting a bullet on the stretcher in Parkland Hospital.

         forumassassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/195-breaking-jfk-ss-agents-deathbed-confession/
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 11:57:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sam Kinney speaks with neighbor friend Gary Loucks about putting a bullet on the stretcher in Parkland Hospital.

         forumassassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/195-breaking-jfk-ss-agents-deathbed-confession/

 Having a little trouble wit the link including the dangerous website warning Seems like stories they don't like get more than their share of such warnings I found another link on this and apparently Gary Louck's is Bucket Man
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 07, 2018, 07:30:17 PM
It seems like there has been a lot of witness tampering form the time JFK was killed and I believe on up to this point. We have heard many stories over the years about witnesses being told to keep their mouth shut, "or else" and there are probably a lot more who just kept their mouth shut. I find it hard to believe that it took 26 volumes of the Warren Report to try and make the public believe that one lone nut and a Magic Bullet did the damage, it was said to have done . Is there anybody who thinks that James Files could have been one of the Grassy Knoll shooters ? He is being released or has been released from prison just this year. I guess what I'm getting at here is " would we know if someone was telling the truth or not in regards to the JFK Assassination ?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 08, 2018, 10:25:14 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/z225.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/backclark.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca9_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca10.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-20_0001_0052.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-20_0001_0053.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 09, 2018, 06:32:39 PM
All you have to do is look at CE 399 and come to a conclusion that CE 399 hit nothing ,much less go through " 2 " bodies breaking bones ( a rib and a wrist ) !!! Are we really this "Naïve" ?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 22, 2018, 10:04:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  Are we really this "Naïve" ?
Yeah...apparently :(
The only other alternative = more than one shooter = a conspiracy.
Invent a theory and declare it a fact.
Convey the improbable and proclaim it the most likely.
Take a conjecture and state it a certainty.
A little smoke and mirrors and presto-chango WA-la 8)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 23, 2018, 04:31:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah...apparently :(
The only other alternative = more than one shooter = a conspiracy.
No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make.  The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so.  But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point.  The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.

But that is not all. A second shot SBT is also excluded by the Connallys and about 22 other witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (in distinctly different way than the smiling and waving seen prior to z195 or so).

Again, that is not all: a second shot SBT is excluded by dozens of witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade who put the first shot after z186-z191.

A first shot SBT is excluded if you believe that the Connallys were right in their observation that JBC was not struck in the chest on the first shot.

So the demise of the SBT does not imply multiple shooters unless you are convinced that all these witnesses are wrong. 


Three shots fired from the SN fits all the evidence. It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 23, 2018, 10:42:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.

I didn't write that.
I just say there was no 'Magic Bullet'.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 24, 2018, 02:57:54 AM
(https://stevenhager420.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-56-09-am.png?w=318&h=224)


Seconds after the assassination, a crowd gathered near the Triple Underpass where gunsmoke had been seen and smelled by many witnesses.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 24, 2018, 02:08:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://stevenhager420.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-56-09-am.png?w=318&h=224)


Seconds after the assassination, a crowd gathered near the Triple Underpass where gunsmoke had been seen and smelled by many witnesses.

The area in the picture you posted isn't where witnesses saw the smoke.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 24, 2018, 03:57:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't write that.
I just say there was no 'Magic Bullet'.
You said: 1. "The only other alternative = more than one shooter = a conspiracy.".  My point was: 2. that is only the case if JBC was reacting to his chest wound within a few frames of JFK's response to his throat wound seen after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign.  So by writing 1. you are saying 2.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 25, 2018, 11:35:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make.  The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so.  But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point.  The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.

But that is not all. A second shot SBT is also excluded by the Connallys and about 22 other witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (in distinctly different way than the smiling and waving seen prior to z195 or so).

Again, that is not all: a second shot SBT is excluded by dozens of witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade who put the first shot after z186-z191.

A first shot SBT is excluded if you believe that the Connallys were right in their observation that JBC was not struck in the chest on the first shot.

So the demise of the SBT does not imply multiple shooters unless you are convinced that all these witnesses are wrong. 


Three shots fired from the SN fits all the evidence. It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.

😂🤣😃 You clearly don't know the evidence of this case.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 26, 2018, 03:00:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
😂🤣😃 You clearly don't know the evidence of this case.
I know it is difficult to accept that the SBT is not needed for LN conclusion, but that is what the evidence shows,. Even most LN supporters don't want to accept it. But I have given you an accurate summary of the evidence. Is it just that you do not want to base conclusions on well corroborated witness evidence? If you think I have misrepresented the evidence read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_patern_evidence.pdf) and tell me what you think I have misquoted or misrepresented.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 26, 2018, 03:55:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know it is difficult to accept that the SBT is not needed for LN conclusion, but that is what the evidence shows,. Even most LN supporters don't want to accept it. But I have given you an accurate summary of the evidence. Is it just that you do not want to base conclusions on well corroborated witness evidence? If you think I have misrepresented the evidence read my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_patern_evidence.pdf) and tell me what you think I have misquoted or misrepresented.

The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 26, 2018, 04:20:01 AM
There was a professional hit team out there in Dealey Plaza
[Maybe the Alpha 66 guys]
...Oswald was not one of the shooters.
He was the fall guy.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 26, 2018, 10:04:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was a professional hit team out there in Dealey Plaza
[Maybe the Alpha 66 guys]
...Oswald was not one of the shooters.
He was the fall guy.

Triangulation, Jerry. Classical ambush.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 26, 2018, 01:50:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.
Three bullets caused those wounds. The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 26, 2018, 05:00:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Three bullets caused those wounds.
According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.

Quote
The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?

Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 26, 2018, 06:06:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No it isn't. That is the fundamental error most LNs and all CTs make.  The second shooter is only required if JBC is reacting to his chest wound by z235 or so.  But, if one follows the evidence, there was only one shot to that point.  The last two were noticeably closer together to the vast majority of those who recalled a shot pattern. The second shot SBT is impossible with that shot pattern.

But that is not all. A second shot SBT is also excluded by the Connallys and about 22 other witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (in distinctly different way than the smiling and waving seen prior to z195 or so).

Again, that is not all: a second shot SBT is excluded by dozens of witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade who put the first shot after z186-z191.

A first shot SBT is excluded if you believe that the Connallys were right in their observation that JBC was not struck in the chest on the first shot.

So the demise of the SBT does not imply multiple shooters unless you are convinced that all these witnesses are wrong. 


Three shots fired from the SN fits all the evidence. It just does not fit your subjective view that Gov. Connally must have been hit in the chest at the same time JFK emerges from behind the sign showing signs of his neck wound.

Describing JBC's chest wound as him being 'hit in the chest' implies a shot from the front, at least as far as I understand the written word. You are ignoring the back wound suffered by the guv, it seems to me.

Are you claiming a shot from the front indeed hit JBC?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 26, 2018, 06:23:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Wimps work shows this same kind of jump, or movement forward, of multiple passengers at 313 as well and speculates that Zapruder does flinch in reaction to the shots

 Separately I do not get why Humes is referring to the back wound as a neck wound?

The wound could be accurately referred to as the 'back/neck' wound since the entry was at the junction where the neck anatomically meets the back (according to an article on MacAdams site).

Can you link to your David Wimps work? I have seen other work that reveals the passengers did not lurch forward at the rear entry head hit to JFK.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 26, 2018, 08:09:44 PM


(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/lattimer266.gif)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 26, 2018, 08:39:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The wound could be accurately referred to as the 'back/neck' wound since the entry was at the junction where the neck anatomically meets the back (according to an article on MacAdams site).

Can you link to your David Wimps work? I have seen other work that reveals the passengers did not lurch forward at the rear entry head hit to JFK.

 Glad to see you are interested. Part of Wimp's claim is in regard to something called 'ramping up' which deals with how the brain interprets movement with dark and light borders and how this phenomenon can distort the perception of movement Kellermen is the only individual that can be seen lurching forward with JFK around 313 But the effect of movement is of course highly variable to the individual circumstance of each passenger For instance Greer holding the steering wheel could mute the effect on him Josiah Thompson seems rather convinced his analysis is correct for whatever that is worth Wimp is around the 38 minute mark Side note whoever did wimp's makeup that day looks kinda funny

 Ken Rahn appears on this video as well This guy seems near a nervous breakdown imo

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 26, 2018, 09:29:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Describing JBC's chest wound as him being 'hit in the chest' implies a shot from the front, at least as far as I understand the written word. You are ignoring the back wound suffered by the guv, it seems to me.

Are you claiming a shot from the front indeed hit JBC?
The chest is the whole part of the human body between the abdomen and the neck, also called the thorax. There was no shot from the front. I am not sure why you would ask since my point was that all shots were fired by a single shooter in the SN.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 26, 2018, 09:48:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The sheer fact that you think one shooter could cause all the wounds seen illustrates that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the WC. Only two bullets hit JFK.

Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald.
Ok. So the you now think one shooter could have made these wounds. I am puzzled. Does this mean "that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows"?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 26, 2018, 09:59:18 PM
What the Report claims CE 399 did....

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpTHXXKM755f_NSvWeXzY4zjBXVvDIvH9cvyPmNuK0Ymk9ICJiDA)

What the JFK autopsy notes indicated....

(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/gettyimages-89857722.jpg?w=840&h=485&crop=1)

So according to the autopsy sketch, CE 399 would have done this...

 (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgIbkF99JAfoW143nWOTh6nv0oA-D1IJJTqkrQo3Msav0jm9QA)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 27, 2018, 12:23:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. So the you now think one shooter could have made these wounds.
Another Felucca who misinterprets what is posted. Note what I posted "
Of course one person could have fired three bullets. The question is was it Oswald."
Quote
I am puzzled.
Seems to be your default position.
Quote
Does this mean "that you either don't know the evidence or are misrepresenting what it actually shows"?

No, I probably know more about it than you, Andrew. I am also able to understand what is written, unlike yourself.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 27, 2018, 01:11:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, the sewer guy took the head shot.  :)

Good call, and I would speculate that shooter in the sewer had periscope eyes like them aliens in Men in Black . And was sitting on a whoopee cushion.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 27, 2018, 01:17:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good call, and I would speculate that shooter in the sewer had periscope eyes like them aliens in Men in Black . And was sitting on a whoopee cushion.

 Probably roomier than snipers nest
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 27, 2018, 01:37:42 AM
The best image I can find that shows JFK is struck and Governor Connally has not yet been hit [just as JBC stated in his hospital interview]


(http://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/car-just-after-shot.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 27, 2018, 06:54:23 AM
How can anyone believe JFK and JBC were hit by a single bullet fired from 60 feet in the air?

As Cyril Wecht pointed out during the HSCA, JFK would need to be tying his shoes for the trajectory to work.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/z225.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-20_0001_0053.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 27, 2018, 08:26:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How can anyone believe JFK and JBC were hit by a single bullet fired from 60 feet in the air?

As Cyril Wecht pointed out during the HSCA, JFK would need to be tying his shoes for the trajectory to work.

The question is not whether a shot through JFK could have hit Gov. Connally. Rather it is whether it hit Gov. Connally in the right armpit.

There is no problem with the vertical alignment of JBC's wounds and JFK's throat wound.  The car was 60 feet below the SN but about 165 feet distant at the time of the shot that struck JFK's neck. That makes a vertcal angle of 20 degrees below the horizontal. The car was on a downward 3 degree angle.  So the angle through JFK's body was a downward 17 degrees,  JFK's seat was higher than JBC's jump seat and his neck exit wound was about 24" from the back of that jump seat.  Over that 24" distance a bullet travelling on a 17 degree downward path would have dropped another 7.5 inches which means it would have cleared the back of the jump seat.

