Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:36:07 PM »
So?

The fact that you have to put several "ifs" into your scenario means that nothing you are saying is an established fact. It's simply your guesses.
2
Yes, she was very credible.

Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole. 

That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.

So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.

How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."

How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole? 

How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.

The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.
3

Summers then proceeds to shred Howard Brennan's specious identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman:

The Commission, however, set store by the evidence of Howard Brennan, a spectator in the street who stood directly opposite the Depository. He said he saw a man moving around at the famous “sniper’s perch” window between 12:22 and 12:24 and that, at the moment of the assassination, he looked up to see the man fire his final shot. Later that day, Brennan was taken to a police identity lineup that included Oswald. He failed to make a positive identification of Oswald as the man he had seen in the window—even though he had seen Oswald’s picture on tele­vision before attending the lineup.

A month later, however, Brennan told the FBI he was sure the man he had seen was Oswald. Three weeks on, he was saying he couldn’t be sure. And many months later, Brennan told the official inquiry that he could have identified Oswald at the lineup but had feared reprisals from the Communists.

Brennan’s testimony was replete with contradiction and confusion. He claimed to have been watching as the last shot was fired, yet saw neither flash, smoke, nor recoil. Testimony showed that, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, he did not at once draw attention to what he claimed to have seen in the Book Depository, but joined others hurrying toward the grassy knoll. Questioning suggested that Brennan at first stated he had seen smoke in the area of the knoll. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 94-95)


The value of Brennan's account is not whom he saw firing the weapon, but where he saw the weapon fired from. That part was corroborated by the three shells found at the very window he identified as the shooter's location. The murder weapon was found a short distance away on the same floor. He pointed that out to a cop within minutes of the shooting. While Brennan later did ID Oswald, I don't put much value in that part. It would be difficult for anyone to make a positive ID from his vantage point but the fact he was able to point out the location of the shooter is very compelling. We don't have to dismiss that part just because his ID of the shooter was less than positive. The forensice evidence found at that location is what makes the case against Oswald.

So, again, you have no reason to distrust Summers. We are fortunate to have a scholar of his caliber on our side. [/quote]

My side is the side of truth and Summers is of little help in establishing that.
Quote

Regarding John Mytton's reply about Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test, he is once again misrepresenting that test. I have pointed this out to him in other threads, but he has once again misrepresented Olivier's test as supporting the myth of the FMJ-bullet head shot. For one thing, as I've pointed out to Mytton in previous exchanges, the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays from Olivier's test looks nothing like the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Also, the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test did not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, contrary to what Mytton is falsely claiming. There are over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cloud alone in the autopsy skull x-rays, and that's not counting the other fragments near the right orbit, in the rear outer table, and the lone fragment in the left side of the skull. None of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test produced that many fragments. I'll reply in more detail to Mytton's response today or tomorrow.

So now you expect tests to duplicate the pattern of fragmentation. It doesn't get any sillier than that. Oliver's test showed that an FMJ Carcano round will fragment. The fact the test bullet didn't fragment exactly the way Oswald's Carcano bullet did is not at all significant to people who have common sense.
4
Dr. Evalea Glanges sure seems like a credible witness. Serious medical student, became a doctor. A gun enthusiast. She says she saw a hole in the JFK limo windshield.

Yes, she was very credible.

Then, why destroy the original JFK limo windshield?

Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole. 

Destroying crime scene evidence is not a good look.

That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.

I have reasonable doubts about the nature of cracks or bullet holes in the JFK limo windshield. I cannot fathom destroying the original windshield.

So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.

How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."

How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole? 

How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.
5
Sorry, but that just isn't true. You can watch both the Nix and Muchmore films. There was a shot after Z-313 that Oswald could not have fired.

