In March 1967, Bertrand Russell's secretary, Ralph Schoenman (Joan Mellen's ex-husband), sent Jim Garrison a copy of an anti-Clay Shaw / anti-CIA article that had been published in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper (Paese Sera) three days after Garrison had arrested Shaw on suspicion of masterminding a "homosexual thrill-kill" assassination of JFK.

The article motivated Garrison to change his theory against Shaw to “He organized it for the CIA!”

Garrison lost his case against Shaw in 1969, but twenty-two years later, Oliver Stone based his self-described mythological (“to counter the myth of the Warren Report”) film, “JFK,” on Jim Marrs' 1989 book, Crossfire and on Garrison’s 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, a copy of which had been given to Stone by its far-left publisher, Ellen Ray, at a film festival in Cuba.

Garrison said in On the Trail of the Assassins that he wasn't aware of the Paese Sera article until after the trial.

LOL!

Gag me with a KGB spoon.

Question:

“Does a full metal jacket bullet ricochet off of hard asphalt differently than it would off of softer asphalt?”


Google AI answer:

“Yes, a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet ricochets differently off hard versus softer asphalt. Hard asphalt behaves like solid concrete, often causing the bullet to skid or skip. Softer asphalt acts as a yielding surface, absorbing energy and altering the bullet's departure angle.

Hard AsphaltBehavior:

 Highly rigid and unyielding. The copper or gilding metal jacket of the FMJ remains largely intact upon impact.Trajectory: Because it doesn't break apart, the bullet skids across the surface. It will often ricochet at a very shallow, dangerous angle.


Softer Asphalt Behavior:

 Richer in bitumen and softer aggregates, yielding to the force of the bullet.Trajectory: The bullet tends to penetrate slightly, transferring more of its energy to the road. This penetration can create a "ramping" effect, sometimes throwing the deformed bullet or its fragments into a higher, steeper departure angle. The bullet is also more prone to losing stability, tumbling, and breaking apart.”

The image below of the Haags’ demonstration leads me to believe that the asphalt that they used was much softer than what I would expect the surface of Elm Street to be. Plus you can see the asphalt mixture with stones, etc that can vary in many ways.

Regarding James Tague's nicked cheek, what happened to the largish fragment(s) from the Z-313 head-shot bullet that were never found?

I witnessed an interesting phenomenon when I used to work in downtown Columbus, Oh. Broad St. is the major east-west street through downtown Columbus and I worked at Broad and 3rd Streets for almost 20 years which was right across from the State Capitol building. The far right lane on eastbound Broad St. is a right turn only lane onto southbound 3rd St which is a one way street. There was a fairly new asphalt surface on Broad St. with the crosswalk paint still very vivid. The cars in the right hand turn lane on eastbound Broad St. that had stopped to make the turn onto southbound 3rd St. had stretched out the crosswalk lines where the tires would typically have crossed. It had formed two distinct points in the crosswalk lines about 18" long. It speaks to the elasticity of asphalt.

Question:

“Does a full metal jacket bullet ricochet off of hard asphalt differently than it would off of softer asphalt?”


Google AI answer:

“Yes, a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet ricochets differently off hard versus softer asphalt. Hard asphalt behaves like solid concrete, often causing the bullet to skid or skip. Softer asphalt acts as a yielding surface, absorbing energy and altering the bullet's departure angle.

Hard AsphaltBehavior:

 Highly rigid and unyielding. The copper or gilding metal jacket of the FMJ remains largely intact upon impact.Trajectory: Because it doesn't break apart, the bullet skids across the surface. It will often ricochet at a very shallow, dangerous angle.


Softer AsphaltBehavior:

 Richer in bitumen and softer aggregates, yielding to the force of the bullet.Trajectory: The bullet tends to penetrate slightly, transferring more of its energy to the road. This penetration can create a "ramping" effect, sometimes throwing the deformed bullet or its fragments into a higher, steeper departure angle. The bullet is also more prone to losing stability, tumbling, and breaking apart.”

The image below of the Haags’ demonstration leads me to believe that the asphalt that they used was much softer than what I would expect the surface of Elm Street to be. Plus you can see the asphalt mixture with stones, etc that can vary in many ways.

Well, there you have it, folks. According to these two guys, anyone who doubts that Oswald shot JFK and Tippit is "edging toward the lunatic fringe," or, anyone who just doubts that Oswald shot JFK is part of the "lunatic fringe."

Yup. Pretty much.

Now, this is mighty interesting. Here's a partial list of the people who doubt that Oswald shot JFK:

-- Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist whose had numerous papers published on radiology issues in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives and also JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, M.D., who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Barry Krusch, B.S. in psychology and author of Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.

-- Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who said it was not clear that Oswald shot JFK, and that no one had yet been able to prove he fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window.