It is the horizontal - right to left - trajectory that is a problem.  The trajectory is consistent with a shot through JFK to the left side of JBC but not with a strike to the far right side. The right to left angle was at least 12 degrees.  Over that 24" distance the bullet through JFK would have travelled 5" farther left. So for JBC's right armpit, located 7.87 inches right of JBC's spine, to be in the path of that bullet, he would have to havd been 13" left of JFK. That is the problem with the trajectory.
.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 27, 2018, 08:42:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The question is not whether a shot through JFK could have hit Gov. Connally. Rather it is whether it hit Gov. Connally in the right armpit.

There is no problem with the vertical alignment of JBC's wounds and JFK's throat wound. It is the horizontal - right to left - trajectory that is a problem.  The trajectory is consistent with a shot through JFK to the left side of JBC but not with a strike to the far right side.

If you are a serious researcher, then show us how there is no problem with the "vertical" MB trajectory (yaw). Use 2 lasers to do a re-enactment. It's a cheap, simple experiment that is deadly accurate. So far not a single LNer has pulled it off else we would have heard about it by now. They obviously aren't interested in the truth.

Demonstrating the MB trajectory was possible is the only way to support your claims. Otherwise, we must assume that you are either too lazy, don't care, or you have done it already and wish you hadn't.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 27, 2018, 09:40:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you are a serious researcher, then show us how there is no problem with the "vertical" MB trajectory (yaw). Use 2 lasers to do a re-enactment. It's a cheap, simple experiment that is deadly accurate. So far not a single LNer has pulled it off else we would have heard about it by now. They obviously aren't interested in the truth.

Demonstrating the MB trajectory was possible is the only way to support your claims. Otherwise, we must assume that you are either too lazy, don't care, or you have done it already and wish you hadn't.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
First of all, JFK was not sitting on a chair as you have shown.  He was.on a seat that was sloped backward and was lower to tbe floor. It was about 6" higher than JBC's jump seat which was mounted on the floor.  That put his adams apple about 4 to 6 inches higher than JBC's adams apple. The downward trajectory of 17 degrees causes a drop of 7.5 inches from JFK to JBC's seatback.  That puts it just above the height of JBC's armpit level when it passes the plane of JBC's seat back, which is 24" from JFK's throat exit wound.. See  this 3D model. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_positions_3D_views.pdf)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 27, 2018, 10:30:09 PM
The frontal neck wound never traversed the body and the entry wound in the back never traversed the body . At what point did the " Magic Bullet " become the "Magic Bullet" . It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle. Now if there is not a path through the president by either bullet , then there should have been two bullets left in JFK. Fords movement of the back wound to the base of the back of the neck was to say the least a move that was very debatable and quite dishonest to say the least. Now if Humes says that the back wound did not extend past the little finger knuckle , then it does not matter where Ford would have placed the back wound because per Humes the path in the back was short and at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle. We know on thing for sure, the wound in the back of JFK was lower than what the front entry wound was on JFK !
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 27, 2018, 11:11:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle.
If that was obvious to anyone, it would have to be Humes. It wasn't. Humes concluded that the bullet went through. Have you read his report?  Where do you get 45 to 60 degrees? Did you just make that up?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 27, 2018, 11:49:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First of all, JFK was not sitting on a chair as you have shown.  He was.on a seat that was sloped backward and was lower to tbe floor. It was about 6" higher than JBC's jump seat which was mounted on the floor.  That put his adams apple about 4 to 6 inches higher than JBC's adams apple. The downward trajectory of 17 degrees causes a drop of 7.5 inches from JFK to JBC's seatback.  That puts it just above the height of JBC's armpit level when it passes the plane of JBC's seat back, which is 24" from JFK's throat exit wound.. See  this 3D model. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_positions_3D_views.pdf)

Andrew, I don't expect you to sit up straight in a chair. I expect you to sit in any damn arrangement that makes the magic bullet work. Don't tell me how it was possible, show me with a re-enactment, and not with CGI.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 01:18:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew, I don't expect you to sit up straight in a chair. I expect you to sit in any damn arrangement that makes the magic bullet work. Don't tell me how it was possible, show me with a re-enactment, and not with CGI.
How does one shine a laser through someone's neck?

I agree that the SBT trajectory never works.  But it doesn't work because of the fact that JBC's right armpit is not left of JFK's midline.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 28, 2018, 02:15:59 AM
       In regard to Andrew Mason Reply # 258 Re:  The Magic Bullet

       NO Andrew , I did not just make that up , pertaining to me saying that the back shot was a downward 45 to 60 degree angle as heard by Francis X. O'Neill who heard Humes say that the bullets entered from a 45-60 degree angle. This statement is on Page 4 , Lines 18 & 19 .

         www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md47.pdf   

        This information is from the Affidavit of Francis X. O'Neill who was interviewed by T. Mark Flanagan,
   James Kelly and Donald Purdy of the Staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations on January 10th , 1978.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 28, 2018, 02:57:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does one shine a laser through someone's neck?

I agree that the SBT trajectory never works.  But it doesn't work because of the fact that JBC's right armpit is not left of JFK's midline.

With 2 lasers you can simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru JFK's back/neck. Point the 2 lasers at one another as depicted in my graphic to form 1 beam. Now get in between them so that the bottom laser strikes your throat below the Adam's apple at approx. C6. Does the top laser strike your back at T1? If not, reposition your body so that it does. Then take a couple of pics showing your body position and post them to support your claims.

You can do the same for Connally's back wound. Then superimpose your surrogates onto the same photo to show how their bodies must have been orientated to make the MB work. I couldn't do it without bending over so much that the bottom laser struck my chin.

Good luck!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 03:13:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       In regard to Andrew Mason Reply # 258 Re:  The Magic Bullet

       NO Andrew , I did not just make that up , pertaining to me saying that the back shot was a downward 45 to 60 degree angle as heard by Francis X. O'Neill who heard Humes say that the bullets entered from a 45-60 degree angle. This statement is on Page 4 , Lines 18 & 19 .

         www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md47.pdf   

        This information is from the Affidavit of Francis X. O'Neill who was interviewed by T. Mark Flanagan,
   James Kelly and Donald Purdy of the Staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations on January 10th , 1978.
Just so I am not misunderstanding, you are relying on a statement from a non-medicaly trained person who was observing and who was not privy to all the information that was provided to Humes, the doctor conducting the autopsy, and who, as far as we know, never read Humes' report? And you are using that to contradict Humes' findings?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 03:33:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
With 2 lasers you can simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru JFK's back/neck. Point the 2 lasers at one another as depicted in my graphic to form 1 beam. Now get in between them so that the bottom laser strikes your throat below the Adam's apple at approx. C6. Does the top laser strike your back at T1? If not, reposition your body so that it does. Then take a couple of pics showing your body position and post them to support your claims.
I am not sure how that is any more accurate than a putting perfectly straight line through a 3d model at an angle that can be measured to within 1/100th of a degree. But since you have already tried it, you should be able to show us your photos.  Where are they? How can they possibly be materially different than  this photo (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)?
Quote
You can do the same for Connally's back wound. Then superimpose your surrogates onto the same photo to show how their bodies must have been orientated to make the MB work. I couldn't do it without bending over so much that the bottom laser struck my chin.
I agree with you that the path from the SN through JFK's neck exit wound does not strike JBC in the right armpit or anywhere on the right side.  But it is not because it goes too high. It goes too far to the left. You have to use the correct relative seat positions. You can get those from photos, such as Croft's. JFK's head was about 4" higher than JBC and about 30" behind. That put his neck exit wound about 24" from the plane of JBC's back.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 28, 2018, 04:05:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure how that is any more accurate than a putting perfectly straight line through a 3d model at an angle that can be measured to within 1/100th of a degree. But since you have already tried it, you should be able to show us your photos.  Where are they? How can they possibly be materially different than  this photo (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)?

You trust CGI to your detriment. I can make CGI do anything I want, but what use is that? I'm a photogrammetrist and I know that there is nothing better than a physical re-enactment using surrogates. It's cheap, easy and deadly accurate and anyone can participate. Why would you look to CGI for answers? It's made up BS. I don't post my photos because I can't prove a negative with them. This is for the LNers to show that the MB was possible.

Quote
I agree with you that the path from the SN through JFK's neck exit wound does not strike JBC in the right armpit or anywhere on the right side.  But it is not because it goes too high. It goes too far to the left. You have to use the correct relative seat positions. You can get those from photos, such as Croft's. JFK's head was about 4" higher than JBC and about 30" behind. That put his neck exit wound about 24" from the plane of JBC's back.

Let's stick to JFK for now. If you can't demonstrate that the MB thru JFK works, then what it did thru Connally is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 05:00:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You trust CGI to your detriment. I can make CGI do anything I want, but what use is that? I'm a photogrammetrist and I know that there is nothing better than a physical re-enactment using surrogates. It's cheap, easy and deadly accurate and anyone can participate. Why would you look to CGI for answers? It's made up BS. I don't post my photos because I can't prove a negative with them. This is for the LNers to show that the MB was possible.

Let's stick to JFK for now. If you can't demonstrate that the MB thru JFK works, then what it did thru Connally is irrelevant.
Your point seems to be that a shot on a downward 17 degree cannot enter JFK's back and exit his throat in a way that matches the vertical positions of his wounds. That it can match those positions is easily demonstrated by the Croft photo with a downward 17 degree arrow superimposed on it. It also shows that the path goes above JBC's seatback.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 28, 2018, 10:49:00 AM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_b.jpg)


Try this one!!!

 Walk:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 28, 2018, 11:01:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_b.jpg)


Try this one!!!

 Walk:

Even Specter got it wrong in the above photo. Look where he has the line exiting "JFK's" throat. It is well above the tie knot. Using a  line through the tie  the bullet would have hit the back of the car seat.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 01:50:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even Specter got it wrong in the above photo. Look where he has the line exiting "JFK's" throat. It is well above the tie knot. Using a  line through the tie  the bullet would have hit the back of the car seat.
The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher. 

This photo actually shows the path of the second shot that actually hit Connally and just missed JFK. Hickey said that the second shot looked like it missed JFK because the hair on JFK's head flew forward on the second shot. 

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 28, 2018, 03:09:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher. 

This photo actually shows the path of the second shot that actually hit Connally and just missed JFK. Hickey said that the second shot looked like it missed JFK because the hair on JFK's head flew forward on the second shot.

The bullet did not miss.

11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 28, 2018, 03:53:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet did not miss.

11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head


The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher. 

Now explain please how the fragment could landed UNDER the bypass seat.

 ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 03:59:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet did not miss.

11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head
You missed Hickey's observation (18 H 762):

That is consistent with what Kinney reported on the second shot, although Kinney is not as clear.

Now, if you follow the evidence, Hickey says he turned and looked at the President just before the second shot and continued to look as the third shot sounded. In Altgens' photo taken at z256, Hickey is still turned to the rear. So Hickey's observations are consistent only with the second shot after z256, which is also what Altgens said. This also fits with the 40+ witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together. It also fits with the 22+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 04:13:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The jump seats in the president's car were mounted directly on the floor. These seats are much higher. 

Now explain please how the fragment could landed UNDER the bypass seat.

 ;)
There is no evidence that a fragment "landed" under the jumpseat. That is impossible. It must have hit the floor and rolled under.

The jump seats had some space underneath:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_seats_up_dillard.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 28, 2018, 04:20:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no evidence that a fragment "landed" under the jumpseat. That is impossible. It must have hit the floor and rolled under.

The jump seats had some space underneath:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_seats_up_dillard.jpg)

I think you misted right on something.

Never seen that note with the windshield measurements and the found fragments under the bypass seat?!
 Walk:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 05:03:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you misted right on something.

Never seen that note with the windshield measurements and the found fragments under the bypass seat?!
 Walk:
I am not sure what you are saying.

You said that fragments were found under the jump seat. You asked me if I could explain how they got there.  I said they must have hit the floor and rolled under.  How else do you explain a fragment under a jump seat?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 28, 2018, 05:20:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure what you are saying.

You said that fragments were found under the jump seat. You asked me if I could explain how they got there.  I said they must have hit the floor and rolled under.  How else do you explain a fragment under a jump seat?

First here is the note!