Nonsense!
6


I assume the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell is the best extant copy...It should therefore be obtained, scanned, and analyzed...It will show Joe Molina as being the man in front of Calvery on the steps...Molina said in testimony that after the shots he drifted in the direction of the Knoll on the top platform of the front steps and then descended the steps and headed to the Knoll...You are seeing him in that process in Couch/Darnell...Since their clothing indicates that the pair fast-walking up the extension are Lovelady & Shelley the man on the steps has to be Molina...We can see that most sources on both Greg Parker's site and The Education Forum claim the man on the steps is Lovelady...They are wrong...It is Molina...Throw in Stanton as Prayer Man and I am being disallowed membership by people who don't know how to do basic photo identification analysis...Parker and Kamp have seriously damaged good research...
7
Clint Hill was running toward the limo before the headshot. Because the limo was moving forward, there wasn't much closing speed, but he was already in motion.

Although he was told differently, the only shot he heard while running was the headshot. He said the shot had a metallic sound which indicates to me one of the sounds he heard was a fragment striking the windshield frame.

To the best of my recollection, he was telling his story at the Sixth Floor Museum but I will have to find that program to verify it.

Sorry, but that just isn't true. You can watch both the Nix and Muchmore films. There was a shot after Z-313 that Oswald could not have fired. 
8

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 14, 2026, 08:05:45 PM
You've misread Summers. Here's what he says about Carolyn Arnold and her FBI statement:[SNIP]


In her discussion with Earl Golz Carolyn Arnold insisted she said 12:25...That was reinforced by her March 1964 FBI statement that listed in plain writing "12:25"...

FBI acted criminally and with intent when it criminally altered both Arnold's and Stanton's key witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...

You are misreading Carolyn Arnold's statements. You are confusing her departure time with the time she saw Oswald before she departed.

Arnold's 3/18/64 FBI statement says that she left the TSBD at 12:25, that she was standing at the front of the building before then, and that she did not see Oswald at the entrance (CE 1381, p. 7). It says nothing about her seeing Oswald shortly before she left the building. Her 11/26/63 FBI statement has her saying that she left her office between 12:00 and 12:15 and that she "thought" she caught a "fleeting glimpse" of Oswald "standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor" (FBI file number DL 89-43-1743, 11/26/63).

When she spoke with Earl Golz in 1978 (as Carolyn Arnold Johnston), she repeated that she left the TSBD at 12:25, but she also told Golz that she had never read her two FBI statements, and that she was surprised the statements did not mention that she saw Oswald sitting in the second floor lunchroom while she was getting a drink of water before she headed out to the front of the building ("Was Oswald in Window?", Dallas Morning News, 1978).

This is exactly what she told Anthony Summers when he interviewed her in 1978, after Golz had interviewed her. She told Summes that she saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom at 12:15 or "slightly later" and that she was surprised this was not mentioned in her FBI statements.

So you have no reason to distrust Summers. He is one of the most careful, credible, and thorough scholars who has written about the JFK case. In fact, we should read what Summers says about the conflict between Carolyn Arnold's FBI statements and her 1978 account:

Should we believe Arnold’s 1978 recollection or the FBI account of what she told them back in 1963? Memories do blur, not least when much time has passed. One might think the FBI’s contemporary report more trustworthy than Arnold’s. FBI agents, however, are as fallible as other mortals. Mistakes in their reports, seen during research for the author’s biography of J. Edgar Hoover, ranged from spelling errors to outright distortions.

Agents in Dallas after the assassination, we know, worked under intolerable time. “Hoover’s obsession with speed,” former Assistant Director Courtney Evans recalled, “made impossible demands on the field. I can’t help but feel that had he let the agents out there do their work, let things take their normal investigative course, something other than the simple Oswald theory might have been developed. But Hoover’s demand was ‘Do it fast!’ That was not necessarily a prescription for getting the whole truth.”

Other former FBI agents recall having been virtually ordered to avoid leads that might indicate a possible conspiracy, to follow only those that would prove Oswald was the lone assassin.

Let us, then, allow for the possibility that Carolyn Arnold’s 1978 memory is correct, that she did see Oswald downstairs at 12:15 p.m. or later. It is, of course, possible that Oswald scurried upstairs to shoot the President after Arnold saw him in the second-floor lunchroom. Yet, as we have seen, bystander Arnold Rowland said he saw two men in sixth-floor windows, one of them holding a rifle across his chest, at 12:15. Rowland’s wife confirmed that her husband drew her attention to the man, whom he assumed to be a Secret Service agent. There was, of course, no such agent, and no other employees were on the sixth floor at that time.

