JFK Assassination Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell

« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 09:09:23 AM »

Quote from: Royell Storing on Yesterday at 05:42:31 PM

There are several issues from credible sources that you have Not taken into consideration: (1) The Thompson interview of Sitzman and her claiming that after getting down from the pedestal, she then went Down to the BOTTOM of the Knoll. (2) Wiegman detailing in "Pictures Of The Pain" that he saw SA Lem Johns UP on the knoll. Just how firm is the Wiegman ID on the Bell Film? The figure falling/running across the top of the knoll is cavalierly accepted as being Wiegman due to his wearing a Hat. Is it possible that SA Lem Johns was wearing a Hat UP on the Knoll? That I am aware of, Wiegman NEVER ID'd himself as being this figure on the Bell Film. Nor did anyone else.

Sitzman and Johns are completely irrelevant regarding the issue being dealt with.
How firm is the Weigman ID in Bell?
It's 100& Weigman.
You already accepted this ID but are now backtracking for some reason.
YOU must do your own analysis of the Weigman footage to determine his position when he filmed the Hesters.
You will see hie is approaching the concrete platform, just before he starts filming the Hesters his camera points downwards to reveal he is lying on this platform, thge footage is taken from floor level and use the pillars in the background to determine his reletive angle to them (I've already done this in an earlier post).
When you've done this analysis you will be 100% convinced it is Weigman in Bell.
When you are convinced of that consider the following from my previous post:

1] You accept Altgens 8 shows the Hesters both lying on the grass while Zapruder and Sitzman are by the pedestal.
2] The Bell footage showing only Mrs Hester on the grass and her husband hiding out in the pergola while Zapruder and Sitzman are still moving about by the pedsestal.

The Weigman footage shows the moment Charles Hester gets up and moves to the pergola, heroically abandoning his wife.
The Weigman footage captures the moment that connects point #1 to point #2.
Are you suggesting Zapruder and Sitzman disappear between after point 1 (Altgens8) and reappear at point 2 (Bell)?
Or is it more plausible that, as Weigman runs towards the Hesters, Zapruder and Sitzman are still on top of the pedestal but the footage is too poor to pick them out?
We know Zapruder and Sitzman were still on top of the pedestal while Weigman was running towards the Hesters from the synchronisations provided by the JFK Theorist and me in this thread.
So - can you accept that the Weigman footage is too poor quality to show Zapruder and Sitzman still on the pedestal as Weigman runs towards the Hesters?

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The smell of gunpowder

« Last post by Ted Sager on Today at 07:34:46 AM »

Reports of following cars smelling Gun powder at the corner of Elm, too. Where would that have come from except storm drain at corner.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Dealey Plaza Storm Drain Sewer Theory 1992

« Last post by Ted Sager on Today at 07:31:41 AM »

Cause others believe the evidence. Such as upward angle of Ks back shot, slug making dent by mirror. JC being shot while turned facing the SBD. Ks head shot transversing his head from left rear to right front. None of that would have been cause from window shots. That's why others don't believe in a window shooter.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 03:40:36 AM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:40:38 PM

The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

Baden was one of several members of the HSCA's FPP who believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward". They were wrong. The majority of that 9 member panel disagreed with them. You have falsely claimed that "several members" equals a majority.

The FPP determined that the entry wound was superior to the ribs. T1 being the uppermost vertebra of the ribs.

Humes was not responsible for the drawings. His placement of the wound on the drawings was too high. However, his testimony that the wound was in the low neck was probably correct.

The Clark Panel measured the entry wound to be about 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin on the back of the neck. The HSCA FPP measured it to be about 6 cm below the skin fold. The Clark Panel measured the wound in the throat to be about 9 cm below the skin fold. The entry wound was above the wound in the throat. It's obvious when viewing the posterior view and the left lateral view of the body that the entry wound was above the wound in the throat. CTs who refuse to admit it will not place a mark on the left lateral view at the level of where the entry wound was because they are incapable of admitting that they are wrong.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Education Forum Goes Off the Rails

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 02:29:59 AM »

The Jews were not only behind the JFKA...but the Watergate Episode.

Fresh from the Education Forum:

Posted 7 hours ago
On 9/7/2026 at 7:11 AM, Anthony Thorne said:

Aaron, what material is in the longer edition and which books if any did you find useful in researching the Watergate topic?

There's an extra hour. Jim Hougan's book is the best. An unpublished essay from Peter (which I edited and contributed slightly to) is also useful. But mostly these are different threads that I came across after being in email conversations with Peter and Jim and Max Arvo which included creating a timeline of key Watergate events that went beyond the Watergate timeline to also incorporate the US v. Lanksy saga and related events events in that universe involving Zionist figures in Vegas.