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4748/38941656184_9780ff9188_b.jpg)

2th The car floor was equipped with deep pile carpet.

So there was no way that they rolled under it.

Or the report (note) is false or they where planted.


(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4648/39650944361_1c7a29bd52_b.jpg)

 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 28, 2018, 05:30:09 PM
The shot hit the President under the shoulder blade, Andrew. Not in the neck.

Glen Bennett:
Glen Bennett was the secret service agent sitting in the right rear seat of the Secret service follow-up car. From Bennett’s secret service report written on 23/11/63:
“About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15”

Clint Hill
Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (18:77-78). Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) (18:83, 149-168).
Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit (10:260, 262, 302-303; 63:720).
* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck (10:162-163, 302).

Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back" (10:206).
* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back.
In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
 Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."
Three recently released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for Select Committee investigators by Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound
Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi has this to say about the idea that JFK's shirt bunched along with the coat:
Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible--but not probable--that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly buttoned shirt could have done the same thing. (61:27).
Dr. Humes, in the Rydberg drawing, which he supervised, located the wound two inches higher than where the HSCA placed it. Dr. Boswell, on the other hand, prepared an autopsy face sheet diagram showing the wound five to six inches below the neck.
The written measurements for the back wound, which were placed in the margin on Dr. Boswell's face sheet diagram, place the wound on the neck.
But the HSCA said the wound was nearly two inches lower than where Dr. Boswell later claimed it was. Furthermore, the written measurements for the back wound are penned in ink, whereas the rest of the face sheet is in pencil, indicating they were not written at the same time as the other face-sheet notations, which in turn suggests they were added at a later date. Sylvia Meagher makes a good point about the suspicious measurements:
. . . since the diagram purported to show the location of the wounds, it is hard to understand why those measurements were recorded in the margin--recorded only for this particular wound but not for other wounds, scars, or incisions, and written in heavier ink than the other notations found on the same diagram. (17:140-141, original emphasis)
Are we to believe that it is merely a coincidence that Dr. Boswell's dot for the back wound on the face sheet diagram just happens to conform to the location of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? Are we also to attribute to chance the fact that Dr. Boswell's diagram places the wound in the same area that the death certificate locates it? Are we simply supposed to ignore the fact that Dr. Boswell's diagram of the back wound agrees with the testimony of several credible witnesses, including four medical technicians, one of the autopsy photographers, a doctor who attended the autopsy, and three federal agents?
Henry Hurt's 1985 summary of the medical evidence as it relates to the single-bullet theory. Hurt, a former Rockefeller Foundation fellow, spent years investigating the assassination.
“One of the most fragile underpinnings of the official version of President Kennedy's murder is the proposition that a bullet entered his back, passed through his body, exited from his lower neck, and went on to pass through Governor Connally. Official medical experts largely agree that this is what happened. If it did not happen this way, it is generally agreed, then there was a second assassin, and thus a conspiracy. The whole flimsy case becomes unglued. Enormous official effort has gone into trying to prove this particular point. Comedy has flashed through the outrageous as doctors arbitrarily moved the location of the back wound several inches upward so that it could be high enough to manage a logical exit from the front of the neck--even though the bullet, which the Warren Commission said hit no bones in Kennedy, was supposedly moving at a sharply downward angle when it entered Kennedy's back. It was a tough case to make, and few people ever believed the government's feeble account. Still, though, it is the official version.
Government officials and their supporters have worked over the years to maintain this legend. Some apparently perjured themselves in service to their cause. Meanwhile, a lone citizen was pursuing the question from quite a different angle. Of the millions of Americans who believed the official version to be a lie, Harold Weisberg set out to prove it so. Alone, he has come far closer to making his case on this point than the whole United States government has in defending its.
Weisberg did not focus on the location of the back wound. He accepted that the body chart drawn and later disavowed by Commander Boswell was correct in showing the back wound to be between five and six inches below President Kennedy's collar line. . . . Weisberg was far more interested in the wound in the front of the neck that was supposed to be the exit for the bullet in the back. The autopsy report, which was embraced by the Warren Commission, described this wound as being in the "low anterior neck."
That front neck wound, of course, was largely believed to have been one of entry by those experienced observers at Parkland Hospital. That was the thrust of their initial impressions and was stated several times at a press briefing at the hospital by a White House official. But the official version ruled that it was a wound of exit and suggested that the exiting bullet caused the nick on the side of the knot of the President's tie. The government version also suggested that the slits through the front of the neckband of the President's shirt were caused by an exiting bullet.
The initial difficulty with the government's case was that 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.
The second major problem was one that often plagued the commission: a highly credible witness who saw and said things that contradicted the larger picture. Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed in an interview) that the anterior [front] neck wound was above the knot of his tie. A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.)
Weisberg pressed his case in court to have the National Archives release clear photographs of the President's shirt and tie, because the pictures that had been provided by the FBI to the Warren Commission were unclear and virtually worthless. The photographs finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding impressive evidence to Weisberg's observations. The other astonishing confirmation is that the bullet hole in the back of the shirt is precisely where the first body chart placed it. That chart had been ignored by the commission and disavowed by the doctor who prepared it.
The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the wound. (71:58-60, original emphasis)
One of the seven Warren Commisison members, Senator Richard Russell had this (recorded) conversation with his good buddy, President Lyndon Johnson:

RUSSELL: - The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it.
JOHNSON: - I don't either.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on May 28, 2018, 06:12:58 PM
Give it up ! There are so many who feel that Humes did a very poor autopsy ( Humes had never done a shooting autopsy , EVER ) and you can tell by all of the mistakes that were made . Jerry Ford moved the placement of the back wound up to the base of the neck and Specter still couldn't make it come out right . One of the biggest cases ever and it was bumbled up so bad that Dr. Cyril Wecht said the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Report should be moved from Non Fiction to Fiction ! An extremely sad state of affairs
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 28, 2018, 07:11:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The frontal neck wound never traversed the body and the entry wound in the back never traversed the body . At what point did the " Magic Bullet " become the "Magic Bullet" . It's quite obvious that per Humes, the shot in JFK's back ended at the little finger knuckle and it was angled down at a 45 to 60 degree angle. Now if there is not a path through the president by either bullet , then there should have been two bullets left in JFK. Fords movement of the back wound to the base of the back of the neck was to say the least a move that was very debatable and quite dishonest to say the least. Now if Humes says that the back wound did not extend past the little finger knuckle , then it does not matter where Ford would have placed the back wound because per Humes the path in the back was short and at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle. We know on thing for sure, the wound in the back of JFK was lower than what the front entry wound was on JFK !

Show us where Ford moved the wound from the 14cm x I4cm location noted on the face sheet.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 28, 2018, 07:22:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You missed Hickey's observation (18 H 762):
  • He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.

That is consistent with what Kinney reported on the second shot, although Kinney is not as clear.

Now, if you follow the evidence, Hickey says he turned and looked at the President just before the second shot and continued to look as the third shot sounded. In Altgens' photo taken at z256, Hickey is still turned to the rear. So Hickey's observations are consistent only with the second shot after z256, which is also what Altgens said. This also fits with the 40+ witnesses who said that the last two shots were closer together. It also fits with the 22+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot.



No, both Hickey and Kinney were clear with their descriptions of the Assassination. Using Hickey's later statement and misrepresenting Kinney's statement is your embellishment. These two statements could not be clearer. What is not clear is why you want to misrepresent them.

11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head


------------------------------------------------------------------


Elizabeth Loftus explains why Hickey's story changed with time and no longer matches Kinney.

"Ask Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who pioneered the study of false memory — what happens when people remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently than how they happened.

She has conducted hundreds of experiments on more than 30,000 people over the past 40 years. She has found that a person's memory is highly susceptible to suggestions or insinuations from conversations with other people or from watching, reading or listening to news stories.
Most people, she says, think of their memory as a recording device that they can turn on and off, one that records everything precisely. But she says it is more pliable.

Think, for example, of a conversation with a relative who recounts an event as if it was firsthand but it really happened to you, she says. In those instances, the person may have heard about an event often, and over time it became so familiar that it felt like the person's own experience.

She says everyone also embellishes memories or adds to them when they recount them, and over time those changes become part of the memory."

"Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."


Maybe it is time to dump the witness compilation if you don't even understand their origins.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 28, 2018, 07:23:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where Ford moved the wound from the 14cm x I4cm location noted on the face sheet.

 As an admitted simpleton I just wonder why we never see a simple diagram of a back and where Ford locates the wound Generally we see , I believe, a side angle shot that includes a line for the trajectory of the bullet
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 28, 2018, 11:14:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, both Hickey and Kinney were clear with their descriptions of the Assassination. Using Hickey's later statement and misrepresenting Kinney's statement is your embellishment. These two statements could not be clearer. What is not clear is why you want to misrepresent them.

11/22/63
"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Samuel A. Kinney
Special Agent

,.... at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head
You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement.  He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head.  There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other.  So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot.  He clarifies this on his subsequent statement. 

Now, if we did not see JFK's hair fly forward after Hickey turned around and before the head shot, we might be justified in saying that he was mistaken.  But when we see JFK's hair fly up like that just before Greer turns around (which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot), it does make sense. The alternative is to suppose that he just guessed that JFK's hair flew forward as if the bullet just missed his head and that it was a remarkable coincidence that his hair does fly forward just like he described.

Quote
Elizabeth Loftus explains why Hickey's story changed with time and no longer matches Kinney.

"Ask Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist who pioneered the study of false memory — what happens when people remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently than how they happened.

She has conducted hundreds of experiments on more than 30,000 people over the past 40 years. She has found that a person's memory is highly susceptible to suggestions or insinuations from conversations with other people or from watching, reading or listening to news stories.
Most people, she says, think of their memory as a recording device that they can turn on and off, one that records everything precisely. But she says it is more pliable.

Think, for example, of a conversation with a relative who recounts an event as if it was firsthand but it really happened to you, she says. In those instances, the person may have heard about an event often, and over time it became so familiar that it felt like the person's own experience.

She says everyone also embellishes memories or adds to them when they recount them, and over time those changes become part of the memory."

"Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."


Maybe it is time to dump the witness compilation if you don't even understand their origins.
Witnesses may or may not be reliable.  The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm.  How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God?  Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63?  If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 29, 2018, 06:04:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your point seems to be that a shot on a downward 17 degree cannot enter JFK's back and exit his throat in a way that matches the vertical positions of his wounds. That it can match those positions is easily demonstrated by the Croft photo with a downward 17 degree arrow superimposed on it. It also shows that the path goes above JBC's seatback.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/croft_line.JPG)

I believe, according  to the HSCA and executive sessions of the WC, the wound in the front of JFK's

neck was higher than the wound in the back. If he was bent over tying his shoes laces your trajectory

might work.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on May 29, 2018, 07:17:37 AM
I believe it is back to front entrance and exit and downward trajectory directly in line with the bullet hitting the windscreen place. :D Walk:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 29, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are deliberately misreading Hickey's first statement.  He refers to two shots. On those two shots he describes two things happening. Those two things were: JFK's hair flew forward and JFK was hit on the head.  There is no reason to believe that both things happened on each of the two shots nor is there any reason to believe that these things happened on one shot and nothing happened on the other.  So it is ambiguous as to what happened on each shot.  He clarifies this on his subsequent statement. 

Now, if we did not see JFK's hair fly forward after Hickey turned around and before the head shot, we might be justified in saying that he was mistaken.  But when we see JFK's hair fly up like that just before Greer turns around (which he said he did almost simultaneously with the second shot), it does make sense. The alternative is to suppose that he just guessed that JFK's hair flew forward as if the bullet just missed his head and that it was a remarkable coincidence that his hair does fly forward just like he described.
Witnesses may or may not be reliable.  The key is corroboration. In Hickey's case, there is very good corroboration: you can see what he describes in the zfilm.  How did he do that? Did he get a message about his hair flying forward in a message from God?  Did he study the zfilm before Nov. 30/63?  If not, it is difficult to understand how he could have described what is seen on the zfilm without actually having observed it.

