Errors at JFK Online website (Part 2)
Dave Reitzes
I can't help but notice posters at this newsgroup saying some rather
unflattering things about me and/or my website. One individual, for
example, has been claiming for years that my website is a repository for
"propaganda." Another claims my site is "Chuck [sic] full of errors" and
recently, for some reason, even made up a story about how I've supposedly
never bothered to so much as read the Warren Report. Still another claims
I'm unfamiliar with the 26 volumes of evidence published by the Warren
Commission, despite the many references to such evidence in my writings.
What none of these people do is simply point out instances where my
website is actually WRONG about anything.
This is nothing new, I'm afraid. A couple years back I even started a
thread entitled, "Errors at JFK Online website." The idea couldn't have
been simpler: an open invitation for absolutely anyone to point out errors
at my website so I can fix them. All I asked is that people be specific
and cite their sources.
Here's another chance.
Newcomers, please check out my site for feature articles, book reviews,
documents, and loads of useful links:
And if anyone finds any errors there, just tell me so I can correct them.
Thank you.
Dave Reitzes
Herbert Blenner
You may use the following utility to identify broken links.
http://www.designerwiz.com/test/w3c_link_checker.htm
Herbert
BobR
I just visited your website. I was reading the Deathbed confession of jack
ruby. How do we know that jack ruby died? Didn't he die very suddenly? And
didn't he die after his conviction for killing oswald was overturned? I
want to know the exact circumstances that lead to jack ruby's death. How
do we know that jack ruby really died? Where is the proof? It seems to
conincidental that jack ruby would die suddently after his conviction for
killing oswald was overturned and before a new trial could begin.
Anthony Marsh
> Folks,
>
> I can't help but notice posters at this newsgroup saying some rather
> unflattering things about me and/or my website. One individual, for
> example, has been claiming for years that my website is a repository for
> "propaganda." Another claims my site is "Chuck [sic] full of errors" and
> recently, for some reason, even made up a story about how I've supposedly
> never bothered to so much as read the Warren Report. Still another claims
> I'm unfamiliar with the 26 volumes of evidence published by the Warren
> Commission, despite the many references to such evidence in my writings.
>
Actually you are being protected by the moderators so that we are not
allowed to say what you are really doing.
> What none of these people do is simply point out instances where my
> website is actually WRONG about anything.
>
> This is nothing new, I'm afraid. A couple years back I even started a
> thread entitled, "Errors at JFK Online website." The idea couldn't have
> been simpler: an open invitation for absolutely anyone to point out errors
> at my website so I can fix them. All I asked is that people be specific
> and cite their sources.
>
> Here's another chance.
>
> Newcomers, please check out my site for feature articles, book reviews,
> documents, and loads of useful links:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> And if anyone finds any errors there, just tell me so I can correct them.
>
No.
> Thank you.
>
> Dave Reitzes
>
Duncan Bleak
I don't know that I have read a more magnanimous and sincere request. It
is refreshing to see that there is at least one gentleman in this forum.
Some of the others are unconscionably rude and discourteous. They lash out
at anyone who may not share their particular viewpoint. Their gross
intolerance only amplifies their underlying sense of insecurity.
I am very empathetic to the forum participant b garrett meadows. He got
torn to shreds over his innocuous comments about Oliver Stone's JFK.
What can be accomplished by beating up on forum contributors--some of whom
are casual observers and not savage about one theory or another.
tomnln
"BobR" <neo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6396e56-3f39-4e19...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
RUBY DIED AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT GARRISON'S NEW
INVESTIGATION.
PSS;
HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN RUBY'S AUTOPSY PHOTOS?
Dave Reitzes
Bob,
Why not start your own thread about Jack Ruby? This thread is supposed
to be about my website.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "BobR" <neok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Jack Ruby died on January 3, 1967. News of Garrison's probe broke on
February 17th.
Dave
WhiskyJoe
> Bob,
Why not start your own thread about Jack Ruby?
This thread is supposed to be about my website.
> Dave
Dave. It is unrealistic for you to expect Bob
to stay focus on any subject. If you want him
to participate in this thread then you will
have to put up with his wandering focus area,
even if it has nothing to do with your website.
I think your website is quite good. I probably
rank McAdams site better, it covers a very wide
range of subjects. But your site holds more
interest to the casual viewer than Dr. Rahn's
website. Dale Myers's site is quite good, but
I wish he made 2-D views of z223 available,
who can measure angles from 3-D images?
David Von Pein's site is best for media
broadcasts made in November 1963.
And, of course, I think the best website,
which is really focused, is Vincent
Vandevoorde.
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
**************************************************
Your JFK 100 list, is quite good and accurate.
I think that some points are much stronger than
others. Some, like Stone combining several people
into one character, is commonly done. But it's
hard for a casual view to find your real
important points, which, after a quick scan,
I think are:
72. The Single Bullet Theory
74. "26 trained medical personal at Parkland Hospital
86. The fifth shot ("Back and to the left")
It would be better if you could try to draw
people to the more important points. 100 points
is a lot to wade through. Keep all the points,
but use a bigger font or something for the
important ones.
**************************************************
After a quick casual scan of a few of your
points, the only one I find something to
disagree with is 86, the fifth shot. You agree
with Dr. Rahn that the backwards motion is due
a combination of 'Jet Effect' and 'Neurological
Spasm'. But the 2.3 inch forward movement means
there could not have been a 'jet effect'
pushing the head backwards, unless the
'jet effect' was delayed a full frame, 55 ms.
Because the bullet won't push the head faster
than 2 MPH, and at that speed, it takes a full
55 ms for the head to move 2 inches.
But Dr. Rahn says, quite reasonably, that the
'jet effect' has to kick in within 5 to 10 ms.