I surmise that Angleton is the key US intelligence figure behind Watergate and that he was acting against both Nixon and the official CIA with possible sanction from militarist sectors of the national security state (JCS/"Doomsday Network") and with considerable input from his mob/Zionist ties.

It was the proto-neocon coalition that was behind Dallas--the hard-right militarists, mobbed-up Zioinists, Angleton's CIA w/in the CIA (which included the "Israeli account"). These forces essentially completed their takeover of the US foreign policy apex with the defeat of GHW Bush (who I conclude was an amoral champion of US imperial capitalism, but not insane). The Clean Break report and the PNAC report laid out the new grand strategy: dollarized unipolar full-spectrum US imperial dominance with the "Greater Israel" project dominating the global energy heartlands of West Asia.

In large part through deep political warfare, the Zionist neocons succeeded in tying the US hegemonic project to the Greater Israel project. Now the two projects seem to be collapsing in tandem. The strategy was insane b/c the US ultra-militarists are lunatics, and the ideologically nazified Zionists are even crazier.

It appears that Nemesis has entered the scene.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: A Dark View of the Diem Assassinations, JFK and South Vietnam, And the JFKA.

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:52:44 AM »

JFK also showed his willingness to use naval blockades, as seen during the CMC.

Very possibly, JFK would have put a naval blockade on NV, or destroyed Haiphong.

Given JFK's long association with SV, and that JFK loathed, detested and reviled communist oppression, I doubt JFK would have simply walked away from SV.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: What If Grassy Knoll Sounds And Smoke Were "Only" A Diversion?--A Fun Update!

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:25:36 AM »

By the 1960s, ordinary commercial firecracker explosives and gunpowder were two different formulations, and did not smell the same.

That many vets and police officers smelled gunsmoke in the GK area, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, has never been explained.

We know from women's coats and skirts that the wind was blowing towards the TSBD from the Third St. Overpass at the time of the JFKA---in other words, LHO and the TSBD6 sniper nest were downwind from the limo.

This, beyond dispute, rules out the TSBD6 location as the source of that gunsmoke.

Many ear-witnesses thought the shots had come from the GK, and smoke in the GK was seen by Sam Holland, a credible witness.

This is the same area where someone flashed an ersatz Secret Service badge at DPD Officer Joe Smith, also in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.

Putting on a detective hat, one plausible explanation is that someone fired a handgun, possibly an easily concealed snub-nose .38 (the default concealed weapon of the time), as the presidential limo passed.

And indeed, the second official investigation in the JFKA, the HSCA-1979, concluded there had been a gunshot at the GK during the JFKA.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions. Your conjecture will be as good as anyone else's.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Ultra-Liberal CTers Are Outraged Over New Book on JFK and Vietnam

« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 11:01:36 PM »

In an October 2, 1963 National Security Meeting where the McNamara/Taylor report was discussed, JFK expressed "reservations" about the proposed 1000 troop withdrawal by the end of the year.

Here is the exchange with McNamara.

President Kennedy: My only reservation about it [the report] is that it commits us to a kind of a ... if the war doesn't continue to go well, it'll look like we were overly optimistic, and I don't—I'm not sure we—I'd like to know what benefit we get out [of it] at this time announcing a thousand—

McNamara: Mr. President, we have the thousand split by units, so that if the war doesn't go well, we can say these thousand would not have influenced the course of action.

President Kennedy: And the advantage of taking them out—

McNamara: And the advantage of taking them out is that we can say to Congress and people that we do have a plan for reducing the exposure of U.S. combat personnel to the guerrilla actions in South Vietnam—actions that the people of South Vietnam should gradually develop a capability to suppress themselves. And I think this will be of great value to us in meeting the very strong views of Senator [J. William] Fulbright and others that we're bogged down in Asia and will be there for decades.

President Kennedy: All right.

That's not much of a disagreement or reservation to me; it sounds half-hearted and staged. And completely political. JFK wanted McNamara to give him cover, cover for something he didn't want attributed to him.