This exactly what Elizabeth Loftus was referring to --in other people can influence memory.
Hickey and Kinney, who roomed together on assignments,  gave very similar statements and are also the only two eyewitnesses to make a statements claiming to see the hair fly forward due to the impact of the bullet.

It is obvious you know what Hickey meant by

"The president was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."

Otherwise you would be quoting what he first stated instead of later statements and trying to explain away the first statement.

-----------------------------------------


These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.



Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 29, 2018, 03:07:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These witness statements don't require explanations to understand them. They speak for themselves. If you feel the need to explain them then you are misinterpreting what they said. The eyewitnesses changed their stories over time, the later statements incorporate things they were told not that they saw.

You have to read their statements before you can analyse them.  What does "I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." tell you about what happened on the first of those two shots?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 29, 2018, 07:36:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Three bullets caused those wounds. The question is whether one person could have fired three bullets. You don't think that a single shooter can fire a rifle three times?

You have no way of knowing that three bullets caused all the wounds since no proper autopsy was ever performed.

A single shooter could NOT have fired three times in the allotted time accurately. A single shooter with a bolt-action rifle also doesn't match what was heard regarding the sequence of the shots.

Your opinion is based on something other than the actual evidence.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 29, 2018, 11:13:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have no way of knowing that three bullets caused all the wounds since no proper autopsy was ever performed.
?? There were three shots heard. There were 3 shells on the floor. According to Harold Norman, the bolt action was heard three times. Witnesses close to the effects of the shots (eg. the Connallys, Greer, Secret Service) testified as to the effects of each of the three shots. There is nothing in the autopsy findings that precludes those wounds having been made by three bullets.  That may not convince you that the wounds were caused by three shots, but it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.

Quote
A single shooter could NOT have fired three times in the allotted time accurately. A single shooter with a bolt-action rifle also doesn't match what was heard regarding the sequence of the shots.
And your evidence is??  The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds, which is, according to the evidence, about the time span of the three shots. There is abundant evidence that the second shot was after the midpoint. According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.

Quote
Your opinion is based on something other than the actual evidence.
I have just given you the evidence. Are you saying that is not actual evidence? Why?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 30, 2018, 02:00:05 AM
 Was it ruled out that a bullet that entered from the front through the throat could have ended up in his lung? One of Parkland doctors, I believe Perry stated there was blood coming up from one of the lungs
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 03:50:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was it ruled out that a bullet that entered from the front through the throat could have ended up in his lung? One of Parkland doctors, I believe Perry stated there was blood coming up from one of the lungs

Yes, it was ruled out by the Warren Report.
What would we expect?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 30, 2018, 04:19:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have to read their statements before you can analyse them.  What does "I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed that the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." tell you about what happened on the first of those two shots?


 Exactly, read the statement as it is stated not read into the statement what you want it to say. He said exactly what happened, the bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward. Sounds a whole lot like Z313. He also said the last two were like they were one shot.

George Hickey 11/30--- second statement

 "I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."
How can that ever be misconstrued as being a shot at Z270 making his hair somehow move followed by a pause and then a shot at Z313 that really does make his hair and much more fly forward. There is no possible way to even explain the rational that is behind thinking of this nature.


Is this the same type of analysis you are applying to other eyewitness statements? It would have to be to come up with an imaginary shot at Z270.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 05:14:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
?? There were three shots heard.   it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.
  The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
I have just given you the evidence. 
Any qualified links on those statements?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 30, 2018, 05:54:00 AM
HSCA Report, Volume XI
Current Section: Wesley Liebeler
OSWALD"S RIFLE CAPABILITY
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39836

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities1.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities2.png)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 30, 2018, 06:10:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was it ruled out that a bullet that entered from the front through the throat could have ended up in his lung? One of Parkland doctors, I believe Perry stated there was blood coming up from one of the lungs

If the autopsy photos and x-rays are considered gospel to the LNers, then we know exactly how/what the MB did thru JFK's back->throat.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)

With a downward trajectory angle of 17 deg, the FMJ bullet entered JFK's back at T1, smashed thru C7 then exited thru a small hole at C6. If that's not magic, then I've got some beans you might be interested in.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 30, 2018, 06:24:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Exactly, read the statement as it is stated not read into the statement what you want it to say. He said exactly what happened, the bullet impacted JFK's head and his hair flew forward. Sounds a whole lot like Z313. He also said the last two were like they were one shot.
No. He said there were two shots. Two shots did two things. Although they were in such rapid succession that there was practically no time element between them, they were distinct shots. Now, what happened on the first of those two shots?

Quote
George Hickey 11/30--- second statement

 "I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."

How can that ever be misconstrued as being a shot at Z270 making his hair somehow move followed by a pause and then a shot at Z313 that really does make his hair and much more fly forward. There is no possible way to even explain the rational that is behind thinking of this nature.


Is this the same type of analysis you are applying to other eyewitness statements? It would have to be to come up with an imaginary shot at Z270.
That statement by itself does not pinpoint the second shot, but the next sentences of that statement together with the zfilm do. You can see his hair fly up on his head from about z273 to z276. The sunvisor that was struck by a fragment also moves between z271 and z272. Greer said he turned around twice - the first time was immediately after the second shot. His first turn is from z278 to z280. That, together witb the 40+ witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3 shot pattern makes a pretty reasonable basis for a shot between z271 and z272. That is also when JBC begins to sail forward and fall over, which both Nellie and Greer said he did immediately after the second shot.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 30, 2018, 06:41:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Any qualified links on those statements?

The  Warren  Commission  found  that  a  minimum  of  about  2.3  seconds  was  required  to fire,  reload  aim  and  fire  again  using  Oswald’s  rifle.(Frazier: WC 3 H 407). This  appears  to  be  based  on  the  FBI re-enactment  using  that  rifle.  FBI  ballistics  expert  Robert  Frazier,  who  actually  fired  3 shots  in  4.6  seconds,  said  “4.6  seconds  is  firing  this  weapon  as  fast  as  the  bolt  can  be operated,  I  think”.Frazier: 3 H 407     The  FBI’s  Ronald  Simmons  noted  that  one  marksman  fired  three shots  in  4.6  seconds  using  the  telescopic  sight  and  three  shots  in  4.45  seconds  using  the iron  sights.(Simmons:  3 H 446).    There  was  no  time  placed  on  the  middle  shots  so  we  cannot  determine  the smallest  interval  between  shots.  None  of  the  FBI  marksmen  had  practised  with  the Mannlicher-Carcano  rifle.  Simmons  admitted  that  with  practice  the  shooter  would  likely be  able  to  operate  the  bolt  smoothly  without  moving  the  rifle  from  its  target.(3 H 449)  There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:  1 H 53 and 65).
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 30, 2018, 07:00:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the autopsy photos and x-rays are considered gospel to the LNers, then we know exactly how/what the MB did thru JFK's back->throat.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)

With a downward trajectory angle of 17 deg, the FMJ bullet entered JFK's back at T1, smashed thru C7 then exited thru a small hole at C6. If that's not magic, then I've got some beans you might be interested in.

The FMJ bullet entered at the level of C7. It did not smash through C7. It exited at the level of C7.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 30, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The  Warren  Commission  found  that  a  minimum  of  about  2.3  seconds  was  required  to fire,  reload  aim  and  fire  again  using  Oswald’s  rifle.(Frazier: WC 3 H 407). This  appears  to  be  based  on  the  FBI re-enactment  using  that  rifle.  FBI  ballistics  expert  Robert  Frazier,  who  actually  fired  3 shots  in  4.6  seconds,  said  “4.6  seconds  is  firing  this  weapon  as  fast  as  the  bolt  can  be operated,  I  think”.Frazier: 3 H 407     The  FBI’s  Ronald  Simmons  noted  that  one  marksman  fired  three shots  in  4.6  seconds  using  the  telescopic  sight  and  three  shots  in  4.45  seconds  using  the iron  sights.(Simmons:  3 H 446).    There  was  no  time  placed  on  the  middle  shots  so  we  cannot  determine  the smallest  interval  between  shots.  None  of  the  FBI  marksmen  had  practised  with  the Mannlicher-Carcano  rifle.  Simmons  admitted  that  with  practice  the  shooter  would  likely be  able  to  operate  the  bolt  smoothly  without  moving  the  rifle  from  its  target.(3 H 449)  There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:  1 H 53 and 65).

In nutter language: Mr. Frazier was mistaken, (LOL).

How they perform the shooting tests, (who, what, where, when and how)?
 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 30, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg

I wonder why two different people were holding the ruler. To hide something?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 30, 2018, 03:29:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The  Warren  Commission  found  that  a  minimum  of  about  2.3  seconds  was  required  to fire,  reload  aim  and  fire  again  using  Oswald’s  rifle.(Frazier: WC 3 H 407). This  appears  to  be  based  on  the  FBI re-enactment  using  that  rifle.  FBI  ballistics  expert  Robert  Frazier,  who  actually  fired  3 shots  in  4.6  seconds,  said  “4.6  seconds  is  firing  this  weapon  as  fast  as  the  bolt  can  be operated,  I  think”.Frazier: 3 H 407     The  FBI’s  Ronald  Simmons  noted  that  one  marksman  fired  three shots  in  4.6  seconds  using  the  telescopic  sight  and  three  shots  in  4.45  seconds  using  the iron  sights.(Simmons:  3 H 446).    There  was  no  time  placed  on  the  middle  shots  so  we  cannot  determine  the smallest  interval  between  shots.  None  of  the  FBI  marksmen  had  practised  with  the Mannlicher-Carcano  rifle.  Simmons  admitted  that  with  practice  the  shooter  would  likely be  able  to  operate  the  bolt  smoothly  without  moving  the  rifle  from  its  target.(3 H 449)  There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:  1 H 53 and 65).


The FBI's Ronald Simmons?????   WTF

"The  FBI’s  Ronald  Simmons  noted  that  one  marksman  fired  three shots  in  4.6  seconds  using  the  telescopic  sight  and  three  shots  in  4.45  seconds  using  the iron  sights.(Simmons:  3 H 446).


Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.


--------------------

"There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:"

That's not evidence.

If you actually read her testimony you will see she didn't know what LHO was doing but was led by the

questioner into supporting the proposition of him practicing.


-------------------------

When the Army tested the Carcano, using 3 expert marksman, they concluded a person would need considerable experience with weapons and considerable experience in paticular with the Carcano to make the shots proposed by the WC.

Aside from the scope being misaligned and needing shims added before it could be adjusted and the iron sights being sighted @ 200yds which caused the rifle to fire high at lesser distances, they found two dificulties with firing the Carcano.

First, the difficulty of operating the bolt caused the shooter to take the sights off the target when cycling it between shots.

Second, the two stage trigger of the Carcano created a hair trigger during it's second stage of firing.

They concluded the shooter would need live firing practice to overcome these difficulties.

Can you show where Oswald aquired the considerable experience with the Carcano and paticulary the live firing experience he needed to do what is claimed he did?

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.


Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.

~snip~


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 30, 2018, 03:36:54 PM
For the nutters!

Make it your self easy and then belief it!!! Because it must fit. Like the SBT crap



(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4437/36267344370_ffc4bb3dcb_b.jpg)

TO LOW, MUCH TO LOW, even not talking about the conditions.

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 30, 2018, 03:59:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The FBI's Ronald Simmons?????   WTF
...
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.
And your point is?  What does this have to do with FBI Agent Miller firing 3 shots with the Oswald's bolt-action MC in those times (which is what Simmons was referring to)?
Quote
"There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:"

That's not evidence.

If you actually read her testimony you will see she didn't know what LHO was doing but was led by the questioner into supporting the proposition of him practicing.
I am not sure what you are reading (1 H 65):

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about llis practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn’t clean it at that time.
Yes-twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know. The rifle was always with this. I don’t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 30, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And your point is?  What does this have to do with FBI Agent Miller firing 3 shots with the Oswald's bolt-action MC in those times (which is what Simmons was referring to)?I am not sure what you are reading (1 H 65):

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about llis practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn’t clean it at that time.
Yes-twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know. The rifle was always with this. I don’t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

"And your point is?" 