If the 'jet effect' pushed the head back, the
head would have only moved forward, at most,
half an inch, during the initial 10 ms, before
the 'jet effect' would have started the head
moving backwards.
Likely the whole backward motion was caused by
the 'neurological spasm', pulling his head back,
his torso back and his right arm up.
Besides, with the side of the head blown out, not
the front, we should expect any 'jet effect' to
push the head to the left, not backwards.
BobR
Where is the proof that jack ruby died?
If he did die , he died an innocent man even if he did kill oswald on
national tv.
BobR
jfk was struck by two shots to the head that occured within one third
second of each other. You can clearly see them in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvtpjHyhEPg
You can also see the evidence of two head shots in this picture of
jfk's skull.
http://hogtuner.net/bman/jfk_skull.png
The truth is not going to go away.
WhiskyJoe
24. Eyewitness Bill Newman
"I thought the shot had come from the garden
directly behind me, that it was on an elevation
from where I was as I was right on the curb."
I think you are mistaken to think of Bill Newman
as a possible TSBD eyewitness. John McAdams has
him listed as a 'knoll' eyewitness.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Newman said he thought the shots came from
"the garden" and that his family was in the
line of fire. This fits the knoll much better
than the TSBD. The TSBD is at a high elevation
but the knoll, while not as high, is also on
an elevation.
I believe Newman, like most 'knoll' witnesses,
got his impression not from what they heard,
but from what they saw. Many witnesses thought
of JFK's massive head wound as an entrance
wound. The splatter was likely mostly directed
toward the grassy knoll. Of course, it was
really an explosive wound. A cavity in the
immediate wake of the bullet built up the
pressure until the head exploded. It just
happened to explode out the side of the head,
sending the spray toward the grassy knoll.
One cannot use the direction of the explosive
spray as an indicator that the bullet entered
the wound spot, or exited the wound spot.
Larry Sturdivan in 'The JFK Myths' said an
explosive wound can occur on any part of the
head, regardless of where the entrance and
exit wounds are.
**************************************************
I found the Newman article looking for
information on that New York accountant who
fingerprinted his daughter. Stone portrayed
him as a bogus witness planted to make
Garrison's prosecution team look bad.
Actually, I think the evidence is clear that
Garrison knew this witness was questionable,
but decided to spring him as a surprise on the
defense, which was allowed under Louisiana law.
But Shaw's defense found out about him, since
Garrison was poor at keeping secrets, and with
a minimum of investigation found out enough
to discredit him.
And, of course, the accountant's story is
unbelievable on the surface. It's a rehash
Perry Russo's story, which was available in
the media. The accountant, like Russo, was
invited to a party. Everyone left except Shaw,
Ferrie, Oswald and the accountant, where they
proceeded to hatch and discuss as assassination
plot, just as they did in front of Russo at a
different party.
If it isn't already, I think you should have,
as one of your 100 articles, information about
this accountant and Garrison's handling of him.
WhiskyJoe
71. Eyewitness James Tague
At the bottom you have:
"Click here for new scientific findings
supporting the hypothesis that the Tague
strike resulted from the same bullet that
killed John F. Kennedy."
This is a link to Dr. Rahn's chemical analysis
of the bullets and the bullet fragments.
While I totally agree the Tague facial wound
and the associated curb smear was likely caused
by a fragment from JFK's head wound (60% of the
mass of that bullet is unaccounted for, likely
the large fragment that wounded Tague),
Dr. Rahn's chemical analysis has no say on this
matter. That fragment was never recovered and
there was not enough metal recovered from the
curb smear to tell which bullet, or if any
bullet, caused the smear.
What Dr. Rahn's study showed was that:
* the stretcher bullet and fragments recovered
from Connally's wrist where likely from the
same bullet
and:
* the tiny fragments recovered from JFK's head
and the two fragments found in the front part
of the limousine, were likely from the same
bullet.
But because:
* the fragment that caused Tague's wound and the
curb smear was never found
* insufficient metal was recovered from the curb
to do a through test
* the bullet that missed the limousine was never
found
no chemical analysis is possible in telling which
bullet wounded Tague, the first (missed) bullet,
the second (SBT) bullet, or the third (head)
bullet.
It is certain the SBT bullet did not wound Tague,
all of that bullet was recovered. It's possible
first shot did wound Tague. But most likely,
it was the third bullet.
pjsp...@aol.com
find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot miss,
when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While it
seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and that
one can not take them at face value.
Here are three examples:
B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293): “one of the
agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my right
(after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard the
(first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side of his
face. At the time he had no expression on his face” (Then I heard)
“Two more shots…immediately after the first shot I saw him (the
President) and after that I couldn’t see him.” (The Kennedy
Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D “I was looking at the President
when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
President in the back, and the third shot hit him in the head.” BOWLES
HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN OPPOSITION
TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car. (The
Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer B. “At first I thought it
was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from where
they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east on
Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
that looked in any way suspicious. I’m absolutely positive that there
were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the
right rear of the President’s limousine, and that no one was shot from
the grassy knoll.” (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) “we
had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm
Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before we
heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together
or anything like that. There’s been conflicting reports where all the
noise came from. From where I was it was behind me…I thought it was a
motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion
in the President’s convertible. I wasn’t sure at the time what it
was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot.
We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
“Let’s go, boys!” We went under the triple underpass and took the
entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.” BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
12:45) “We were, we just come from Love Field after seeing the
President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at
the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway
in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident
happened. But the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us
still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and
the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up
in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker,
cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front
of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the
side of the temple.” (When asked if he thought the first shot came form
the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back
up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came
from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on
top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from
how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
(The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Civilian L “When the
President’s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about 150
feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds apart.
I didn’t associate them with gunshots… They seemed more like
firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
arm went up and he seemed to stiffen. Just after the two sounds…the
limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
again. Some of the agents on the following car got off…From a distance
of 12-to 15 feet…we saw the bullet hit the President from the right rear
and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear…Thinking
about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired from
behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
gun. My impression was only “behind us,” not from the stockade fence.
