Recent Posts
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 07:49:41 PM »Oh, boy! Ok, yes, and Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy discusses every single finding of the autopsy report and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 report had the benefit of all the autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length"
That cannot be found in the autopsy report. It comes from the flawed Sibert and O'Neill report. The 1/13/1964 report does NOT cite the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*.
On a side note, three days ago you said this in responding to a reply of mine:
Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right?
You realize that Sibert and O'Neill's FD-302 wasn't typed until 11/26/63, right?
2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 07:35:40 PM »That is FALSE. The 1/13/1964 report cites "the medical examination of the body", not the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*. It's actually still relying on the Sibert and O'Neill FD-302 of Nov 26, 1963.
Oh, boy! Ok, yes, and Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy discusses every single important finding of the autopsy report and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 report had the benefit of all the important autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
I've edited my OP to reflect this information.
Are you going to address any of the key information in the OP, or just be satisfied with your nit-picky minor correction that ignores the main point that the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy report?
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 07:27:33 PM »What the hell difference does it make when the autopsy team figured out there had been an exit wound in the throat. They eventually got there. I suspect it was a gradual process. At first they were confused because they had an entrance wound with no apparent exit and no bullet in the body. That fostered the preposterous hypothesis that the bullet had only gone a few inches into the back and then somehow worked its way out. It is completely absurd to think that a bullet would only penetrate a short distance into soft tissue, but they apparently were groping for an answer early on in the process. As they continued to examine the body, they discovered further tissue damage, the contusion of the pleura, the perforation of the strap muscles, and the damage to the rings of the trachea, there must have been a moment when the thought hit them that, "Holy crap, this leads us right to the tracheostomy incision". That discovery would naturally lead them to at least consider the possibility that the exit wound had been used to perform the tracheostomy. Naturally, they would want to confirm that with the ER team at Parkland. There were several phone calls from Bethesda to Dr. Perry that night and the next morning. Who knows during which conversation Perry confirmed to Humes that the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound. Again, what the hell difference does it make when that confirmation was given. The Bethesda team arrived at the correct answer.
It defies credulity that both the back wound and throat wound were entrance wounds in which a bullet penetrated only a short distance into soft tissue so that it could work its way out or be dug out of JFK's body. Only really silly people would believe such a thing was remotely possible.
And the John Corbett Comedy Show continues. As usual, you ignore all contrary facts and repeat talking points that those facts refuted years ago.
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 07:23:42 PM »
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report cites the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the doubtful excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. That excuse cannot be floated for the 1/13/1964 report, because it specifically cites the autopsy report.
That is FALSE. The 1/13/1964 report cites "the medical examination of the body", not the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*. It's actually still relying on the Sibert and O'Neill FD-302 of Nov 26, 1963.
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 07:17:38 PM »Whenever I see someone quote a few words out of context, it's a pretty safe bet that person is lying about what was actually said. Your "a split second" is a perfect example.
The reason you think the "split second" reference is out of context is because of your profound ignorance regarding this case. It wouldn't be so bad but you've already been corrected on this specific issue in this very thread (and not that long ago).
Pat Speer has a comprehensive collection of everything Connally said about the shooting at his website. This is part of an FBI interview with JBC on the 11th December, '63.
(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.
"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"
"Snapped his fingers three times rapidly"
So, nothing has been taken out of context. You just aren't familiar with the evidence (even when it's already been pointed out to you).
Quote
Here is what JBC said to the WC
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.
Because I'm now expecting a certain amount of deviousness in these exchanges I felt it was important to concentrate on the part of JBC's testimony that you seem to have 'forgotten'. The part of his WC testimony that was actually about the amount of time between the first shot and JBC feeling the blow in his back which he assumed was a second shot:
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time...and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took..."
"These are the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of...the first shot plus the blow that I took...that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."
These are his actual words regarding the length of time between the first shot and the feeling of being shot. This length of time was so brief JBC felt that two or three people must be firing at him or that an automatic rifle was being used. Elsewhere he has used the phrase "split second" which would accurately convey the length of time JBC is trying to describe - literally less than one second.
Quote
If the entire time frame was 10, 12 seconds, that would mean that if there was only "a split second" between the first and second shots, then there would have been 10-12 seconds between the second and third shots. Is that the hill you want to die on?
The hill I want to die on?
Don't you mean the hill JBC wants to die on.
He is the one describing what he remembers, not me.
That the gap between the first and second shots was incredibly small.
But this is not shown in the Z-film.
So why does JBC the gap was a split second?
And here's another mystery for which you have no answer.
As we have seen, JBC can't emphasise enough how rapidly the shooting occurred. Over and over again he uses imagery and phrases that force home the extreme rapidity of the shots...but then he guesses at 10 to 12 seconds for the duration of the shooting!! This is an eternity as far as the shooting is concerned.
How is it possible to reconcile him snapping his fingers "three times rapidly" with 10 to 12 seconds?
There is zero evidence that supports such a long timespan between the first and last shot.
This is another thing JBC appears to have got wrong.
Quote
It should also be noted that people often refer to semi-automatic weapons as automatic. Most fully automatic weapons fire 10 rounds per second or faster. If it had been a full auto weapon, JBC would not have heard individual shots and it certainly wouldn't take 10-12 seconds to fire 3 rounds. For those who aren't familiar with firearms, a semi-auto weapon is one that uses the gasses from one shot to eject the spent shell and chamber the next round from a magazine. As such, they can fire more rapidly than a bolt or lever action rifle, but they still only fire one round with each pull of the trigger.
It should also be noted that people often refer to semi-automatic weapons as automatic
I knew it wouldn't be long before you started explaining what the witness really meant.
This is such a Nutter trait and you are as rabid as they come.