-- Dr. Halbert Fillinger, a renowned forensic pathologist, who said the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

-- Dr. John Nichols, a professor of pathology and a court-certified expert in pathology and forensic pathology.

-- Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB.

-- Dr. David Wrone, historian, a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and author of The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

-- Jacob Hornberger, B.S. in economics and a Juris Doctor degree, a former professor of law and economics at the University of Dallas, and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former Deputy Chief Council for the HSCA, former district attorney for New York County, former Chief of the Criminal Courts, New York County, and a former professor of  Advanced Criminal Procedure at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

-- Dr. Walt Brown, Ph.D. in history from the University of Notre Dame, and a former professor of history at Ramapo College in New Jersey.

Of the names I recognize on this list, most of them are bozos when it comes to the JFKA, particularly Mantik, Horne, and Aguilar. Horne actually recycled David Lifton's Invasion of the Body Snatcher's theory which tells us all we need to know about him. Of course, MTG subscribes to that theory as well. Birds of a feather.

Curry has often been cited by CTs for some of the things he said early in the investigation before the case had been nailed down. They ignore what he said in the first interview in this video, in the very first minute of it. He repeats the statement at the 2:40 mark.

I suspect that Lance Payette and John Corbett are posting their extreme, discrediting polemic in an effort to offset the fact that they are in a decided minority on the JFK case. Recently, I've been pointing out that repeated surveys have shown that only about 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans and Europeans believe the lone-gunman theory and that about 2/3 to 3/4 believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy

Given how uninformed the public at large is about the evidence against Oswald, that is not surprising. It's amazing how many people I've come across who got most of their "knowledge" about the JFKA from Oliver Stone's shitass movie.

I suspect that Payette and Corbett are also posting their extreme polemic because lately I've been emphasizing the fact that the last federal investigation into the JFK assassination, i.e., the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that scientific acoustical evidence proved that more than three shots were fired, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassinations weeks in advance, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to kill Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he killed Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, among other findings.

The HSCA got it wrong. The WC got it right. 'nuff said.

I suspect that at least part of the reason Payette specifies that one must believe that Oswald was the alleged lone gunman, instead of just believing that only one gunman fired at JFK, is that the HSCA concluded that Oswald was one of the gunmen (the sixth-floor gunman). Payette knows that if he merely required belief in only one gunman, regardless of his identity, he would have to label the HSCA as part of the "lunatic fringe."

Personally, I don't really care who the gunmen were.

Obviously not. If you did, you would have concluded Oswald did it a long time ago.

I have no ideological objection to Oswald being one of the shooters. I just don't happen to think he was. The core of my position is that there was more than one gunman, and that is how many conspiracy theorists view the matter.

Yet few of you have ever tried to tell us who those gunmen were.

If hard evidence surfaced that proved Oswald was one of the gunman, this would have zero impact on my theory of the shooting and minimal impact on my theory of the assassination as a whole.

You don't seem to have a theory. Your whole gig is rejecting the WCR without even attempting to give us a viable alternative.

Please list your three best pieces of evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the JFKA. I've issued this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even tried to answer. I won't be surprised if MTG dodges it as well.

Oh, so are you saying that Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Kaiser are not scholars? Do you know anything about their education and credentials?

Just to give you some idea of how discrediting and unserious your comment is, here is some information on Dr. Mahoney's and Dr. Kaiser's education and credentials:

----Dr. Richard Mahoney----

Dr. Mahoney was educated at Brophy College Preparatory, Princeton University, Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University.

Mahoney has lectured as a visiting professor at Templeton College (Oxford University), The JFK School of Government (Harvard University), the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador (Quito campus).

In addition to his JFKA book The Kennedy Brothers, he has authored JFK: Ordeal in Africa, Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Getting Away with Murder. He has also authored numerous articles and monographs on presidential history, foreign policy, and international trade.

----Dr. David Kaiser----

Dr. Kaiser earned his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University.

He was a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College from 1990 until 2012. He has taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College, and Harvard University.

In addition to his JFKA book The Road to Dallas, his published works include Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler, and Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race.

I guess Mahoney and Kaiser are two more people who, according to you, have "lost their ability to think rationally" because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Maybe, just maybe, they're not the ones who cannot think rationally.

Gee, I wonder why.

Perhaps because you haven't read six books on the assassination?
[/quote]

It's quite possible in our education system to accumulate numerous degrees without demonstrating an ounce of common sense. Anybody who can look at the evidence against Oswald and not conclude he was the assassin is not someone who should be taken seriously, no matter how many sheepskins they have on the wall.

Reading lots of books is not going to make one educated or informed about the JFK assassination. Quality is what matters over quantity. You apparently have read lots of books and don't seem to have a clue as to how the assassination occurred or who did it. That's remarkable given how easy it is to figure out.