I am certain no shot was fired from there.” WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD TWO
BURSTS OF GUNFIRE--ORIGINALLY CLAIMING THE FIRST SHOT SOUNDED LIKE A
FIRECRACKER AND THEN LATER CHANGING IT TO BEING TWO SHOTS FIRED VERY CLOSE
TOGETHER, BANG-BANG--BOWLES HAS HIM CLAIMING THESE SHOTS WERE THREE
SECONDS APART. BOWLES ALSO HAS NEWMAN CLAIMING THE FATAL BULLET HIT
KENNEDY FROM THE RIGHT REAR--SOMETHING HE ALMOST CERTAINLY HAS NEVER TOLD
ANYONE--AND THAT HIS INITIAL CONFUSION WAS CAUSED BY HIS THINKING
ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA WAS A GUN. LUDICROUS.
BobR
> I believe Newman, like most 'knoll' witnesses,
> got his impression not from what they heard,
You are wrong. He was there! You probably didnt even exist when this
happened. He heard a shot. As I said many times there two shots to the
head within one third second. Most people heard 3 shots. But they did hear
the same three shots. It depeneded on where they were on which 3 shots he
heard.
Why couldnt zapruder and siztman be wrong?
Dave Reitzes
> > Bob,
>
> Why not start your own thread about Jack Ruby?
> This thread is supposed to be about my website.
>
> > Dave
>
> Dave. It is unrealistic for you to expect Bob
> to stay focus on any subject. If you want him
> to participate in this thread then you will
> have to put up with his wandering focus area,
> even if it has nothing to do with your website.
>
> I think your website is quite good. I probably
> rank McAdams site better, it covers a very wide
> range of subjects.
Definitely. John's site is the gold standard. \:^)
But your site holds more
> interest to the casual viewer than Dr. Rahn's
> website. Dale Myers's site is quite good, but
> I wish he made 2-D views of z223 available,
> who can measure angles from 3-D images?
> David Von Pein's site is best for media
> broadcasts made in November 1963.
> And, of course, I think the best website,
> which is really focused, is Vincent
> Vandevoorde.
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
These are all excellent sites. I cite each of them quite a bit.
> **************************************************
>
> Your JFK 100 list, is quite good and accurate.
>
> I think that some points are much stronger than
> others. Some, like Stone combining several people
> into one character, is commonly done. But it's
> hard for a casual view to find your real
> important points, which, after a quick scan,
> I think are:
>
> 72. The Single Bullet Theory
> 74. "26 trained medical personal at Parkland Hospital
> 86. The fifth shot ("Back and to the left")
>
> It would be better if you could try to draw
> people to the more important points. 100 points
> is a lot to wade through. Keep all the points,
> but use a bigger font or something for the
> important ones.
One of these days perhaps I'll finish up an article I started and
drifted away from long ago about exactly what happened in Dealey Plaza
and what didn't, drawing upon the chapters you mention.
As a layman, I have to rely on experts to help guide me through issues
like this one. I'll definitely take another look.
Thanks for the input!
Dave
Dave Reitzes
I'll consider rewording my conclusions about Newman. My point was not
to pigeonhole him as a TSBD witness, but simply that Stone
misrepresented what Newman said.
This is Charles Spiesel. He's mentioned in the second-to-last chapter:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bigjim.html
Thanks again!
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Thanks. I'm not sure what I was thinking with that link.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Thank you for this. I'll have to modify my page.
I don't see a reason to suspect Bowles of lying (bear in mind that 15
years had passed before Bowles took the initiative to gather these
statements, and human memory is nothing if not fallible), but I definitely
would credit the witnesses' earlier statements over the later ones.
The statement attributed to Bill Newman is indeed unusual, although
Newman's memories have undergone a few changes over the years,
particularly with regard to the timing of the shots. I personally wouldn't
accuse Bowles of fabricating the statement, though.
Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "You are wrong. He [Bill Newman] was there!" <<<
No, Bob. You are wrong.
In 2003, William Newman specifically said that his initial statement about
where he thought the shots came from was based not so much on what he
HEARD, but instead was based on what he SAW. (And, btw, during his WFAA-TV
interview on 11/22/63, Bill Newman said he heard only two shots, which
certainly doesn't harm the overall LN scenario.)
Newman SAW the RIGHT-FRONT portion of President Kennedy's head explode,
and he therefore utilized that VISUAL sign to attribute the origin of that
head shot to a location directly behind him ("on the mound of ground"
there on the "garden"), which, btw, is a location that would be to the
EAST of Abraham Zapruder's position, which is a location that nobody (not
even the wackiest conspiracy theorists) have ever claimed a gunman was
shooting from.
Bill Newman can be heard talking about where he thought the shots came
from in the following video (at approx. the 5:30 mark), which is an Oral
History interview that Bill and Gayle Newman did for the Sixth Floor
Museum At Dealey Plaza on July 10, 2003:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287932-101
And in the above video, William Newman says this:
"I thought it [the head shot] came from straight behind me. .... It
was a visual impact that it had on me, more so than the noise. Seeing the
side of the President's head blow off; seeing the President go across the
car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction. It gave me the
sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind where I was
standing." -- William E. Newman; 7/10/2003
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html
Anthony Marsh
> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I do
>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot miss,
>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While it
>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and that
>> one can not take them at face value.
>>
>> Here are three examples:
>>
>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
>> agents got off of the car after the first shot�I looked to my right
>> (after the first shot)�I looked at the President after I heard the
>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward�I could see the left side of his
>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face� (Then I heard)
>> �Two more shots�immediately after the first shot I saw him (the
>> President) and after that I couldn�t see him.� (The Kennedy
>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D �I was looking at the President
>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN OPPOSITION
>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>>
>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car. (The
>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from where
>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east on
>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the
>> the grassy knoll.� (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) �we
>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm
>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before we
>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together
>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me�I thought it was a
>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion
>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot.
