JFK Assassination Forum

RS-

Thanks for your comments.

I agree DPD'er Smith was told by an eyewitness that shots came from the bushes in the concourse and GK area, and he was investigating. Smith later came across a man who flashed Secret Service credentials. Odd.

There was an entry wound to the dorsal side of JBC's wrist. Hard to explain.

IMHO, the JFKA was nearly an impromptu and ad hoc affair, perped by individuals with no institutional power in the US.

Cubans, either exiles, or G2 assets, or Alpha 66, who had experience in kinetic terror ops---indeed, Antonio Veciana personally tried to blow up Castro with a bazooka. The Alpha 66'ers were chronically livid regarding the BoP.

On the other hand, G2 assets may have been informed by double-agent Ruben Cubela that JFK was still trying to assassinate Castro. Turnabout is fair play.

Somehow the Cubans convinced LHO to play a role in the JFKA. As a devout Marxist, and pro-Castro-ite, perhaps LHO was on board, or perhaps only made into a patsy.

That's about as much as I suspect.

Graves claims to know what Gov Connally was thinking too. His claiming that Connally was turning to his (L) in order to check on Nellie is pure fabrication.

Comrade Storing,

Why did Connally quickly turn far to his right around Z-140, quickly turn to his left around Z-154, quickly turn far to his right around Z-168, and start turning to his left again (when he was hit by CE-399 at Z-222)?



Answer: Because he heard the loud sound "behind and to his right" at "Z-124" and recognized it as a rifle shot.

Regarding why Connally turned quickly to his left around Z-154 (and was captured looking straight ahead by Croft at Z-161), it was Charles Collins' idea that he did so to see if Nellie was okay, and Charles points out the JFK turned his head towards Jackie right before that.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Charles, not me.

-- Tom

The early first shot miss is in conflict with vast amounts of mutually consistent, well-corroborated evidence.  If there was a first shot miss, one would have to set aside all principles of fact-finding that investigators, intelligence experts and courts use to determine facts.  Tom et al. don't seem to want to address the evidence.  They prefer reading tea leaves/a.k.a. head turns. 

Note: That is not to say that I agree with you and Dan on other issues, though.

   Graves claims to know what Gov Connally was thinking too. His claiming that Connally was turning to his (L) in order to check on Nellie is pure fabrication. 

Knott demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a bullet passing through JFK would hit JBC in the back;



However, as good as their recreation of Dealey Plaza and the limo were, their recreation of the relative positions of JFK and JBC was way off. They had JBC sat almost directly in front of JFK when , in fact, he was sat a lot further inboard. Correcting this would correct where Knott estimated JBC was hit by a bullet passing through JFK:

   "...he was SAT a lot further inboard"? Nobody knows the physical body positions of JFK or Gov Connally when they went behind the Stemmons Sign. But if you look at overhead photos of the JFK Limo at the DC Lab, the Connally jump seat itself is physically DIRECTLY in front of the JFK seated portion of the backseat. Also, the Connally jump seat does NOT MOVE (R) or (L). It can Only move forward or backward due to being attached to a runner. And, if you look at Love Field footage when the (R) rear door of the JFK Limo is closed, you can see how Connally's (R) leg is pressed against that same door. They had to be extremely careful to NOT slam that door into Connally's (R) leg when they closed that door. This is how extremely close to the (R) side of the JFK Limo that the jump seat was Fixed. Both JFK and Connally also had their (R) elbows resting atop the (R) side of the car throughout their journey thru Dallas. ALL of this is indicative of their being seated "inline".   

The Roselle/Scearce 'study' has been debunked, as Thomas well knows.
Brian Roselle explained that, rather than using the study to determine when a first shot occurred, he assumed there was an early first shot and searched for evidence supporting this assumption.
Talk about "read it and weep"!

  DAN - Thanks for providing the "backstory" with respect to that Roselle/Scearce "study". I have yet to see any evidence supporting the Max Holland "early shot" scenario. But in spite of this, this baloney gets repeated by "water carriers" such as Graves. It's Urban Legends such as this that are eventually accepted as being fact over the course of time. Your going out of your way to set the record straight is extremely important and appreciated.