Even though you will fully agree that JBC knows his weaponry he still needs you, someone who can't think for himself, to explain what he really meant.
JBC heard the first shot clearly but did not hear the second shot. Why not?
He emphasises over and over again that there was barely any time between the first two shots but the Z-film shows this not to be true. How can this be?
He states that he turned to look over his right shoulder BEFORE he is shot but the Z-film shows conclusively that the one and only time he attempts to look over his right shoulder is AFTER he has been shot. How can this be?
He states that he is hit while his head is turned slightly to the left. There are only two times in the Z-film he does this - firstly in the z160's and he is clearly not hit then. Secondly in the z230's when it is clear he has already been hit. How can this be?
The Z-film absolutely refutes JBC's account of the shooting on virtually every point. How can that be?
Just to clarify, I don't believe for a second that he is lying. I believe he is honestly reporting the shooting exactly as he remembers it.
How do you deal with these inconsistencies and contradictions?
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Darnell Gifs "Credit: 6th Floor Museum" Jones Collection NBC 5 Archive
« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 06:37:44 PM »Lovelady & Shelley seen going up the Elm Street extension confirm the time stamp for the above film clip to be around 25-30 seconds after the last shot...As does Calvery and Reed on the steps...
You are seeing the exact moment Frazier said he and Stanton "Were staring at each other in shock for the longest time"...Evidence confusers and mud spreaders be damned...
Royell is wiggling his white bunny tail and trying to get people to switch the subject and chase him down his Alice In Wonderland rabbit hole...
- A WHIZ AT CHECKERS -
An extended timestamp for our seeing Officer Baker running across the Island and into the street, would also extend the current :20 second timestamp for the 2 Guys filmed walking down the Elm St Extension. This extended time stamp would give your "2 Guys = Lovelady/Shelley" more time to move from the steps in front of the TSBD and into the Elm St Extension. You're painfully slow.
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Harvey Oswald
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 06:19:31 PM »Yeah, it has a ‘John Wayne Gacy’ vibe.
Oswald Cobblepot?
Oswald Cobblepot?
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 06:01:51 PM »Most WC critics, aka conspiracy theorists, have overlooked the full implications of the FBI's revealing and damning 1/20/1964 "visual aids brochure" (Commission Document 298) that was submitted as a visual aid supplement for its 99-page 1/13/1964 report on the assassination (Commission Document 107). Harold Weisberg zeroed in on CD 298 because it says JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. It says JFK was hit with the first of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots, Connally with the second shot, and JFK with the third shot.
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. Given the known problems with the autopsy report, that excuse falls flat from the outset.
Moreover, the 1/13/1964 report it cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, which includes every single main finding of the autopsy before the autopsy report was altered by the chief autopsy doctor. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the important original autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:
"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)
What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.
You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.
The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.
The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.
Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder fim as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.
The 1/13/1964 FBI report notes the following facts:
-- "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (p. 2).
-- "The bag [the paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest] was examined for any evidence of the outline of a rifle but no significant indentations were found" (p. 5).
-- Two women who rode on the Red Arrow bus with Oswald on the way to Mexico City, Patricia Winston and Pamela Mumford, said he recommended they stay at the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City because he said "he had stayed there several times and had found it inexpensive. (p. 49).
The FBI confirmed there was indeed a Hotel Cuba in Mexico City, but the hotel's records did not show that anyone by the name of Oswald had stayed there (p. 49). So how did Oswald know about the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City? Just an amazingly lucky guess?
-- Mrs. Alexandra Taylor, who "became friendly with Oswald's wife," described Oswald as "bright" and as someone "who could argue logically and persuasively, and who was positive in his ideas and strong in his convictions." She said "she found it hard to believe he would want to kill President Kennedy" (p. 29).
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. Given the known problems with the autopsy report, that excuse falls flat from the outset.
Moreover, the 1/13/1964 report it cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, which includes every single main finding of the autopsy before the autopsy report was altered by the chief autopsy doctor. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the important original autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:
"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)
What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.
You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.
The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.
The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.
Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder fim as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.
The 1/13/1964 FBI report notes the following facts:
-- "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (p. 2).
-- "The bag [the paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest] was examined for any evidence of the outline of a rifle but no significant indentations were found" (p. 5).
-- Two women who rode on the Red Arrow bus with Oswald on the way to Mexico City, Patricia Winston and Pamela Mumford, said he recommended they stay at the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City because he said "he had stayed there several times and had found it inexpensive. (p. 49).
The FBI confirmed there was indeed a Hotel Cuba in Mexico City, but the hotel's records did not show that anyone by the name of Oswald had stayed there (p. 49). So how did Oswald know about the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City? Just an amazingly lucky guess?
-- Mrs. Alexandra Taylor, who "became friendly with Oswald's wife," described Oswald as "bright" and as someone "who could argue logically and persuasively, and who was positive in his ideas and strong in his convictions." She said "she found it hard to believe he would want to kill President Kennedy" (p. 29).
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: 63rd anniversary of the JFKA is approaching
« Last post by Matt Brooks on Today at 05:55:13 PM »well I suggest one day reading the warren commission report. there’s lots of images there!I have seen commision exhibit 885, yummy Nix pre-1978 frames! before the original was lost!
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Darnell Gifs "Credit: 6th Floor Museum" Jones Collection NBC 5 Archive
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 05:44:46 PM »Lovelady & Shelley seen going up the Elm Street extension confirm the time stamp for the above film clip to be around 25-30 seconds after the last shot...As does Calvery and Reed on the steps...
You are seeing the exact moment Frazier said he and Stanton "Were staring at each other in shock for the longest time"...Evidence confusers and mud spreaders be damned...
Royell is wiggling his white bunny tail and trying to get people to switch the subject and chase him down his Alice In Wonderland rabbit hole...