>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.� BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>>
>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at
>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway
>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident
>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and
>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up
>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker,
>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front
>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the
>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back
>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came
>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on
>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from
>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
>> President�s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about 150
>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds apart.
>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
>> of 12-to 15 feet�we saw the bullet hit the President from the right rear
>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear�Thinking
>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired from
>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.� WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD TWO
>> BURSTS OF GUNFIRE--ORIGINALLY CLAIMING THE FIRST SHOT SOUNDED LIKE A
>> FIRECRACKER AND THEN LATER CHANGING IT TO BEING TWO SHOTS FIRED VERY CLOSE
>> TOGETHER, BANG-BANG--BOWLES HAS HIM CLAIMING THESE SHOTS WERE THREE
>> SECONDS APART. BOWLES ALSO HAS NEWMAN CLAIMING THE FATAL BULLET HIT
>> KENNEDY FROM THE RIGHT REAR--SOMETHING HE ALMOST CERTAINLY HAS NEVER TOLD
>> ANYONE--AND THAT HIS INITIAL CONFUSION WAS CAUSED BY HIS THINKING
>> ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA WAS A GUN. LUDICROUS.
>
>
> Thank you for this. I'll have to modify my page.
>
> I don't see a reason to suspect Bowles of lying (bear in mind that 15
> years had passed before Bowles took the initiative to gather these
> statements, and human memory is nothing if not fallible), but I definitely
> would credit the witnesses' earlier statements over the later ones.
>
Bowles would tell any lie to uphold the reputation of the DPD.
Gerry Simone
All I can say is that I recall reading something criticizing Stone's JFK
by selectively quoting the WC, but Stone did that too. :-0 (You presented
1 view. He the other, the but full picture was a combination of both
views.)
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:362faeea-2ea0-403e...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
> As a layman, I have to rely on experts to
> help guide me through issues like this one.
> I'll definitely take another look.
It's been a while since Dr. Rahn has commented
on the 'Jet Effect'. When you take another look,
I would suggest emailing Dr. Rahn and point out:
1. The bullet weights about 1/43rd of a pound.
It's speed was about 1470 MPH. So 100% of it's
momentum could push the an 8 to 9 pound head
at 4 MPH.
2. However, Larry Sturdivan believes only half
the momentum was transferred to the head. The
other half of the momentum was carried away
by the bullet fragments that dented the
windshield frame, cracked the windshield and
likely ricocheted off the curb and scratched
Tague's check. So the bullet should push the
head at 2 MPH.
3. It takes about 55 milliseconds, a full
Zapruder frame to push the head 2 inches
forward.
4. Dr. Rahn has stated that he believes
the head was pushed forward 2.3 inches and
the head exploded, not after 55 ms, but
after 5 or 10 ms.
Can Dr. Rahn explain this?
If Dr. Rahn believes that the 'Jet Effect' did
occur anyway, well, he knows a lot more about
Physics than I do. But I am reasonably confident
that he probably has some doubts about the
'Jet Effect' Theory as it applies to the JFK
assassination.
And, I should note that Dr. Rahn's website
on the 'Jet Effect' is excellent. The best
website on it by far. And the 'Jet Effect'
is valid Physics and the information he
presents is valid. Taped melons really do
fly back toward the rifle. But the 'Jet Effect'
is not going to happen every time an object is
struck by a rifle bullet. The 2 inch forward
motion of JFK's head means not enough material,
at a high enough speed, was expelled from the
head to immediately (after 5 or 10 ms) push
the head back. Or enough material at sufficient
speed was expelled, but not forward but to the
right, pushing the head to the left, not back.
> Thanks for the input!
Your welcome. Obviously, with a list of 100
points, your not going to find anyone who
agrees on all 100 points.
Above all else, I hope you find a way to
draw the eye to 5 or 10 points of the 100
that you think are most critical. That really
best show the dishonesty of Stone. That will
help more than any other suggestion I have
made.
timstter
Well that hardly makes him innocent then, does it, BobR?
Why have you started this absurd line of questioning re whether Ruby
died or not?
The poor bastard was riddled with cancer, BobR.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
John McAdams
Testimony does tend to become "regularlized" over time. It may become
more conspiratorial, or more LN, depending on the influences the
person is exposed to.
As for whether Newman *inferred* that the shots were from behind him
because of his assumptions about wound ballistics, or believed the
shots came from behind on the basis of auditory perception is a tough
question.
Regardless, his *initial* perception was that the shots came from
behind him regardless of the fact that that perception may have been
distorted by the way he saw the presidents head explode.
I classify Zapruder as a "don't know" because he made it clear to the
WC that he *inferred* that the shots came from behind.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
It is nice when the newsgroup operates this way, and actually provides
information.
Too much of the stuff going on here is just petty bickering.
I've had a few corrections to my website over the years, most often
sent by fellow LGTs (apparently since convinced conspiracists write
off my site entirely).
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>71. Eyewitness James Tague
>
>At the bottom you have:
>
>"Click here for new scientific findings
>supporting the hypothesis that the Tague
>strike resulted from the same bullet that
>killed John F. Kennedy."
>
>This is a link to Dr. Rahn's chemical analysis
>of the bullets and the bullet fragments.
>
>While I totally agree the Tague facial wound
>and the associated curb smear was likely caused
>by a fragment from JFK's head wound (60% of the
>mass of that bullet is unaccounted for, likely
>the large fragment that wounded Tague),
I'm not at all sure the curb smear was really associated with the
assassination.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
> As for whether Newman *inferred* that the
> shots were from behind him because of his
> assumptions about wound ballistics, or
> believed the shots came from behind on the
> basis of auditory perception is a tough
> question.
