Royell Storing...

First, the high-speed race to Parkland would have altered any and all "blood spatter" evidence, so your point is rendered moot.

Second, the bucket inside the Trauma room does not have a top (lid?) on it.

   Hey Bill - Disagree regarding the "lid".
                 You do Not know for a fact that the high-speed chase, "would have altered any and ALL blood spatter evidence.....". And if what you are claiming was true, why did the FBI take photos of the JFK Limo back seat area?   

So why doesn’t Clint Hill react to a Z150 of Z170 or a Z190 1sr shot?  John C .  argues the 1st shot missed JFK. OK so maybe since Clint  was keeping his eye on JFK and saw no movement of JFK.But  How Ciint and the other SS agents don’t hear this loud report of the rifle  fire seems improbable imo.

Or If a  Z190 shot which hits  JFK there would be some neurological response in just a 1/2 sec or less if Dans posted info is valid which would cause JFK to move earlier and thus Clint Hill seeing that earlier movement should have reacted quicker and in Altgens Z255 photo ,  One of Hills feet should be more off the running board at least.

A good question.  It is less of an issue if the first shot was around z190, which is where I suggest the evidence puts it.  In that case, three seconds before showing a reaction and deciding to jump is not an especially long time.  He first had to decide if he could make it to the President's car.  When the car started slowing down a few seconds before the head shot that may have been what prompted him to jump.

SS agent Sam Kinney's own words regarding the "washing" of the backseat during his description of the events of 11/22/1963 to the HSCA:

    STEVE - SS Kinney's 11/22/63 statement makes no mention of anyone wanting to wash the JFK Limo. His words above are roughly 15 yrs after-the-fact. Well after everyone saw the images of that Scrub Bucket sitting alongside the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital.

                With your being the main player in the JFK Acoustic Evidence, have you thought about the Josiah Thompson interview of Sitzman? During that interview, Sitzman mentions that the LOUDEST thing she heard that afternoon, "...was the SIREN". I think that Sitzman was referring to the large Siren on the Queen Mary that SS Kinney was driving. The sirens on the DPD Cop Cars would have all sounded alike. Sitzman went out of her way to mention, "THE Siren". Kinney's 11/22/63 statement said that he "...stepped on the Siren.." after seeing JFK fall to the left. This loud siren would have left a one-of-a-kind acoustic footprint on any possible DPD recording taken during the assassination. If the acoustic footprint of the Queen Mary's Loud Siren is on the DPD Recording in question, you then know this was recorded during the assassination. Finding possible shots fired immediately prior to this Loud Siren would not be difficult to do.   

None, especially Shenon's book and Garrison subject matter books by Mellen and DiEugenio.
I did not view Stone's 1992 film, JFK, until 2013. If I had read assassination themed books
or Stone's film earlier, I would not have delved deeply into the observations of the late Tom Purvis
posted on the Ed Forum calling into question the claims Garrison was a victim of sinister forces
attempting to discredit his truth. Thanks to Purvis, I found compelling evidence the opposite is closer to the truth.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
.....

Quote

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20298-man-of-a-million-fragments-the-true-story-of-clay-shaw-2013/?tab=comments#comment-275862
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted July 18, 2013

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".

Tom

P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.

Many of which can be found on this forum.

Authors and film producers authored products for sale. Admitting there is persuasive new research evidence tending
to prove their entire conspiracy scenarios unreliable, is not something almost any of them are inclined to do!

Stone and DiEugenio are about the last people open to or politely gracious enough to consideration of facts of sufficient weight to seriously
call into question who Garrison and his agenda truly were. DiEugenio, for example insulate himself with a belief system
intolerant to consideration that there was nothing sinister about the provenance of the postal money order linked to the
payment for the alleged assassination rifle.

The most inflexible conspiracy cult members to considering impeaching evidence are the supporters of the book authored by John Armstrong.

Instead of reading or watching products for sale, join an active JFK Assassination forum and do all of your own research.

My research impeached author Peter Janney's claims in his book Mary's Mosaic, that Mary was assassinated by a shadowy witness who testified
against attorney Dovey Roundtree's murder trial defendant in 1965 and then vanished off the face of the earth, protected by the CIA, ever since.
As a consequence Janney had to issue a revision of his book.

I found proof Garrison and Mellen's CIA people were actually first cousin brothers of Garrison's wife, Leah, and that Shaw had been informed
by one of the two, David Baldwin, shortly after Shaw's indictment, that he was Leah Garrison's Godfather as well as her cousin.
So Shaw knew this information early and author Joan Mellen, who knew Garrison personally since 1969, proved she was kept from awareness of those
relationships, IOW, never informed of them by Garrison.

Supporting citations available here,:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0

Thanks, Tom! The $6K definitely wasn’t chicken feed to me either, but the astigmatism lenses were going to be $2K and the surgeon couldn’t promise the Medicare lenses would improve me to better than about 20/200. An avid golfer, he convinced me by saying “Look, if you really want to see the ball, this is the way to go.” I assumed he had done hundreds of the light-adjustable procedures, but it turned out I was experiment #10.

I joined the Xerox corporate headquarters a year out of law school, after realizing I wasn’t cut out to be a first-year associate at a large firm, reporting to 28-year-old partners who thought they were gods. Joining with me was Charles, a Detroit night school graduate who had the thickest hillbilly accent you’ve ever heard. We all assumed he was a doofus until he proved to be BRILLIANT and rose through the ranks at an unbelievable pace. I left after five years because I got tired of being moved around, but Charles stayed and continued to rise.

I am no one’s idea of a typical lawyer. My dad was a brilliant but incorrigible alcoholic who held about 40 jobs throughout my childhood, from delivering chicken for Chicken Delight to editing a newspaper and hosting a TV show. Before law school, I had pumped gas, bottled Coca-Cola, branded calves, shoveled feed at a pig firm, sold golf equipment, written news releases and advertising copy and about 12 other short-term things. Perhaps as a result, I never regarded being a lawyer as any sort of priesthood – just another job. I tried to carve out niches where I could use my analytical and writing skills without all the other nonsense associated with "being a lawyer." I also always – always, always, always – made a conscious effort to place “having free time for the things that really interest me” above “earning the big bucks.”

Even my Belarusian wife, who is from an extremely humble background, is always saying “You could have been so famous and rich.” My very truthful reply is “I DIDN’T WANT to be famous and rich!!! I wanted to play golf and read about UFOs!”

When I and my late first wife bought the house in which I’ve now lived for 29 years, the realtor asked “Would you like to make an offer?” I said “At this price I’d be embarrassed to make an offer. I’ll just pay what they’re asking.” At the closing, the title officer astounded me by saying “The lender wants a handwritten statement as to why a lawyer would buy a house this cheap”- the fear being that it must be intended as a rental even though we’d already completed an affidavit saying it wasn’t. It took me years to prove to my blue-collar (and no-collar and even no-shirt) neighbors that I wasn’t one of those “uppity lawyer types.”

In short, I’m guessing that Lance and Mrs. Lance have way more in common with you and your wife than any hifalutin lawyer-type you might be picturing!  I hope Mrs. Tom is doing OK.