Simmons was one of the WC's chief witnesses on the Carcano. You quoted him to back up a point and you

don't even know who he worked for??

LOL

--------------

Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know. The rifle was always with this. I don’t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tom Sorensen on May 30, 2018, 04:30:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And your point is?  What does this have to do with FBI Agent Miller firing 3 shots with the Oswald's bolt-action MC in those times (which is what Simmons was referring to)?I am not sure what you are reading (1 H 65):

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about llis practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn’t clean it at that time.
Yes-twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know. The rifle was always with this. I don’t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Her affidavit: "I don't remember the sight on it."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337387/m1/1/

Who do you think you're fooling?



Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 30, 2018, 05:23:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
?? There were three shots heard. There were 3 shells on the floor. According to Harold Norman, the bolt action was heard three times. Witnesses close to the effects of the shots (eg. the Connallys, Greer, Secret Service) testified as to the effects of each of the three shots. There is nothing in the autopsy findings that precludes those wounds having been made by three bullets.  That may not convince you that the wounds were caused by three shots, but it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.
And your evidence is??  The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds, which is, according to the evidence, about the time span of the three shots. There is abundant evidence that the second shot was after the midpoint. According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
I have just given you the evidence. Are you saying that is not actual evidence? Why?

A number of witnesses heard more than three shots. Furthermore, a good number heard two shots very close together. This would be impossible if a bolt-action rifle was used as claimed.

Ditto SS agent Kellerman's comment about a "flurry of shots."

The reason the WC claimed only three shots were fired was because supposedly only three cartridges were found in the TSBD.  It is called circular logic.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 30, 2018, 05:31:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A number of witnesses heard more than three shots. Furthermore, a good number heard two shots very close together. This would be impossible if a bolt-action rifle was used as claimed.

Ditto SS agent Kellerman's comment about a "flurry of shots."

.  It is called circular logic.


 Or the logical fallacy of begging the question for us philosophy nerds
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 06:14:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  None  of  the  FBI  marksmen  had  practised  with  the Mannlicher-Carcano  rifle.
No wonder there. It was a falling apart piece of crap from 1940!
Quote
  There was evidence that Oswald practised using the bolt action.(Testimony  of Marina Oswald:  1 H 53 and 65).

Oh hell....Marina would have testified that she practiced working the bolt if she was told to.
 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on May 30, 2018, 06:37:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg

I wonder why two different people were holding the ruler. To hide something?

     Thumb1:

http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 30, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
?? There were three shots heard. There were 3 shells on the floor. According to Harold Norman, the bolt action was heard three times. Witnesses close to the effects of the shots (eg. the Connallys, Greer, Secret Service) testified as to the effects of each of the three shots. There is nothing in the autopsy findings that precludes those wounds having been made by three bullets.  That may not convince you that the wounds were caused by three shots, but it is a sufficient evidentiary basis for reaching such a conclusion.
And your evidence is??  The FBI fired three aimed shots well within 6.4 seconds, which is, according to the evidence, about the time span of the three shots. There is abundant evidence that the second shot was after the midpoint. According to the FBI it was possible to fire 3 accurate aimed shots with Oswald's MC in 4.6 seconds, so it woud have been possible for Oswald to have fired the second shot 2.3 seconds before the final shot.
I have just given you the evidence. Are you saying that is not actual evidence? Why?

I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2018, 09:44:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.

How many "click-clicks" is that, Bill?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 30, 2018, 11:58:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Which makes it all the more strange that he completely missed the 1st shot.
All that was conjecture anyway


Quote
Oswald had to moved into position only AFTER the JFK limo begins down Elm st
   
Would have made sense if he was left handed. 
 
Quote
that Oswald accidentally shot off his 1st shot, because he had his finger ready on the trigger AS he moved and he may have in his haste and anxiety, sqeezed the trigger. 
Not very expert marksman like :)
The shooters were pros for sure.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 31, 2018, 02:17:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.
? How did three shells end up on the floor?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Capasse on May 31, 2018, 01:09:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think Norman said he heard the bolt action 3 times.... he described the shots as 'boom>click-click, boom>click-click, boom>click-click'. Seems Dirty Harvey chambered the first bullet before he arrived at the window.

LOL!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 31, 2018, 06:05:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
? How did three shells end up on the floor?

Well, according to Alyea and Craig, Fritz dropped them there.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 31, 2018, 09:23:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The FMJ bullet entered at the level of C7. It did not smash through C7. It exited at the level of C7.

Didn't smash thru C7? According to your beloved x-ray it did.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)

According to your beloved pitch angle it did.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)

So then how did it exit thru a small hole and carry on in a straight line to smash thru more bone then show up on the wrong gurney with no blood, tissue or bone on it and barely any deformation or loss of material?

So you claim that the MB entered at C7 and exited at C7 thru JFK's neck at a 17 deg yaw angle. Re-enactment please (with lasers).
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 09:31:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Didn't smash thru C7? According to your beloved x-ray it did.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)

Did not.

Quote
According to your beloved pitch angle it did.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)

Did not.

Quote
So then how did it exit thru a small hole and carry on in a straight line to smash thru more bone then show up on the wrong gurney with no blood, tissue or bone on it and barely any deformation or lose of material?

It didn't.

Quote
So you claim that the MB entered at C7 and exited at C7 thru JFK's neck at a 17 deg yaw angle. Re-enactment please?

Nope. Finding people willing to be shot would be too difficult. Not only that it would be illegal.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 31, 2018, 09:36:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did not.

Did not.

It didn't.

Nope. Finding people willing to be shot would be too difficult. Not only that it would be illegal.

Damn, you got me there. You truly are a master debater!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 31, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Damn, you got me there. You truly are a master debater!

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)

                                         vs

(http://www.readclip.com/images/MB_Back_T1_Throat_12.png)


                        ???
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 31, 2018, 10:43:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)

Maybe you can tell us all what the difference is between T1 and C7. :)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 01, 2018, 12:10:16 AM
Forgive my possible ignorance but are you people saying a bullet can't get through the body no matter either back or front entry?  :)
I had always assumed the pathways must have been possible enough. Walk:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 01, 2018, 03:26:22 AM
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,753.msg16470.html#msg16470
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 04, 2018, 11:45:03 PM
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-thompson

Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
Written by Josiah Thompson

Epic book resurrects finding that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK
Bugliosi picks only the evidence that backs his argument

~snip~

"...the FBI's review of the Zapruder film led them to conclude Connally and Kennedy were hit separately. He tells us that Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but he neglects to tell us that wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size.

Even more egregious is his handling of the trajectory through JFK's back and neck. A face-sheet on which notes were taken during the autopsy shows the supposed exit wound in the throat to be higher than the entry wound in the back.

When the autopsy photos were finally produced in the 1970s, a medical panel concluded that the course of the bullet through Kennedy was at an upward angle (the accepted number is 11 degrees). So how does Kennedy get shot from the sixth floor of a building when the bullet takes an upward path through his body?

The Warren Commission took the simplest course. The staff let the autopsy doctor instruct a medical illustrator to raise the back wound from the back to the neck. Commission member U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford then corrected a final draft of the panel's report to read "neck wound" rather than "back wound." Voila, a "back wound" had become a "neck wound."

Faced with that 11 degree upward angle, the House Select Committee on Assassinations took a more inventive approach in its 1978-79 investigation. It just leaned Kennedy forward at the time he was shot.

And Connally, who took a shot at a 27-degree downward angle? His body position was leaned back a sufficient amount. Voila, an 11-degree upward angle through one body had become a 27-degree downward angle through a second body, thus a straight line had been maintained."



~snip~


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-20_0001_0053.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on June 06, 2018, 01:48:17 AM
I would think that a room full of Physics experts would just be shaking their heads while looking at evidence or reading what has been written over the years about the JFK Assassination.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 02:17:18 AM
We know there was a throat wound because of the witness testimony and a back wound because of the evidence,
as opposed to we may not know any of any of the rest because of possible surgical alteration.

In my view even if you place the throat wound at the unlikely very top of the widening its still lowere than the back wound
and also significantly exact measurement calculable.  8) :) Walk: ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 06, 2018, 02:22:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In my view even if you place the throat wound at the unlikely very top of the widening its still lowere than the back wound
and also significantly exact measurement calculable.  8) :) Walk: ;)

Which back wound?  The one at the T-3, the one at T-1, or the one at C-7?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 02:53:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which back wound?  The one at the T-3, the one at T-1, or the one at C-7?


C7? in the well known photo with the ruler and 2 hands. I only accept it as any back wounds but each to their own.  :)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 05:35:31 AM
If anyone has the time and inclination could they help me with a few /their estimation of -

.. Just before JFK clutches at his throat his body is almost exactly square with the square of
the limo which in turn is almost exactly square with the square of the road.
Near enough for what we need so treat as 100% square.

Now at C7? we draw a line square with these body and limo squares from one side of the road to other.
So theoretically level with the 2D view C7? entrance/

Now just on the horizontal plane of this we want a similar line with the throat wound.
In the view of the throat wound being lower we can ignore for now.

Now drawing a right angle line across those 2 lines, particularly from each wound across to other line ..

What I would like a few estimations of is " how may inches across do you think that is?"  8) ::) ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 06, 2018, 05:43:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If anyone has the time and inclination could they help me with a few /their estimation of -

.. Just before JFK clutches at his throat his body is almost exactly square with the square of
the limo which in turn is almost exactly square with the square of the road.
Near enough for what we need so treat as 100% square.

Now at C7 we draw a line square with these body and limo squares from one side of the road to other.
So theoretically level with the 2D view C7 entrance/

Now just on the horizontal plane of this we want a similar line with the throat wound.
In the view of the throat wound being lower we can ignore for now.

Now drawing a right angle line across those 2 lines, particularly from each wound across to other line ..

What I would like a few estimations of is " how may inches across do you think that is?"  8) ::) ;)

Sorry Michael but I can't visualize what you are trying to say. Not sure what it is that you want to figure out. I will say that Kennedy was not positioned facing fully forward at the time of the single bullet strike.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 06:02:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry Michael but I can't visualize what you are trying to say. Not sure what it is that you want to figure out. I will say that Kennedy was not positioned facing fully forward at the time of the single bullet strike.


Do you think his upper torso until his head and upper neck was square withe limo then Tim and just head and upper neck at variance/?

Or whole body at variance to square with the limo.


What I wanted to figger was when I see trajectory demos it looks like they estimate that distance counting downward trajectory as 3-4 inches.

According to me its more likely 8&1/2 -9 inches.


Sorry I can't help with diagram for a while if at all as I have forgotten how to use those tools and I no longer have my JFK photos. :)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 06, 2018, 06:15:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you think his upper torso until his head and upper neck was square withe limo then Tim and just head and upper neck at variance/?

Or whole body at variance to square with the limo.

The HSCA determined that Kennedy's upper torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right and that his head was turned about 60 degrees to the right.

Quote
What I wanted to figger was when I see trajectory demos it looks like they estimate that distance counting downward trajectory as 3-4 inches.

According to me its more likely 8&1/2 -9 inches.

You're referring to the vertical difference between Kennedy's throat wound and Connallys back wound? I believe it was about 8 inches.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 06:33:31 AM
Quote - "You're referring to the vertical difference between Kennedy's throat wound and Connallys back wound? I believe it was about 8 inches."


No I wasn't - I was referring to the distance across JFK of back and front wounds from one to the other, but not going into angle or vertical difference.
But just for this equation here,

the distance between 2 parallel lines on the horizontal with C7.  :)


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 06, 2018, 06:56:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote - "You're referring to the vertical difference between Kennedy's throat wound and Connallys back wound? I believe it was about 8 inches."