> Regardless, his *initial* perception was that
> the shots came from behind him regardless of
> the fact that that perception may have been
> distorted by the way he saw the presidents
> head explode.
> I classify Zapruder as a "don't know" because
> he made it clear to the WC that he *inferred*
> that the shots came from behind.
I think you classify both Newman and Zapruder
correctly.
If a person thinks the shots came from the
Grassy Knoll based on what they heard or saw
then they have to be listed as a Grassy Knoll
witness. Even though Newman's beliefs on the
relationship between blood splatter and bullet
directions may be mistaken, it doesn't matter.
Based on what he saw, he thought the shot came
from the Grassy Knoll.
Zapruder should be counted as undecided. He could
not tell from what he heard or saw where the shots
came from. Only because he saw a policeman run
toward the Grassy Knoll did he think the shots
may have come from the Grassy Knoll.
In a hypothetical case, if 9 people could not
tell where the shots came from but a tenth
witness thought the shots came from the north
and convinced the other nine that the shots
came from the north, it would be ridiculous
to count all ten as being witnesses to a shot
from the north. Instead they should be counted
as 1 witness for a shot from the north with the
other 9 undecided.
A witnesses observations have to be based on what
they saw or heard and not based on what other
witnesses convinced them of, either through their
words or actions.
Anthony Marsh
You think it was just a coincidence?
I might remind you that one of your buddies here had a theory that the
mark was caused by a wheel weight from a car.
How do you explain the fact that the curb smear was only a few feet from
where Tague was hit by something and in line with a shot from the TSBD?
Another coincidence? Ok, since you like coincidences, maybe it was just a
coincidence that Oswald worked in the building where the shots came from.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I do
>>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
>>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot miss,
>>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
>>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While it
>>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
>>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and that
>>> one can not take them at face value.
>>>
>>> Here are three examples:
>>>
>>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
>>> agents got off of the car after the first shot�I looked to my right
>>> (after the first shot)�I looked at the President after I heard the
>>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward�I could see the left side of his
>>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face� (Then I heard)
>>> President) and after that I couldn�t see him.� (The Kennedy
>>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D �I was looking at the President
>>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
>>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN OPPOSITION
>>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
>>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>>>
>>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car. (The
>>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
>>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from where
>>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
>>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east on
>>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
>>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
>>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the
>>> the grassy knoll.� (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) �we
>>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm
>>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before we
>>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
>>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together
>>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me�I thought it was a
>>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion
>>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
>>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot.
>>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
>>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.� BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
>>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>>>
>>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
>>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
>>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
>>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
>>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at
>>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway
>>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident
>>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and
>>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up
>>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker,
>>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front
>>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the
>>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back
>>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came
>>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on
>>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from
>>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
>>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
>>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
>>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
>>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
>>> President�s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about 150
>>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds apart.
>>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
>>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
>>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
>>> of 12-to 15 feet�we saw the bullet hit the President from the right rear
>>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear�Thinking
>>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired from
>>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
>>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.� WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD TWO
>>> BURSTS OF GUNFIRE--ORIGINALLY CLAIMING THE FIRST SHOT SOUNDED LIKE A
>>> FIRECRACKER AND THEN LATER CHANGING IT TO BEING TWO SHOTS FIRED VERY CLOSE
>>> TOGETHER, BANG-BANG--BOWLES HAS HIM CLAIMING THESE SHOTS WERE THREE
>>> SECONDS APART. BOWLES ALSO HAS NEWMAN CLAIMING THE FATAL BULLET HIT
>>> KENNEDY FROM THE RIGHT REAR--SOMETHING HE ALMOST CERTAINLY HAS NEVER TOLD
>>> ANYONE--AND THAT HIS INITIAL CONFUSION WAS CAUSED BY HIS THINKING
>>> ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA WAS A GUN. LUDICROUS.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for this. I'll have to modify my page.
>
> It is nice when the newsgroup operates this way, and actually provides
> information.
>
> Too much of the stuff going on here is just petty bickering.
>
> I've had a few corrections to my website over the years, most often
> sent by fellow LGTs (apparently since convinced conspiracists write
> off my site entirely).
>
Oh yeah. Tell everyone about JFK's final press conference again. You
know, the one where you said he was against pulling troops out of Vietnam.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I do
>>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
>>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot miss,
>>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
>>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While it
>>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
>>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and that
>>> one can not take them at face value.
>>>
>>> Here are three examples:
>>>
>>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
>>> agents got off of the car after the first shot�I looked to my right
>>> (after the first shot)�I looked at the President after I heard the
>>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward�I could see the left side of his
>>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face� (Then I heard)
>>> President) and after that I couldn�t see him.� (The Kennedy
>>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D �I was looking at the President
>>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
>>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN OPPOSITION
>>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
>>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>>>
>>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car. (The
>>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
>>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from where
>>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
>>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east on
>>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
>>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
>>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the
>>> the grassy knoll.� (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) �we
>>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm
>>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before we
>>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
>>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together
>>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me�I thought it was a
>>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion
>>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
>>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot.
>>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
>>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.� BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
>>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>>>
>>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
>>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
>>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
>>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
>>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at
>>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway
>>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident
>>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and
>>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up
>>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker,
>>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front
>>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the
>>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back
>>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came
>>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on
>>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from
>>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
>>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
>>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
>>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
>>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
>>> President�s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about 150
>>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds apart.