You can hear JFK himself say this in a taped recording of that meeting: https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkpof-mtg-114-a49d

Go to the 19:00 minute mark.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

« Last post by Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 08:27:01 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 08:02:33 PM

LOL! Oh my goodness! I mean, just holy cow! Neither Dr. Baden nor the HSCA FPP as a whole claimed that the downward angle through Connally's torso was 45 degrees. Perhaps that's why you cited no source for your astonishing claim. The FPP said the bullet track through Connally's torso proceeded downwards from back to front "at approximately a 10-degree angle." I quote from the FPP's report:

Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front
downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)

Dr. Robert Shaw, the surgeon who operated on Connally's chest, measured the downward angle of the bullet path through Connally's torso as being 25 degrees, as even the Warren Report notes:

When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (p. 93)

Good grief, have you ever looked at a diagram of the entry wound and the exit wound in Connally's torso? How could you possibly think that the bullet traveled at a downward angle of 45 degrees? How?

And why are you talking about Connally's wounds anyway?

When are you going to explain how a bullet that supposedly struck and traveled at an upward angle through JFK's neck could have aligned with a shot fired from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had not been leaning markedly forward?

You are doing everything but addressing this simple, straightforward question. You see, we both know that there is no photo or frame that shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's alleged timeframe. So you know that you have no good answer to this question.

There was a reason that the WC brazenly misrepresented the wound's location and illustrated a phony downward trajectory through JFK's neck. They knew that was the only way that the wound trajectory would have any chance of being plausible for a shot fired from the supposed sniper's nest. Ah, but along came the HSCA FPP and this myth was blown to pieces.

Here you go.

(Volume VII, Medical and Firearms Evidence, Addendum G — Baden’s 9/6/78 memorandum). This is the only place where the HSCA publishes the actual numeric angles:

“Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front, downward at approximately a 45° angle to the horizontal and slightly medially at approximately a 10° angle for a distance of 12½ inches through the body.”
— HSCA Volume VII, Addendum G, Report of the Physical Examination of Governor John Connally, Memorandum by Michael I. Baden, M.D., 9/6/78

And why are you talking about Connally's wounds anyway?

See this is the problem. You cannot explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You know SBT? If you are not going to locate this separate shooter you are claiming for JBC then what are you going on about? No bullet, no trajectory, no medical explanations, just your opinion is all that is presented here. Even the doctor you quote does not support this ridiculous claim. Are you going to explain any of this nonsense or is it like the head wound and all your other posts?

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 08:02:33 PM »

Quote from: Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 06:33:13 PM

Nobody is confused here. The reasons this is idiotic are obvious. I cannot vouch for where you are. It must be rocket science to you or how do we explain how lost you always seem to be. Is it too late to edit this out of your fictional book?

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?

None other than your Dr Baden.

Measured by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel
The second authoritative measurement came from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) medical panel in 1978.
This panel included:

Dr. Michael Baden (Chief Medical Examiner, NYC)

Dr. John Coe
Dr. Charles Petty
Dr. Werner Spitz
Dr. Richard Lindenberg
Dr. Robert McMeekin
Dr. George Loquvam

They reviewed Connally’s medical records, X‑rays, surgical notes, and the Warren Commission diagrams.

Their conclusion:

Downward angle inside the torso ≈ 45°

Medial (right‑to‑left) angle ≈ 10

You are posting this nonsense without knowing what you are talking about?

Now that you have been brought current into the real world. Explain where the shooter was located and explain why the medical evidence does not make you look like a fool.

For this kind of stupidity to have a chance of being valid it would be nice of you to produce a bullet responsible for it.

LOL! Oh my goodness! I mean, just holy cow! Neither Dr. Baden nor the HSCA FPP as a whole claimed that the downward angle through Connally's torso was 45 degrees. Perhaps that's why you cited no source for your astonishing claim. The FPP said the bullet track through Connally's torso proceeded downwards from back to front "at approximately a 10-degree angle." I quote from the FPP's report:

Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front
downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)

Dr. Robert Shaw, the surgeon who operated on Connally's chest, measured the downward angle of the bullet path through Connally's torso as being 25 degrees, as even the Warren Report notes:

When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (p. 93)

Good grief, have you ever looked at a diagram of the entry wound and the exit wound in Connally's torso? How could you possibly think that the bullet traveled at a downward angle of 45 degrees? How?

And why are you talking about Connally's wounds anyway?

When are you going to explain how a bullet that supposedly struck and traveled at an upward angle through JFK's neck could have aligned with a shot fired from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward?

You are doing everything but addressing this simple, straightforward question. You see, we both know that there is no photo or frame that shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's alleged timeframe. So you know that you have no good answer to this question.

There was a reason the WC brazenly misrepresented the wound's location and illustrated a phony downward trajectory through JFK's neck. They knew that was the only way the wound trajectory would have any chance of being plausible for a shot fired from the supposed sniper's nest. Ah, but along came the HSCA FPP and this neck-wound-above-throat-wound myth was blown to pieces.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10