No I wasn't - I was referring to the distance across JFK of back and front wounds from one to the other, but not going into angle or vertical difference.
But just for this equation here,

the distance between 2 parallel lines on the horizontal with C7.  :)

I don't know what your "distance between 2 parallel lines" is referring to. The distance that the bullet traveled through the flesh of Kennedy's neck was about 6.5 inches. That's the number that I usually go with anyway. 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 06, 2018, 07:18:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know what your "distance between 2 parallel lines" is referring to. The distance that the bullet traveled through the flesh of Kennedy's neck was about 6.5 inches. That's the number that I usually go with anyway.

Gotcha…… I was thinking JFK is tall solid broad and maybe that might be 8-10 inches BUT if anyone ever wanted as exact as can be you could make
a pretty close estimate mannequin the same size as JFK.  8)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/DSC04413.jpg)

LOL Tim/Whoever sorry but best I can do off the cuff at moment. What I was looking for is the right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines :)

Hope that explains that anyway. :D
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 06, 2018, 06:25:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gotcha…… I was thinking JFK is tall solid broad and maybe that might be 8-10 inches BUT if anyone ever wanted as exact as can be you could make
a pretty close estimate mannequin the same size as JFK.  8)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/DSC04413.jpg)

LOL Tim/Whoever sorry but best I can do off the cuff at moment. What I was looking for is the right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines :)

Hope that explains that anyway. :D

Michael,

Again, the wording you use is a bit confusing to me.  The "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines"? I get what you mean by distance though. Follow the link below and click on the image there. If you use Kennedy's ear as a gauge, you should be able to approximate the distance between the two wounds. Using that photo, you can even get the vertical angle between the two wounds. That's approximating the location of the entry wound of course. 5.5 cm below the fold in the neck.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=22

The angle between two parallel lines is either 0 degrees or 180 degrees.

On edit, I now get what you mean by "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines".
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 07, 2018, 12:27:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Michael,

Again, the wording you use is a bit confusing to me.  The "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines"? I get what you mean by distance though. Follow the link below and click on the image there. If you use Kennedy's ear as a gauge, you should be able to approximate the distance between the two wounds. Using that photo, you can even get the vertical angle between the two wounds. That's approximating the location of the entry wound of course. 5.5 cm below the fold in the neck.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=22

The angle between two parallel lines is either 0 degrees or 180 degrees.

On edit, I now get what you mean by "right angle distance between the 2 parallel lines".


Using that photo, you can even get the vertical angle between the two wounds. That's approximating the location of the entry wound of course. 5.5 cm below the fold in the neck. 

Thanks Tim I see what you mean and accept there may be various approximations of things.

In the theoretical equation I am proposing though, the next thing I am looking for, before the
vertical angle aspect, is the distance ALONG the horizontal lines between the wounds.


Then just doing that on the horizontal plane for this example equation I have a RECTANGLE you see.

What I am using for those measurements is 8 &1/2 inches by 2 & 5/8 inches.(estimating from the well known C7 photo with the ruler and 2 hands)

That was why I was looking for a few other approximates of them because what I am using are just my own approximates.  8) :)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 08, 2018, 02:48:00 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/backwoundautopsyphotos.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/backwoundwc_1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fbiautopsy.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oneil.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/buckley%202.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/3rdthoracicV.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 08, 2018, 03:30:24 PM
But Gary, they were all mistaken, lying, or totally incapable.*

*Nutters, tick the appropriate excuse.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 08, 2018, 08:16:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)

How about using an actual human rather than someone's artistic impression of one:

Here is a side view of a male standing straight up:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward15_7_deg.jpg)

Here he is with a 2 degree forward lean:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward_17deg.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 09, 2018, 01:53:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But Gary, they were all mistaken, lying, or totally incapable.*

*Nutters, tick the appropriate excuse.


;D
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 09, 2018, 02:11:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about using an actual human rather than someone's artistic impression of one:

Here is a side view of a male standing straight up:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward15_7_deg.jpg)

Here he is with a 2 degree forward lean:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/downward_17deg.jpg)


These impressions were created by the 2 FBI agents, O'Neil and Siebert, who attended the autopsy, took

notes and wrote a report about what they saw and heard. They were drawn independent of each

other for the HSCA. They show the location of the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck.

They illustrate the reason Gerald Ford needed to changed the discription of the location of the back

wound to the neck to accomodate Arlen Spector's SBT.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oneil.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)

Could you explain what it is you're trying to convey with the arrows through the model?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 09, 2018, 03:30:22 AM
From the HSCA TESTIMONY OF J. LEE RANKIN, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE WARREN COMMISSION:

Mr. SAWYER. With respect to--As you are undoubtedly aware, much of the criticism of the Warren Commission report and much the basis of the various critics who have written extensively on the subject has been centered about one thing, principally the single bullet theory and the fact that available time did not permit one assassin. You made a decision or you and the Commission not to allow access to the autopsy information. Are you still satisfied with that decision as being a sound one?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes, I am. I think it has been revealed, that the basis of the decision was that the Kennedy family did not wish to have the pictures of the President, as shown by the X-rays and the other pictures after the assassination attempt, be the way that the American people and the world would remember the dead President. We thought we had good evidence from the doctors who were involved at the hospital in Dallas and also at the autopsy, and we did not want the President's memory to be presented in that manner, and we had already promised the American people that the investigation that everything that we obtained, except for such matters as involved national security, would be made available to them, so we would have had to publish it, if we used it ourselves.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscarank.htm
===================================


MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM:  Arlen Specter

SUBJECT:  Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy


 In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.

3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."
 When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisified that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
=====================

Unlike the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel examined the autopsy photos and x-rays.

(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/RgkPjye.jpg)

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 09, 2018, 03:47:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From the HSCA TESTIMONY OF J. LEE RANKIN, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE WARREN COMMISSION:

Mr. SAWYER. With respect to--As you are undoubtedly aware, much of the criticism of the Warren Commission report and much the basis of the various critics who have written extensively on the subject has been centered about one thing, principally the single bullet theory and the fact that available time did not permit one assassin. You made a decision or you and the Commission not to allow access to the autopsy information. Are you still satisfied with that decision as being a sound one?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes, I am. I think it has been revealed, that the basis of the decision was that the Kennedy family did not wish to have the pictures of the President, as shown by the X-rays and the other pictures after the assassination attempt, be the way that the American people and the world would remember the dead President. We thought we had good evidence from the doctors who were involved at the hospital in Dallas and also at the autopsy, and we did not want the President's memory to be presented in that manner, and we had already promised the American people that the investigation that everything that we obtained, except for such matters as involved national security, would be made available to them, so we would have had to publish it, if we used it ourselves.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscarank.htm
===================================


MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM:  Arlen Specter

SUBJECT:  Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy


 In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.

3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."
 When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisified that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
=====================

Unlike the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel examined the autopsy photos and x-rays.

(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/RgkPjye.jpg)

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)


That's all well and good for you and the rest of the WC faithful, but there are Executive Session transcripts

verifying they had the autopsy photos of JFK's body.  And transcripts of Chief WC Counsel Rankin stating

they show the back wound is lower than the wound in front of the neck.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 09, 2018, 02:37:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

These impressions were created by the 2 FBI agents, O'Neil and Siebert, who attended the autopsy, took

notes and wrote a report about what they saw and heard. They were drawn independent of each

other for the HSCA. They show the location of the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck.

They illustrate the reason Gerald Ford needed to changed the discription of the location of the back

wound to the neck to accomodate Arlen Spector's SBT.


Could you explain what it is you're trying to convey with the arrows through the model?
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mitch Todd on June 09, 2018, 06:42:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
? How did three shells end up on the floor?

Gravity?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on June 10, 2018, 03:03:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.

Andrew, do yourself a favor and do a re-enactment using 2 lasers. You CANNOT use photos for this. A re-enactment is cheap and deadly accurate. It may change your world view. :)

Aim 2 lasers at one another at a 17 deg angle and get in-between them so that the high laser strikes your back at T1 and the low laser strikes your throat at C7. Otherwise, all 2D photo analyses aren't worth the electrons.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to use this simple/cheap experiment to validate the SBT.

Good luck!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 10, 2018, 04:08:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew, do yourself a favor and do a re-enactment using 2 lasers. You CANNOT use photos for this. A re-enactment is cheap and deadly accurate. It may change your world view. :)

Aim 2 lasers at one another at a 17 deg angle and get in-between them so that the high laser strikes your back at T1 and the low laser strikes your throat at C7. Otherwise, all 2D photo analyses aren't worth the electrons.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to use this simple/cheap experiment to validate the SBT.

Good luck!

I'm still waiting for you to use this simple/cheap experiment to invalidate the SBT. Why haven't you done so? After all, it's cheap, simple on spot-on accurate, right? So, why haven't you done it yet?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Howard Gee on June 10, 2018, 06:00:31 AM
You don't need a laser.

Here's a test even the drooling kooks should be able to perform.

Take your left hand and touch the area at the base of your neck and upper back region that corresponds with the entry wound as depicted in the autopsy photo.

Now, take your right hand and touch the area on the front of your body that you think corresponds to the area a bullet entering at a slightly descending angle would most likely exit.

Where's your right finger now, Jack ?

Probably still stuck up your kazoo.

NO NEED FOR LASERS OR 'MODIFIED' X-RAY PHOTOS
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Chambers on June 10, 2018, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: John Iacoletti on June 06, 2018, 02:22:32 AM
Which back wound?  The one at the T-3, the one at T-1, or the one at C-7?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

C7. I only accept it as any back wounds but each to their own.  :)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)

My mistake I had not realised this wound is not/might not be C7. This one with the hands and ruler anyway.  :D

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 10, 2018, 05:41:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
??The yellow arrow shows the straight line path of a bullet on a downward 17 degree angle that exits in the same location that the bullet that passed through JFK exited.


So you're trying to show the path of the bullet through JFK's neck based on the Ford's edited entrance

point?

You do know the top of the right lung was bruised? That would have to have been caused by a shock wave

created by the bullet as it went through JFK's neck, no?

If the bullet created that type of shock wave, how does it exit the front of the neck through a neat, clean

cut, 3mm hole?  Such a shock wave would have blasted the front of his throat out.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on June 10, 2018, 06:53:09 PM
When Dr. Perry made the Tracheostomy cut in the frontal entry neck wound he made an incision that was short and neat and as Dr. McClelland said "Perry was a master with the scalpel" .
The wound described by Dr. Perry as round 5 mm and roughly to spherical to oval shape , not a punched out wound like is seen at Bethesda , went back to looking like it did before the small incision that was made by Dr. Perry . The garbled up look of the front of JFK's neck was not done at Parkland as per Parkland ! Like Thomas Robinson said " talking of surgery to the head " to make it look like the wounds on JFK had come from shots from the rear " The Drs. did that "!


               www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on June 11, 2018, 12:02:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When Dr. Perry made the Tracheostomy cut in the frontal entry neck wound he made an incision that was short and neat and as Dr. McClelland said "Perry was a master with the scalpel" .
The wound described by Dr. Perry as round 5 mm and roughly to spherical to oval shape , not a punched out wound like is seen at Bethesda , went back to looking like it did before the small incision that was made by Dr. Perry . The garbled up look of the front of JFK's neck was not done at Parkland as per Parkland ! Like Thomas Robinson said " talking of surgery to the head " to make it look like the wounds on JFK had come from shots from the rear " The Drs. did that "!


               www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/


Interesting.

At Parkland it appears to be a clean neat 3mm entrance wound.

At Bethesda it has the appearance of being blasted out from a shot from the rear.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on June 12, 2018, 02:14:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm still waiting for you to use this simple/cheap experiment to invalidate the SBT. Why haven't you done so? After all, it's cheap, simple on spot-on accurate, right? So, why haven't you done it yet?