>>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
>>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
>>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
>>> of 12-to 15 feet�we saw the bullet hit the President from the right rear
>>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear�Thinking
>>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired from
>>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
>>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.� WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD TWO
It doesn't matter why a witness thought the shots came from the grassy
knoll. It still remains a fact that the witness thought the shots came
from the grassy knoll. That is what you misrepresent. I might remind
people that you once said that the TSBD was BEHIND Zapruder and that is
what he meant.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 5/31/2010 11:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 30 May 2010 18:38:46 -0400, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 71. Eyewitness James Tague
>>>
>>> At the bottom you have:
>>>
>>> "Click here for new scientific findings
>>> supporting the hypothesis that the Tague
>>> strike resulted from the same bullet that
>>> killed John F. Kennedy."
>>>
>>> This is a link to Dr. Rahn's chemical analysis
>>> of the bullets and the bullet fragments.
>>>
>>> While I totally agree the Tague facial wound
>>> and the associated curb smear was likely caused
>>> by a fragment from JFK's head wound (60% of the
>>> mass of that bullet is unaccounted for, likely
>>> the large fragment that wounded Tague),
>>
>> I'm not at all sure the curb smear was really associated with the
>> assassination.
>>
>
>You think it was just a coincidence?
>
It's not much of a coincidence at all.
>I might remind you that one of your buddies here had a theory that the
>mark was caused by a wheel weight from a car.
>
Which is entirely plausible.
Nobody looked and the curb and *didn't* see the smear before the
shooting. It could have been there for hours or days.
>How do you explain the fact that the curb smear was only a few feet from
>where Tague was hit by something and in line with a shot from the TSBD?
>Another coincidence? Ok, since you like coincidences, maybe it was just a
>coincidence that Oswald worked in the building where the shots came from.
>
Lead smears on curbs aren't that unusual, Tony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't follow you Tony.
JFK told both Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley that he did not
intend to pull out of Vietnam.
Those were "interviews" and not "press conferences."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
> On 5/31/2010 11:31 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I do
> >>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
> >>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot miss,
> >>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
> >>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While it
> >>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
> >>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and that
> >>> one can not take them at face value.
>
> >>> Here are three examples:
>
> >>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
> >>> agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my right
> >>> (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard the
> >>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side of his
> >>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face” (Then I heard)
> >>> President) and after that I couldn’t see him.” (The Kennedy
> >>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D “I was looking at the President
> >>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
> >>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN OPPOSITION
> >>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
> >>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>
> >>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car. (The
> >>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
> >>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from where
> >>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
> >>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east on
> >>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
> >>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
> >>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from the
> >>> the grassy knoll.” (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) “we
> >>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to Elm
> >>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before we
> >>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
> >>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together
> >>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me…I thought it was a
> >>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the commotion
> >>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
> >>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been shot.
> >>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and says
> >>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.” BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
> >>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>
> >>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
> >>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
> >>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
> >>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
> >>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at
> >>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway
> >>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident
> >>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and
> >>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up
> >>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker,
> >>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front
> >>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the
> >>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back
> >>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came
> >>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on
> >>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from
> >>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
> >>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
> >>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
> >>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
> >>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
> >>> President’s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about 150
> >>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds apart.
> >>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
> >>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
> >>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
> >>> of 12-to 15 feet…we saw the bullet hit the President from the right rear
> >>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear…Thinking
> >>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired from
> >>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
> >>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.” WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD TWO
If he is only drawing a conclusion from information gathered after the
shooting stopped his opinion is not even as good as mine, as I have more
information to draw a conclusion from.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:8075c987-411f-4697...@y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 5:27 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 11:31 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I
> >>> do
> >>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
> >>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot
> >>> miss,
> >>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
> >>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While
> >>> it
> >>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
> >>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and
> >>> that
> >>> one can not take them at face value.
>
> >>> Here are three examples:
>
> >>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
> >>> (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293): �one of
> >>> the
> >>> agents got off of the car after the first shot�I looked to my right
> >>> (after the first shot)�I looked at the President after I heard the
> >>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward�I could see the left side of
> >>> his
> >>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face� (Then I heard)
> >>> �Two more shots�immediately after the first shot I saw him (the
> >>> President) and after that I couldn�t see him.� (The Kennedy
> >>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D �I was looking at the President
> >>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
> >>> President in the back, and the third shot hit him in the head.� BOWLES
> >>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN
> >>> OPPOSITION
> >>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
> >>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>
> >>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car.
> >>> (The
> >>> Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer B. �At first I thought it
> >>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
> >>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from
> >>> where
> >>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
> >>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east
> >>> on
> >>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
> >>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
> >>> that looked in any way suspicious. I�m absolutely positive that there
> >>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from
> >>> the
> >>> right rear of the President�s limousine, and that no one was shot from
> >>> the grassy knoll.� (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) �we
> >>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to
> >>> Elm
> >>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before
> >>> we
> >>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
> >>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being
> >>> together
> >>> or anything like that. There�s been conflicting reports where all the
> >>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me�I thought it was a
> >>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the
> >>> commotion
> >>> in the President�s convertible. I wasn�t sure at the time what it
> >>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
> >>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been
> >>> shot.
> >>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and
> >>> says
> >>> �Let�s go, boys!� We went under the triple underpass and took the
> >>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.� BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
> >>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>
> >>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his
> >>> wife
> >>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview
> >>> on
> >>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at
> >>> approximately
> >>> 12:45) �We were, we just come from Love Field after seeing the
> >>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
> >>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave
> >>> at
> >>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were
> >>> halfway
> >>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this
> >>> incident
> >>> happened. But the President�s car was some fifty feet in front of us
> >>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot
> >>> and
> >>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped
> >>> up
> >>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a
> >>> firecracker,
> >>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in
> >>> front
> >>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in
> >>> the
> >>> side of the temple.� (When asked if he thought the first shot came
> >>> form
> >>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently
> >>> back
> >>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot
> >>> came
> >>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up
> >>> on
> >>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked
> >>> from
> >>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where
> >>> the
> >>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
> >>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We
> >>> didn't
> >>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the
> >>> bullet
> >>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
> >>> (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Civilian L �When the
> >>> President�s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about
> >>> 150
> >>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds
> >>> apart.