The time detail -- 12:15 -- is the vital point here. It can be fixed so exactly because Rowland recalled having seen the man with the rifle just as a nearby police radio squawked out the news that the approaching motorcade had reached Cedar Springs Road. The police log shows that the President passed that point between 12:15 and 12:16.

Carolyn Arnold’s given time for leaving her office -- 12:15 or later -- is corroborated by contemporary statements made by her and office colleagues. She told the FBI she finally left the building, after visiting the lunchroom, as late as 12:25 p.m. If Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15 or after, who were the two men, one of them a gunman, whom Rowland said he saw in the sixth-floor windows? There never was any reliable eyewitness identification of Oswald in the sixth-floor window after he was seen downstairs. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 92-94)


Summers then proceeds to shred Howard Brennan's specious identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman:

The Commission, however, set store by the evidence of Howard Brennan, a spectator in the street who stood directly opposite the Depository. He said he saw a man moving around at the famous “sniper’s perch” window between 12:22 and 12:24 and that, at the moment of the assassination, he looked up to see the man fire his final shot. Later that day, Brennan was taken to a police identity lineup that included Oswald. He failed to make a positive identification of Oswald as the man he had seen in the window—even though he had seen Oswald’s picture on tele­vision before attending the lineup.

A month later, however, Brennan told the FBI he was sure the man he had seen was Oswald. Three weeks on, he was saying he couldn’t be sure. And many months later, Brennan told the official inquiry that he could have identified Oswald at the lineup but had feared reprisals from the Communists.

Brennan’s testimony was replete with contradiction and confusion. He claimed to have been watching as the last shot was fired, yet saw neither flash, smoke, nor recoil. Testimony showed that, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, he did not at once draw attention to what he claimed to have seen in the Book Depository, but joined others hurrying toward the grassy knoll. Questioning suggested that Brennan at first stated he had seen smoke in the area of the knoll. (Not In Your Lifetime[/], pp. 94-95)


So, again, you have no reason to distrust Summers. We are fortunate to have a scholar of his caliber on our side. Many far-left conspiracy theorists view Summers as a "sellout," if not an "Operation Mockingbird plant," because he doesn't share their political views, because he acknowledges that JFK was a flagrant adulterer, and because he doesn't go off on wild tangents about the Vietnam War, 9/11, etc., even though he argues for a Mafia-driven conspiracy and multiple gunmen.

Regarding John Mytton's reply about Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test, he is once again misrepresenting that test. I have pointed this out to him in other threads, but he has once again misrepresented Olivier's test as supporting the myth of the FMJ-bullet head shot. For one thing, as I've pointed out to Mytton in previous exchanges, the bullet fragmentation seen in the skull x-rays from Olivier's test looks nothing like the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Also, the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test did not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, contrary to what Mytton is falsely claiming. There are over 40 tiny fragments in the right-frontal fragment cloud alone in the autopsy skull x-rays, and that's not counting the other fragments near the right orbit, in the rear outer table, and the lone fragment in the left side of the skull. None of the FMJ bullets in Olivier's test produced that many fragments. I'll reply in more detail to Mytton's response today or tomorrow.




9
TG-

Evidently, the SS did shoo her away, although I doubt the SS was a part of any plot.

My only point is that there are credible witnesses to a hole in the JFK limo windshield when it arrived at Parkland.

BTW I may have to correct myself. It appears the original windshield was not destroyed.

https://docsteach.org/document/winshield-limousine-assassination/

Then there is this:

https://i.postimg.cc/vZNyWyLf/Screen-Shot-2569-07-16-at-19-06-13.png

This doc appears to indicate the limo windshield was cracked, possibly with a hole, but from a strike on the inside.

That tends to refute the "shot from the front" narrative.

I have never been a fan of the "JFK was shot from the front" narrative, due to the windshield, and the lack of any eyewitnesses to a shooter in front of JFK.

I am open to the possibility a shot from the GK struck JFK. But who knows?



10
No... you are wrong here.
This is the perfect place for a sniper dressed in a police uniform and part of a larger conspiracy...
There is a straight line from this position to the president... no interference from the windshield...


The kook peanut gallery weighs in.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10