Because you can't prove a negative. Try to keep up.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on June 12, 2018, 03:56:50 AM
Jack , I think we are fighting a battle of futility ! How can you have a magic bullet when the bullet does not traverse the body . Hell , we know the shot in the neck was from the front. We know he got shot in the back from the rear , but not where Ford placed the wound at the base of the neck . Do you think Ford was pushed to move the placement of the wound by someone other than the those men who LBJ picked to be on the Warren Commission ? It was suggested that Ford was a mole who told Hoover and LBJ how the Commission was leaning on certain items that were being discussed . I think the shots from the front were a last resort for those involved in the shooting because there had not been a fatal ( Kill shot ) until the last shot in JFK's right temple that blew the back of his head off. If I'm not mistaken I think Drs. can tell the difference between cerebellum and cerebrum. Cerrebellum was dropping out of the back of JFK's head . The Parkland Drs. have been made to look like a bunch of Drs. who could not tell where the wounds were located or from which direction the bullets came from. As Jim Marrs said when asked if we would ever know what really happened on Nov. 22 , 1963 . We already know !
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 12, 2018, 04:40:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


NO NEED FOR LASERS OR 'MODIFIED' X-RAY PHOTOS
Correct.....however-
One does need to actually fire a bullet, using a 1940 piece of crap rifle [from a distance of 150 feet is OK]..have it traverse 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, strike a necktie knot, remove 4 inches of rib, and shatter a radius bone and have it come out looking brand new.
 Let us know how well you do.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tony Fratini on June 12, 2018, 08:39:30 AM
Bump
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Howard Gee on June 12, 2018, 11:36:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Correct.....however-
One does need to actually fire a bullet, using a 1940 piece of crap rifle [from a distance of 150 feet is OK]..have it traverse 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, strike a necktie knot, remove 4 inches of rib, and shatter a radius bone and have it come out looking brand new.
 Let us know how well you do.


I see we're making some progress.

Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.

That's a start.

Naturally, once the droolers are shown that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible, the next step is to show that a bullet could cause the wounds and emerge relatively intact.

Jerry knows that 399 didn't 'come out looking brand new', so we'll let that go.

Rather, we will demonstrate that a single bullet could indeed cause all the wounds and emerge relatively intact. That is to say, not fragmented, nose not smashed, and not tremendously mangled as the detractors of the SBT insist would have to be the case.

I submit that the documentary 'Beyond The Magic Bullet' does just that.

If anyone can provide a better re-enactment of the SBT, I'd love to see it.

Impossible trajectory ?  Objection overruled.

Impossible to cause the wounds and not be mangled ?  Objection overruled.

The Court finds that the SBT is not only possible, it's the best explanation available !

Judge Gee has ruled.

Next case, please.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 12, 2018, 04:40:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.

Not really (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
 

 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on June 12, 2018, 05:00:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see we're making some progress.

Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.

That's a start.

Naturally, once the droolers are shown that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible, the next step is to show that a bullet could cause the wounds and emerge relatively intact.

Jerry knows that 399 didn't 'come out looking brand new', so we'll let that go.

Rather, we will demonstrate that a single bullet could indeed cause all the wounds and emerge relatively intact. That is to say, not fragmented, nose not smashed, and not tremendously mangled as the detractors of the SBT insist would have to be the case.

I submit that the documentary 'Beyond The Magic Bullet' does just that.

If anyone can provide a better re-enactment of the SBT, I'd love to see it.

Impossible trajectory ?  Objection overruled.

Impossible to cause the wounds and not be mangled ?  Objection overruled.

The Court finds that the SBT is not only possible, it's the best explanation available !

Judge Gee has ruled.

Next case, please.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1741/41856444115_25e7ce55e9_m.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/870/41196410211_95b1a1ee1f_b.jpg)

So show us the correct spot in the snipers nest where that magic shot came from and with angle and measurements please.

Thank you in advance.


 :D

The lost bullet, he,he,he!!!!
 :D ;D
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1736/27887845577_112004bcf3_s.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/889/27189504208_fcaed3daf5_b.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on June 12, 2018, 07:30:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see we're making some progress.

Jerry seems to be conceding that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible.

That's a start.

Naturally, once the droolers are shown that the trajectory of the SBT isn't impossible, the next step is to show that a bullet could cause the wounds and emerge relatively intact.

Jerry knows that 399 didn't 'come out looking brand new', so we'll let that go.

Rather, we will demonstrate that a single bullet could indeed cause all the wounds and emerge relatively intact. That is to say, not fragmented, nose not smashed, and not tremendously mangled as the detractors of the SBT insist would have to be the case.

I submit that the documentary 'Beyond The Magic Bullet' does just that.

If anyone can provide a better re-enactment of the SBT, I'd love to see it.

Impossible trajectory ?  Objection overruled.

Impossible to cause the wounds and not be mangled ?  Objection overruled.

The Court finds that the SBT is not only possible, it's the best explanation available !

Judge Gee has ruled.

Next case, please.

You've got this all backwards. It doesn't matter who claims the SBT is impossible because you can't prove a negative. The MB could have deflected off of JFK's spine and out a small hole in his throat then tumbled into Connally, I suppose, but you guys are insisting the MB passed thru JFK without hitting bone and you contend there is a straight line path thru JFK and into Connally's body. So the onus is on YOU to show the magical trajectory was possible using lasers and a re-enactment. Until then, the MB may not be impossible, but you need to be a LNer to believe in magic.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 12, 2018, 08:07:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because you can't prove a negative. Try to keep up.

And you claim to be a physicist?  ??? 

http://www3.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm#egprovneg
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 30, 2018, 04:59:19 AM
Found a sketch that Dr McClelland did a little over a year ago [from memory of course]


(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3y8AAOSwddhZ0USy/s-l1600.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on July 05, 2018, 11:04:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Found a sketch that Dr McClelland did a little over a year ago [from memory of course]


(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3y8AAOSwddhZ0USy/s-l1600.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Capasse on July 06, 2018, 01:38:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Found a sketch that Dr McClelland did a little over a year ago [from memory of course]


 :D--faulty memory, you know
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on July 06, 2018, 03:00:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you claim to be a physicist?  ??? 

http://www3.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm#egprovneg

Yes I am and I'm not sure why you guys keep reminding me. If you are talking about proving trivial claims like there is no elephant in my pocket, then yes you can prove many non-sensical claims like that, but non-trivial claims can only be proven using a null hypothesis, which is not appropriate for proving claims such as Santa doesn't exist.

So how would I prove that the magic bullet was impossible? By showing you every possible combination/orientation of how it wasn't possible for me? Would that convince you? Get real. Sorry, in this case, you can't prove a negative because no one can disprove something by failing to prove it true. But you can prove that it was possible by doing the 2 laser experiment and shoving the results down my throat. So get on that.

The best evidence (not proof) that the MB was not possible is the fact that not a single LNer has demonstrated that it was possible when it is so easy to do so. Otherwise, where's the beef?

And yes, I do have an elephant in my pocket.  ;)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on July 16, 2018, 09:30:01 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Thumb_naraevid_CE399-7.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Thumb_naraevid_CE399-1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_naraevid_CE399-3.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-17_0001_0379.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_84.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 22, 2018, 04:38:53 AM
Why should we believe The Magic Bull[sh]it Theory?
Senator Richard Russell said he didn't believe it and LBJ agreed...That's right -President Johnson said he didn't believe it either.
Don't believe it?........

 

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on July 22, 2018, 09:03:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why should we believe The Magic Bull[sh]it Theory?
Senator Richard Russell said he didn't believe it and LBJ agreed...That's right -President Johnson said he didn't believe it either.
Don't believe it?........

 


So LBJ is also a CTer!!!
:D LOL
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 24, 2018, 02:55:30 PM
Everybody notice that our friends from the no conspiracy side fail to address heresy from their own ranks? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on July 26, 2018, 04:28:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL! There's every reason to believe Connally was struck substantially earlier than Z338, and practically no reason to believe Kennedy was struck as "early as Z210."

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2b7jhu.jpg)  (http://i65.tinypic.com/35ity1g.jpg)  (http://i65.tinypic.com/2ngxugn.jpg)

Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226. This is consistent with both men being struck at about z223.

"Both men appear to first react (and simultaneously) Z225-226. This is consistent with both men being struck at about z223."

How is that possible?

The alleged bullet through JFK's neck was traveling at a slightly upward angle.

The bullet through JBC's chest was traveling at a 25 degree downward angle?

Any rational logical person would conclude those wounds were made by 2 seperate projectiles.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hmat-wcvols-20_0001_0053.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 26, 2018, 05:23:41 PM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/hsca-f46-applied-to-wounding-position.jpg)

Clyde Snow's "upright" angle through the neck was in reference to how the neck structure changes between a life-position and auropsy-position.

When it came to depicting the "wounding position", the HSCA always shows the neck transit ranging downward.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

I amended the diagram above (showing the limousine at about Z190) to show the slope from the Oswald window to the limousine at about Z223-25.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Mike Orr on July 27, 2018, 04:07:34 AM
 Tomlinson and O.P. Wright unanimous rejection of CE 399 was further confirmed by this top secret FBI Airtel , which was never shown to the Warren Commission.


   WFO ( FBI Washington Field Office ), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON , who found bullet at Parkland Hospital , Dallas , nor O.P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer , Parkland Hospital , who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service , at Dallas 11/22/63 , can identify it .


Instead , the FBI told the Commission that the two civilians had been interviewed by Special Agent Bardwell Odum, who was told by the men , that the stretcher bullet " appears to be the same one ". But when Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar contacted the National Archives , they found no record of such an interview , in spite of the fact that the FBI was required to document interviews like that. And when they contacted Bardwell Odum in person , he denied ever conducting an interview and stated that he had NEVER even seen CE 399 .

jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 27, 2018, 03:52:15 PM
The FBI only did a special file for interviews in which such interview disclosures could be used in a potential trial. There was no anticipation there would be such a trial when Odum went to Parkland. Odum's results -- along with some other ongoing FBI investigative work for the Commission -- were documented by the AirTel and the report (in CE 2011) they sent to the Commission.

Odum (82 at the time) said he couldn't remember. We have a mere single page of verbatim transcript from the two interviews Thompson and Aguilar did with Odum ( The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew? (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm) ). So we don't know how reluctant Odum was to deny he took the bullet -- which had yet to become notorious or controversial -- to Parkland.

If the one page of interview shared is the "best" denial, then it represents Odum's initial reaction in the first minute of the phone interview with Odum, which was the first direct interchange he had with the CTs. It could be Odum at first thought they were talking about the day of the assassination.

The CTs did a follow-up in-person interview (no transcript for that at all) in which they quote no direct denial. Odum apparently suggested that he might have later forgotten about it. There is no indication that Odum was ever shown the Thompson-Aguilar article about him and how they used his words to tarnish the FBI.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 06:02:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Instead , the FBI told the Commission that the two civilians had been interviewed by Special Agent Bardwell Odum, who was told by the men , that the stretcher bullet " appears to be the same one ". But when Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar contacted the National Archives , they found no record of such an interview , in spite of the fact that the FBI was required to document interviews like that. And when they contacted Bardwell Odum in person , he denied ever conducting an interview and stated that he had NEVER even seen CE 399 .

The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot.  But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Michael Capasse on July 27, 2018, 06:23:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot.  But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.

Clint Hill, Dr Carrico, Dr. Baxter...they go the other way too - ok now
--like you say "whatever it takes"
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Mytton on July 28, 2018, 12:32:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot.  But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.



The difference is that Leavelle was just reinforcing the already established evidence whereas Odum was contradicting everything that had gone before.



JohnM

Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on July 28, 2018, 02:53:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/hsca-f46-applied-to-wounding-position.jpg)

Clyde Snow's "upright" angle through the neck was in reference to how the neck structure changes between a life-position and auropsy-position.

When it came to depicting the "wounding position", the HSCA always shows the neck transit ranging downward.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

I amended the diagram above (showing the limousine at about Z190) to show the slope from the Oswald window to the limousine at about Z223-25.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg)

You have to move the back wound above the neck wound to make your theory work, just like Jerry Ford

and the WC had to.

