JFK Assassination Forum

I am going from memory, but AFAIK Euins maintained he heard four shots.

His description of the shooter wandered a bit, or he was misquoted.

I'm afraid your memory is faulty.

   Officer Baker allegedly thought there was an active shooter atop the TSBD due to his seeing pigeons flying from the rooftop after shots were fired. Yet, he does Not ride his motorcycle right up to the front of the TSBD? He turns onto Elm St, props his motorcycle up, and as you claim looks around before heading toward the TSBD with that active shooter inside?  And with an active shooter inside the TSBD, he then encounters Oswald and Fails to even "pat" Oswald down? Officer Baker's story is riddled with inconsistencies.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Do you think Officer Baker was part of THE CONSPIRACY?

-- Tom

If anyone has any questions about the arguments being made by SBT defenders in this thread, please message or email me and I'll address them. Unless something changes, I'm probably not going to spend any more time responding to their strained, evasive arguments.

You'll notice that not one of them is explaining how a bullet exiting the throat wound and shirt slits could have missed the tie knot, and how such a bullet could have weaved around the body of the knot to nick its outer surface on the left area of the bottom half of the knot (and not on the edge).

Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.

In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.

Less than two hours after JFK died, the Parkland Hospital doctors held a press conference. During the presser, Dr. Malcolm Perry identified the throat wound as an entrance wound three times. Dr. Perry, who had much more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes or Boswell, diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound because it was small (3-5 mm), neat, circular, and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind the wound.

We have the transcript of the press conference, but not any film footage of it. Why? How could this be? Because the Secret Service confiscated all film footage of the presser, and it has not surfaced since then.

Moreover, the Secret Service lied to the WC and said they could not locate the films or the transcript of the press conference. Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that the Secret Service had the transcript in their possession by 11/26, four days after the shooting.

With no film or transcript of the press conference, the WC claimed that press reports that quoted Perry as saying the wound was a neat puncture wound were inaccurate, and that all the journalists at the presser somehow misunderstood what Perry said. The Commission even pressured Perry into endorsing this claim.

The Church Committee discovered in the 1970s that the Secret Service pressured Dr. Perry to change his story long before he testified before the WC.

It gets worse. Journalist Martin Steadman and two other journalists spoke with Dr. Perry about a week after the assassination. Steadman knew that Perry had identified the throat wound as an entrance wound at the 11/22 press conference. Steadman wrote that Dr. Perry said he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound because the hole was small, circular, and clean (not ragged). Perry added that he had treated hundreds of patients with gunshot wounds and knew the difference between an exit wound and entrance wound.

Steadman reported that Dr. Perry then told him that during the night of the assassination, he got several phone calls from the doctors at Bethesda. He said they were very upset about his statement that the neck wound was an entry wound.

Let me pause to note that this debunks the autopsy doctors' lie that they knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. The Parkland press conference had been widely reported on by major news outlets. Even without Dr. Perry's disclosure, it would be hard to believe that the autopsy doctors heard nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.

Anyway, to continue. Steadman reported that Perry said that the autopsy doctors asked him if he or another Parkland doctor had turned over the body to see the wound in Kennedy’s back. Perry said they had not. They then argued that he could not therefore be certain about the throat wound, that there was no evidence of a shot from the front, and that he should stop saying the throat wound was an entrance wound.

Moreover, Steadman said that Dr. Perry told him that when he insisted he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him he would be brought before a medical board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they even threatened that he would lose his medical license.

Crucially, Parkland nurse Audrey Bell confirmed in her 1997 ARRB interview that Dr. Perry told her that he received several calls on the night of the assassination from Bethesda Naval Hospital pressuring him to change his story about the throat wound:

Saturday morning, when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to
the office. I said, "You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?"

He said, "Well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda
that came in during the night." ["Bethesda" refers to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.]

I said, "What about?"

He said, "Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound
in the throat."

He said, "They were wanting me to change my mind."
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm)

All of this makes perfect sense when we acknowledge the hard physical evidence that no bullet could have exited the throat and shirt slits without tearing through the tie, that no such bullet could have magically flown around the knot and nicked its outer surface, which facts in turn confirm that the throat wound was above the tie knot and could have only been an entry wound.

MG ”Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
 
Where does Sherlock say if lacking evidence for your grand proclamation, it is OK to fabricate your own evidence? Must be in a different nugget of wisdom.

MG “In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.”

Great explanation, except the autopsy photos do not support this nonsense and show the bullet hole lower on JFK’s throat and then there is the problem of the bullet went on to strike JBC in the back. Other than that, a very inspirational observation.
 

@John Mytton
Hey, John, to prove the rifle in the BYP is 40” long, all you have to do is overlay a graphic ruler measuring Oswald’s body that’s divided into 7 equal segments.

From top of Oswalds hair plus with shoes on = approx 70” tall (5’10”) so each segment of the 7 segment ruler will be 10”.

Then take 4 of those same exact length segments and overlay those on the rifle image and I’m sure that the rifle will be 4 segments in length which therefore is 40”.

Note: You may already have posted this graphic measurement in the past but I can’t remember what thread it was.

Hi Zeon, calculating precise measurements from two dimensional images without allowing for perspective and angle is a fools errand.

Jack White produced the following image but as the HSCA photo panel explained that without standard photogrammetry principles, the result is worthless.



The HSCA PP used these examples as a reason why White's methodology was flawed.





And finally here is White's explanation of his reasoning and even though he had never heard of photogrammetry, the concepts of interpreting 2D images must be followed.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct? 
Mr. WHITE. Yes. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph? 
Mr. WHITE. No. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler? 
Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors? 
Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry? 
Mr. WHITE. No. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography? 
Mr. WHITE. No. 

[...] 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately---- 
I withdraw the question. 
That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct? 
Mr. WHITE. Yes. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph? 
Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. 

[...] 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question. 
Mr. WHITE. All right. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph? 
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different- 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically---- 
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is? 
Mr. WHITE. No. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

JohnM

Well, if he was wearing a suit then he must have been 5'-6". 

Your ability to distinguish a suit from a sport coat and slacks in blurry photos is duly noted.  Probably he always wore his Sunday best when he knew a Presidential assassination was in the works. 

You folks really need to spend some time at Bart's site. There is a photo of young Shelley standing in the BACK ROW of the Crozier Tech newspaper staff and looking rather tall. I apparently can't post it here but see: http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/bill-shelley/#lightbox[group]/4/.

You are purporting to do exact, precise 3D modeling when (1) you have no idea how tall Shelley actually was, and (2) the evidence would suggest he was taller than Lovelady. I believe the operative phrase is "Garbage in, garbage out." 

  Read Shelley's WC Testimony. The guy has been working at the TSBD for 18 yrs and "risen" to being in charge of the "Misc. Dept". I could see somebody such as this wearing at minimum a tie to work. He's what used to be called a "straw boss", and is separating himself from the "hired help".