> >>> I didn�t associate them with gunshots� They seemed more like
> >>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
> >>> arm went up and he seemed to stiffen. Just after the two sounds�the
> >>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
> >>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
> >>> again. Some of the agents on the following car got off�From a distance
> >>> of 12-to 15 feet�we saw the bullet hit the President from the right
> >>> rear
> >>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear�Thinking
> >>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired
> >>> from
> >>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
> >>> gun. My impression was only �behind us,� not from the stockade fence.
> >>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.� WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD
Anthony Marsh
> On 31 May 2010 17:27:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2010 11:35 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for this. I'll have to modify my page.
>>>
>>> It is nice when the newsgroup operates this way, and actually provides
>>> information.
>>>
>>> Too much of the stuff going on here is just petty bickering.
>>>
>>> I've had a few corrections to my website over the years, most often
>>> sent by fellow LGTs (apparently since convinced conspiracists write
>>> off my site entirely).
>>>
>>
>> Oh yeah. Tell everyone about JFK's final press conference again. You
>> know, the one where you said he was against pulling troops out of Vietnam.
>>
>
> I don't follow you Tony.
>
You mean you don't remember or choose to not remember. You originally
had his next to last press conference on your web site and claimed it
was his final press conference. And you claimed that in that press
conference JFK said that he was opposed to pulling out of Vietnam. Then
I reminded you that it was not his final press conference so you had to
edit that page and put up his real final press conference. And in that
final press conference he said that the goal was to bring Americans home.
> JFK told both Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley that he did not
> intend to pull out of Vietnam.
>
Baloney.
> Those were "interviews" and not "press conferences."
>
I wasn't talking about interviews from September.
Dave Reitzes
Marsh and Rossley love hijacking threads.
Neither of you scholars can point out any errors at my website?
Dave
On May 31, 10:48 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> The TSBD as FAR to Zapruder's LEFT ! ! !
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8075c987-411f-4697...@y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 5:27 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/31/2010 11:31 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > > On 30 May 2010 22:40:49 -0400, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On May 30, 6:44 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> > >>> Dave, while I don't have a complete familiarity with your website, I
> > >>> do
> > >>> find one aspect of it incredibly deceptive. You treat the unattributed
> > >>> eyewitness statements in Bowles' book as evidence for the first shot
> > >>> miss,
> > >>> when 1) the statements are unattributed, 2) the statements are in wide
> > >>> disagreement with the attributed statements of these witnesses. While
> > >>> it
> > >>> seems clear to me that Bowles lied, you, at the very least, should
> > >>> acknowledge there are problems with the statements in his book and
> > >>> that
> > >>> one can not take them at face value.
>
> > >>> Here are three examples:
>
> > >>> B.J. Martin rode his motorcycle on the far left behind Jackie Kennedy.
> > >>> (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293): “one of
> > >>> the
> > >>> agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my right
> > >>> (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard the
> > >>> (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side of
> > >>> his
> > >>> face. At the time he had no expression on his face” (Then I heard)
> > >>> “Two more shots…immediately after the first shot I saw him (the
> > >>> President) and after that I couldn’t see him.” (The Kennedy
> > >>> Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer D “I was looking at the President
> > >>> when the first shot was fired. It missed. The second shot hit the
> > >>> President in the back, and the third shot hit him in the head.” BOWLES
> > >>> HAS MARTIN LOOKING AT KENNEDY WHEN THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED--IN
> > >>> OPPOSITION
> > >>> TO HIS TESTIMONY--AND DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD
> > >>> SHOTS--WHICH HE DID NOT SEE.
>
> > >>> William Lumpkin rode beside Officer Ellis in front of the lead car.
> > >>> (The
> > >>> Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer B. “At first I thought it
> > >>> was a motorcycle backfiring, as they were heating up. The first shot
> > >>> apparently missed the limousine as it hit the curb, not too far from
> > >>> where
> > >>> they (Mary Moorman and Jean Hill) were standing. The second and third
> > >>> shots hit the President from the rear. At the time, I was facing east
> > >>> on
> > >>> Elm with the grassy knoll to my immediate left, and the corner of the
> > >>> stockade fence was less than 100 feet away. I saw nothing on that hill
> > >>> that looked in any way suspicious. I’m absolutely positive that there
> > >>> were only three shots, that they all came from back up Elm Street from
> > >>> the
> > >>> right rear of the President’s limousine, and that no one was shot from
> > >>> the grassy knoll.” (No More Silence, p.154-161, published 1998) “we
> > >>> had turned off of Main Street onto Houston for one block, then over to
> > >>> Elm
> > >>> Street, then turned back left, and we were stopped at the time before
> > >>> we
> > >>> heard the shots. When the shots occurred I thought it was a motorcycle
> > >>> backfiring. I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being
> > >>> together
> > >>> or anything like that. There’s been conflicting reports where all the
> > >>> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me…I thought it was a
> > >>> motorcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and saw the
> > >>> commotion
> > >>> in the President’s convertible. I wasn’t sure at the time what it
> > >>> was, but it later turned out it was his wife on the back. Then Chaney
> > >>> rode up to Curry and probably told him that the President had been
> > >>> shot.
> > >>> We were still stopped at the time, and then Chief Curry comes on and
> > >>> says
> > >>> “Let’s go, boys!” We went under the triple underpass and took the
> > >>> entrance ramp to Stemmons Freeway.” BOWLES HAS LUMPKIN DESCRIBE THE
> > >>> IMPACTS OF THE THREE SHOTS--NONE OF WHICH HE SAW.
