JFK Assassination Forum

MC-

I concur with you---there was no way anyone could know on 11.25 if the suddenly assassinated LHO had any fellow conspirators, or others who manipulated or induced LHO.

LHO's assassination was sure suspicious, and Jack Ruby had connections to the Cuba scene.

In fact, LBJ stunted any investigation into LHO ties to G2'ers or KGB.

The LN CT was a necessity in 1963-4 Washington.

Who wanted a nuke war with Russia?

The ongoing Zapruder Fakery debate over at the Ed Forum is getting increasingly bitchy and instead of addressing the nuts and bolts of the actual methodology of what SFX were capable of in 1963 they are debating the Zapruder deal and when it happened and where the film went and who had control, blah blah blah. Because at the end of the day the only important fact is what's on the film and how it got there. Hofeling's only evidence regarding the film fakery is a couple of filmmakers who say that the black back of head patch looks like it was painted on, but remember that what they were shown was a heavily manipulated and "logarithmically enhanced" Zapruder frame(Z317).

I also see that Hofeling has said that the images printed in LIFE magazine came from a black and white dupe and Kevin Balch giving evidence that the B&W prints were just caused by a time constraint, but regardless these early images are all exact copies of what we see in the Zapruder film, and considering that all these key frames can be reinserted into the Zapruder Film and were published in LIFE magazine a week later effectively rules out any time consuming fakery. Because allowing for acquiring, organizing, printing and distribution only leaves precious hours for any alteration to occur.



I also see that Brugioni as presented by Hofeling is a powerful eyewitness, in that he saw the "original" but what did he see?

Brugioni describes white above Kennedy's head. Obviously the Harper fragment.



Brugioni also describes a white halo in FRONT of Kennedy's head. After many decades his memory of the colour is a little off?



And what do you know, what Brugioni described is essentially a near perfect take on the Zapruder film, and what we can establish from Brugioni is that there was NO back of head injury seen on the original Zapruder film. And most important of all is why would all the Zapruder alterationist's who are trying to push a back of head injury totally ignore the most relevant fact in this entire Brugioni saga??



Another factoid being endorsed by Hofeling is that Brugioni initially saw the straight from camera Zapruder original because that version obviously had the inter sprocket images and the copies did not. This matters because it affects the various timelines of the Zapruder film and subsequent copies.
In the following Brugioni interview and after being asked "if there was any image bleed over between the sprocket holes" Brugioni replies "NO"!


What is hilarious is Hofeling showing a photo of an optical printer which was designed for either 16mm or 35mm film because that is somehow relevant to 8mm film!? If anything transferring 8mm film to 16mm film, and then manipulating the 16mm film, and then transferring it back to 8mm film would have such a film grain build up, the film would be barely watchable. And as is easily discernible on the widely available copies of the Zapruder film, they do not show multi generational layers of film grain.

JohnM

My Carcano is a 7.35. Finding ammunition is harder, but finding ammunition that is the correct diameter (0.268" vs 0.264" for the 6.5mm version) is much easier.

the 7.35mm rifle is identical to CE139 in every way except for the bore.

The only evidence we have is that he was struck on the second shot.  The only evidence we have of an impact occurring in the car is on the second shot.  There is no evidence that Tague or anything in the car was struck on the third shot.  In fact we have evidence that the third shot was after Tague was struck.  I will admit it is not overwhelming evidence but it is all we have.

There is no evidence as to any of the 3 shots causing Tague's injury, only speculation. The only one I would rule out would be the second one because that was CE399 was recovered intact except for small fragments of lead from the base.

No. It is simply taking the evidence at face value. No interpretation at all.

What you mean is taking selected witnesses' statements at face value which is a silly thing to do given how often witnesses are wrong about important details. If we take witness statements at face value, we would have to conclude the shooting happened a dozen or more ways.

You have to read what Hickey wrote in his statement (18 H 762).  There was no turn to the rear and then a turn forward between the second and third shots. He observed what happened to JFK while looking at him when the last two rapid shots sounded:

"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."

I can read what Hickey said but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume he got everything right. That's your game.

It has never been established which shot caused the injury to Tague.

The only evidence we have is that he was struck on the second shot.  The only evidence we have of an impact occurring in the car is on the second shot.  There is no evidence that Tague or anything in the car was struck on the third shot.  In fact we have evidence that the third shot was after Tague was struck.  I will admit it is not overwhelming evidence but it is all we have.

What you really mean is your interpretation of that evidence.

No. It is simply taking the evidence at face value. No interpretation at all.

Hickey was out of the frame when the second shot struck about Z222 so we don't know for sure which way he was facing. The last time we can see him prior to that shot was Z207 and he is clearly facing forward.Oh, goody. Here we go with your infatuation with witnesses again. No wonder you can't figure this thing out.

You have to read what Hickey wrote in his statement (18 H 762).  There was no turn to the rear and then a turn forward between the second and third shots. He observed what happened to JFK while looking at him when the last two rapid shots sounded:

"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."