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 29, 2018, 02:51:10 PM
The "anatomical position" is a generic position in which the individual is imagined to be standing upright and the neck area is structurally upright. This is supposed to give a consistency to wound locations so that various autopsy reports can be read with a common body position in mind.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)
Generic example

The HSCA noted in Volume VII that the "anatomical position" differed from the life- or "wounding position". The neck structures changed such that the wound entry that was located perpendicular out from the T1 level (in the "anatomical position") was now above the T1 level (in the "wounding position").

Another source of confusion is that the term "autopsy position" is used interchangably to describe the "anatomical position". Kennedy at autopsy, with his head resting on a chock, had his neck structrues essentially in the life- or "wounding position". I guess the term"autopsy position" began to be used because the "anatomical position" is used at autopsy.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 30, 2018, 07:52:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The difference is that Leavelle was just reinforcing the already established evidence whereas Odum was contradicting everything that had gone before.

"Already established evidence".  LOL.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on July 31, 2018, 03:58:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The difference is that Leavelle was just reinforcing the already established evidence whereas Odum was contradicting everything that had gone before.

JohnM

Stephen King ihas nothing on Mytton when it comes to writing fiction.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on August 01, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The "anatomical position" is a generic position in which the individual is imagined to be standing upright and the neck area is structurally upright. This is supposed to give a consistency to wound locations so that various autopsy reports can be read with a common body position in mind.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)
Generic example

The HSCA noted in Volume VII that the "anatomical position" differed from the life- or "wounding position". The neck structures changed such that the wound entry that was located perpendicular out from the T1 level (in the "anatomical position") was now above the T1 level (in the "wounding position").

Another source of confusion is that the term "autopsy position" is used interchangably to describe the "anatomical position". Kennedy at autopsy, with his head resting on a chock, had his neck structrues essentially in the life- or "wounding position". I guess the term"autopsy position" began to be used because the "anatomical position" is used at autopsy.
Huh?

Are you saying the diagrams of JFK's neck wound the HSCA published don't depict the wounds actual location?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Micah Mileto on August 02, 2018, 05:34:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Huh?

Are you saying the diagrams of JFK's neck wound the HSCA published don't depict the wounds actual location?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)

Gary, that Thomas Canning diagram actually depicts the back wound an inch of two higher than the Ida Dox diagram presented as authentic to the autopsy photographs. Very sneaky  ;D
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 02, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The standard lame excuse for this is that Odum was older and he just forgot.  But when an 83 year old Jim Leavelle recalled stuff to Dale Myers...well you can take that to the bank.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,998.msg22360.html#msg22360
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 02, 2018, 03:59:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Huh?

Are you saying the diagrams of JFK's neck wound the HSCA published don't depict the wounds actual location?

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hsca8.jpg)

No.
You seem to think the HSCA should have applied (without any adjustment) the wound track shown in their "Autopsy Position" diagram to the moment Kennedy was shot.
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 02, 2018, 06:06:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?

Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in this position?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/seated-position.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on August 03, 2018, 07:22:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No.
You seem to think the HSCA should have applied (without any adjustment) the wound track shown in their "Autopsy Position" diagram to the moment Kennedy was shot.
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?
"Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?"

Irrelevant!

Show the frame of the Z-film that shows JFK in the position he was in when actually hit by the

alleged "Magic Bullet".
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jack Trojan on August 03, 2018, 07:53:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in this position?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/seated-position.jpg)

Jerry needs to also physically put himself in JFK's position and show us how the MB worked. For the umpteenth time, get in-between 2 lasers pointed at each other, -17 deg from horizontal and show your body position that matches JFK's entrance/exit wounds and shove it down the CT's throats. WTF are you waiting for? Cheap and easy peasy, but as of yet crickets from the LNers. And you can bet your arse that every LNer that has tried, has failed, otherwise, they would have posted their results faster than a speeding MB! This speaks volumes, IMO.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 03, 2018, 08:15:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Can you point to a Zapruder film frame that shows Kennedy's neck in the anatomical position?"

Irrelevant!

Show the frame of the Z-film that shows JFK in the position he was in when actually hit by the

alleged "Magic Bullet".

Show us where there was a need for a bullet to be magic...
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on August 04, 2018, 01:22:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where there was a need for a bullet to be magic...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_c.jpg)

There you have your need!
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 05, 2018, 01:41:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_c.jpg)

There you have your need!
There are a lot of things wrong with the SBT including this photo, but the shot entering the upper back, and exiting the throat under the tie is not one of them. You appear to put the exit point under the chin. That may be how you would wear a tie, but it is not where JFK had his tie knot.. JFK was also not sitting with his back against the seat back. As seen in the Croft photo, he was leaning a bit forward.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Rob Caprio on August 07, 2018, 03:44:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where there was a need for a bullet to be magic...

Show us where a bullet could do what was claimed and still remain intact.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 07, 2018, 06:03:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where a bullet could do what was claimed and still remain intact.

This one: Full Metal Jacket

Impact characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet#Impact_characteristics

[EXCERPT]

"By design, fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding, and possibly failing to disable the target. Furthermore, a projectile that goes completely through a target can cause unintentional damage* downrange of the target".

--------------------------------------------------

*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.

Is this intact to you?

(https://s33.postimg.cc/3sr4ir9sv/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Paul Ernst on August 07, 2018, 06:43:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are a lot of things wrong with the SBT including this photo, but the shot entering the upper back, and exiting the throat under the tie is not one of them. You appear to put the exit point under the chin. That may be how you would wear a tie, but it is not where JFK had his tie knot.. JFK was also not sitting with his back against the seat back. As seen in the Croft photo, he was leaning a bit forward.

Andrew I followed the line of the mine protter!!!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_c.jpg)


Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on August 11, 2018, 12:47:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This one: Full Metal Jacket

Impact characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet#Impact_characteristics

[EXCERPT]

"By design, fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding, and possibly failing to disable the target. Furthermore, a projectile that goes completely through a target can cause unintentional damage* downrange of the target".

--------------------------------------------------

*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.

Is this intact to you?

(https://s33.postimg.cc/3sr4ir9sv/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)


(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2018, 12:58:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This one: Full Metal Jacket

Impact characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet#Impact_characteristics

[EXCERPT]

"By design, fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding, and possibly failing to disable the target. Furthermore, a projectile that goes completely through a target can cause unintentional damage* downrange of the target".

--------------------------------------------------

*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.

Is this intact to you?

(https://s33.postimg.cc/3sr4ir9sv/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)

*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.

Seems to me that you are a maroon....You obviously don't understand what you posted...

 "fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding,"

Are you aware that JFK was "SEVERELY WOUNDED"   ....Do you actually believe the bullet that blew half his head away was a FMJ projectile???
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
*Seems to me JBC was the one 'unintentionally damaged'... being 'downrange of the target' and all.

Seems to me that you are a maroon....You obviously don't understand what you posted...

 "fully jacketed projectiles have less capacity to expand after contact with the target than a hollow-point projectile. While this can be an advantage when engaging in targets behind cover, it can also be a disadvantage as an FMJ bullet may pierce completely through a target, leading to less severe wounding,"

Are you aware that JFK was "SEVERELY WOUNDED"   ....Do you actually believe the bullet that blew half his head away was a FMJ projectile???

Show us where I addressed the head shot in my post.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2018, 01:44:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where I addressed the head shot in my post.

So now you;re proposing that the massive wound on JFK's head was not made by an FMJ....  Do I have that right Chappie?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2018, 04:19:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg)

Four were aimed elsewhere
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2018, 04:20:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So now you;re proposing that the massive wound on JFK's head was not made by an FMJ....  Do I have that right Chappie?

Huh? Where did I say that?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 12, 2018, 03:55:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew I followed the line of the mine protter!!!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/801/40148739175_6c6d5fdcdb_c.jpg)
So then, why did you place the other red dot on the back?  I assumed you were trying to show the actual entrance and exit points on the body.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Dillon Rankine on August 12, 2018, 07:26:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you aware that JFK was "SEVERELY WOUNDED"   ....Do you actually believe the bullet that blew half his head away was a FMJ projectile???

That’s because he was shot in the brain.

The non-severe woundings bit refers to bullets maintaining structural integrity through other parts of the body, usually the torso, which end of leaving focal, less serious and more easily treatable wounds than the explosive, diffuse and sometimes inoperable destruction left by hollow points.

The best you can hope for after being shot in the brain is not having too drastic behavioural or personality changes. 
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2018, 10:50:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That’s because he was shot in the brain.

The non-severe woundings bit refers to bullets maintaining structural integrity through other parts of the body, usually the torso, which end of leaving focal, less serious and more easily treatable wounds than the explosive, diffuse and sometimes inoperable destruction left by hollow points.

The best you can hope for after being shot in the brain is not having too drastic behavioural or personality changes.

You're FOS....Many soldiers were shot through the head with military FMJ bullets and survived...some with no ill effects from the wound.

I have a friend who was shot through the head in Vietnam and he is perfectly normal...

As the article YOU posted says....FMJ bullets can pass right through a persons body and cause little damage.....JFK was not hit in the head by a FMJ bullet.....
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 13, 2018, 12:55:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're FOS....Many soldiers were shot through the head with military FMJ bullets and survived...some with no ill effects from the wound.
The Vietnam Head Injury Study: "the low velocity penetrating fragment wounds typically sustained resulted in relatively focal defects". Something like shrapnel and handguns. Seems they couldn't find many who survived the bullet from a high-velocity sniper rifle.

Quote

I have a friend who was shot through the head in Vietnam and he is perfectly normal...

As the article YOU posted says....FMJ bullets can pass right through a persons body and cause little damage.....JFK was not hit in the head by a FMJ bullet.....
Could be your friend's helmet stopped the bullet and a metal chip from the helmet then went through the brain.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on August 13, 2018, 01:01:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That’s because he was shot in the brain.

The non-severe woundings bit refers to bullets maintaining structural integrity through other parts of the body, usually the torso, which end of leaving focal, less serious and more easily treatable wounds than the explosive, diffuse and sometimes inoperable destruction left by hollow points.

The best you can hope for after being shot in the brain is not having too drastic behavioural or personality changes.

If JFK had been shot through the neck with a bullet traveling @ 2700 fps from the TSBD Carcano as the WC

claimed, the shock wave created by that bullet would blown out a large hole in the front of his neck.

The doctors at Parkland described a 3 to 5 mm clean cut wound of entrance.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 13, 2018, 01:46:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If JFK had been shot through the neck with a bullet traveling @ 2700 fps from the TSBD Carcano as the WC

claimed, the shock wave created by that bullet would blown out a large hole in the front of his neck.

The doctors at Parkland described a 3 to 5 mm clean cut wound of entrance.

You raise an excellent point....  Is it possible for two bullets from the same gun to perform completely opposite?....

I doubt it....   If FMJ bullets had been used there would have been neat clean small wounds on the victims.....And the bullets would have been found intact in the car.
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jake Maxwell on August 14, 2018, 03:13:18 AM
Was there any bullet entry/exit damage at the back of John Connally's car seat?
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jake Maxwell on August 14, 2018, 03:20:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was there any bullet entry/exit damage at the back of John Connally's car seat?
Maybe that's why they rushed the car off to be stripped down and repaired ASAP...
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Jake Maxwell on August 14, 2018, 03:30:14 AM
...and look at all the damage to the president, governor, Tague, and limo...
Both the windshield and the chrome trim look like direct hits...
The "magic bullet" theory is really an IQ test...

(https://image.ibb.co/hBQHo9/Screen_Shot_2018_08_08_at_5_25_56_PM.png)

(https://image.ibb.co/dW8Co9/Screen_Shot_2018_08_08_at_5_35_32_PM.png)

(https://image.ibb.co/cipfap/x_30_nn_connally_131120_760_428_7_70_5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Magic Bullet
Post by: Gary Craig on August 14, 2018, 02:09:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You raise an excellent point....  Is it possible for two bullets from the same gun to perform completely opposite?....

I doubt it....   If FMJ bullets had been used there would have been neat clean small wounds on the victims.....And the bullets would have been found intact in the car.


The fragmentation that occurred in JFK's head/skull is typical of  a soft nosed projectile, not a FMJ.