>
> > >>> William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his
> > >>> wife
> > >>> and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview
> > >>> on
> > >>> WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at
> > >>> approximately
> > >>> 12:45) “We were, we just come from Love Field after seeing the
> > >>> President and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple
> > >>> underpass on Elm Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave
> > >>> at
> > >>> the President. (After being asked to clarify his position) We were
> > >>> halfway
> > >>> in between the triple underpass. We were at the curb when this
> > >>> incident
> > >>> happened. But the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us
> > >>> still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot
> > >>> and
> > >>> the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped
> > >>> up
> > >>> in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a
> > >>> firecracker,
> > >>> cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in
> > >>> front
> > >>> of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in
> > >>> the
> > >>> side of the temple.” (When asked if he thought the first shot came
> > >>> form
> > >>> the same location) "I think it came from the same location apparently
> > >>> back
> > >>> up on the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot
> > >>> came
> > >>> from the viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up
> > >>> on
> > >>> top of the hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked
> > >>> from
> > >>> how far away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where
> > >>> the
> > >>> gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
> > >>> when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We
> > >>> didn't
> > >>> realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the
> > >>> bullet
> > >>> hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
> > >>> (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Civilian L “When the
> > >>> President’s car came around the corner, I had a good view from about
> > >>> 150
> > >>> feet. About that time I heard two loud sounds about three seconds
> > >>> apart.
> > >>> I didn’t associate them with gunshots… They seemed more like
> > >>> firecrackers. However, I did notice a change in President Kennedy, his
> > >>> arm went up and he seemed to stiffen. Just after the two sounds…the
> > >>> limousine stopped for an instant, a large man in the right front seat
> > >>> picked up what looked to be a telephone, and then the car shot forward
> > >>> again. Some of the agents on the following car got off…From a distance
> > >>> of 12-to 15 feet…we saw the bullet hit the President from the right
> > >>> rear
> > >>> and literally tear away the side of his scalp and right ear…Thinking
> > >>> about it afterwards, I had the impression that they had been fired
> > >>> from
> > >>> behind us. I noticed Mr. Zapruder with his camera and thought it was a
> > >>> gun. My impression was only “behind us,” not from the stockade fence.
> > >>> I am certain no shot was fired from there.” WHILE NEWMAN ONLY HEARD
Anthony Marsh
Ok, so you want to believe in a kook theory as long as it comes from a
WC defender.
Wrong levels of antimony in the lead.
Dave Reitzes
I've decided to drop the entire section dealing with the "first shot
miss" eyewitnesses. I shouldn't rely on such testimony (whether from
Bowles' book or the other sources I used), and it isn't necessary to
demonstrate the plausibility of a shot circa Z155 (an early missed
shot being one of the few things Stone and I actually agree about).
Dave
Coondog
> On 5/31/2010 5:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 May 2010 17:27:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 5/31/2010 11:35 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>>> Thank you for this. I'll have to modify my page.
>
> >>> It is nice when the newsgroup operates this way, and actually provides
> >>> information.
>
> >>> Too much of the stuff going on here is just petty bickering.
>
> >>> I've had a few corrections to my website over the years, most often
> >>> sent by fellow LGTs (apparently since convinced conspiracists write
> >>> off my site entirely).
>
> >> Oh yeah. Tell everyone about JFK's final press conference again. You
> >> know, the one where you said he was against pulling troops out ofVietnam.
>
> > I don't follow you Tony.
>
> You mean you don't remember or choose to not remember. You originally
> had his next to last press conference on your web site and claimed it
> was his final press conference. And you claimed that in that press
> I reminded you that it was not his final press conference so you had to
> edit that page and put up his real final press conference. And in that
> final press conference he said that the goal was to bring Americans home.
And I suppose in your desperate attempt to isolate Kennedy from the
darkness of Vietnam you think that was the only “goal”. The goals in
Vietnam of JFK are set forth in NSAM 263. Read it.
Bill Clarke
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 5/31/2010 5:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 31 May 2010 17:27:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I've had a few corrections to my website over the years, most often
>>>> sent by fellow LGTs (apparently since convinced conspiracists write
>>>> off my site entirely).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh yeah. Tell everyone about JFK's final press conference again. You
>>> know, the one where you said he was against pulling troops out of Vietnam.
>>>
>>
>> I don't follow you Tony.
>>
>
>You mean you don't remember or choose to not remember. You originally
>had his next to last press conference on your web site and claimed it
>was his final press conference. And you claimed that in that press
>conference JFK said that he was opposed to pulling out of Vietnam. Then
>I reminded you that it was not his final press conference so you had to
>edit that page and put up his real final press conference. And in that
>final press conference he said that the goal was to bring Americans home.
>
OK, I looked at the documents on my site, and I see what you are
talking about.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viet23.htm
It doesn't say what you imply, Tony.
He wants to bring U.S. soldiers home, but he also wants to leave an
independent South Vietnam.
And he fudges on the "1,000 soldiers" promise.
Anybody can read it for themselves.
>> JFK told both Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley that he did not
>> intend to pull out of Vietnam.
>>
>
>Baloney.
>
That's what JFK said.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, Tony. Witness *inferences* are just opinions.
And you know what they say about opinions.
What a witness *perceived* is evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Then don't cite witness inferences as if they are PROOF that all the shots
came from the TSBD. Your comments right now make your phony study of the
witnesses worthless.
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you can't even read where he says that the goal is to bring Americans
home. He did not say that the goal was to abandon South Vietnam.
>
> And he fudges on the "1,000 soldiers" promise.
>
> Anybody can read it for themselves.
>
Now that you finally put up the right press conference after I complained.
>
>>> JFK told both Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley that he did not
>>> intend to pull out of Vietnam.
>>>
>>
>> Baloney.
>>
>
> That's what JFK said.
>
Said what? When? Not in November.