Arlen Specter dies

[Peter Fokes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html


PF

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html
>
>
>
>
>
> PF

Thank you, Arlen, for all the laughs!

[Sandy McCroskey]

But what is nearly as funny as someone's putting forth the notion of a
remote-control device on the president's back brace? Wait, there's more:
this person also claims that said device was detonated by the driver...
"to fake a forward motion"! Aha! And the driver (but of course, now this
all makes perfect sense) was the real assassin!

What could be more side-splittingly hilarious, more surreally absurd,
than someone's asserting that there was "no shot at all" between
Z-frames 312/313?!

That even beats certain Truthers' "no planes" theory.

I have to hand it to the satirical genius who thought it all up... and
who should now step out from behind the pseudonym and take a bow.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Saintly Oswald," it's really something to watch you �strain at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.� (Matthew 23:24)

/sm

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:00:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Fokes wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html
>
>
>
>
>
> PF

I have spent a considerable amount of time devoted to answering the
question of whether or not Specter lied in order to push the single-bullet
theory.


Here is part of the discussion of this troubling question contained in
chapter 10 at patspeer.com.


On 12-8-77, when testifying before the HSCA in executive session, Specter
made at least five separate references to a wound on the back of Kennedy's
neck. He never once described this wound as being on Kennedy's back. This
was remarkable, moreover, seeing as the HSCA had added two of Specter's
old Warren Commission memos into his testimony...which made at least five
separate references to this wound...as a wound on Kennedy's back.

Yes, it's true. Specter had routinely described this wound as a back wound
prior to his being shown a photo confirming it to have been a back wound,
and then and only then began describing it as a neck wound.

Well, that's about as red as a red flag can get.

That Specter wasn't exactly telling the truth, the whole truth, as he'd
solemnly sworn to do, moreover, is confirmed by something left out of his
testimony. When asked about one of the Warren Commission memos introduced
during his testimony, in which he'd asserted "The Commission should
determine with certainty" that "there are no major variations between the
films and the artist's drawings", he explained that he'd believed "it was
highly desirable for the X-rays and photographs to be viewed" at that
time, in order "to corroborate the testimony of the autopsy surgeons." He
then added "I was overruled on the request..."

Incredibly, he never admitted being shown the photo of Kennedy's back.

Nor was he ever asked about it... Apparently, Kenneth Klein, who'd
conducted Specter's testimony, had failed to do his homework.

Or maybe there was more to it. Klein, born in Specter's home town of
Philadelphia, had been hired to work for the HSCA by its original Chief
Counsel, Richard Sprague, who'd worked for Specter in the Philadelphia
District Attorney's Office. Many years later, for that matter, Klein went
to work for Jenner and Block, the Chicago law firm of Specter's colleague
on the Warren Commission, Albert Jenner.

And that's not the only curious tie between Specter and the committee.
Specter's son, Shanin, just so happened to be Pennsylvania Congressman
Robert Edgar's assistant on the committee. Edgar, while a liberal
Democrat, was the Congressman from Pennsylvania's Seventh District, on the
outskirts of Philadelphia, where the moderate Republican Specter had
recently served as District Attorney, and was preparing a run for
Governor. Edgar would proceed to author a dissent from the committee's
report, in which he claimed its conclusion of a probable conspiracy was
unjustified, and credit Specter's son Shanin and Warren Commission counsel
David Belin for their assistance.

Specter and Edgar traveled in the same circles and almost certainly knew
each other.

Or maybe all this means nothing. In 1986, Edgar left congress to run
against Specter for U.S. Senator.

In any event, if Klein and Edgar had been on a mission to protect
Specter's reputation, they were not entirely successful...because
something seriously shocking happened the next year-- something that
should have marked the end of Specter's political career... On 9-7-78, Dr.
Michael Baden, the spokesman for the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
testified that from studying the autopsy photos the panel had concluded
Kennedy's torso wound to have been--cut to the sound of Specter saying "oh
crap"--not only not on Kennedy's neck, where Specter had long claimed it
to have been, but on his back below the level of his throat wound.

Congressman Edgar was present for this testimony. His assistant, Specter's
son, Shanin, may also have been present. The questions asked Baden by--you
guessed it, Kenneth Klein--had been prepared in advance. This suggests,
then, that Klein knew well in advance that Baden was gonna undercut the
foundation for Specter's single-bullet theory, and that Edgar--and almost
certainly his assistant, Specter's son, Shanin--knew this as well.

Let's recall here that Specter had once suggested that if this wound were
below Kennedy's throat wound, well, then the autopsy surgeons were guilty
of perjury.

So...does Specter call a press conference after Baden's testimony, and
demand Humes, Boswell, and Finck be indicted for perjury?

No, of course not.

And does Klein call Specter to the stand and ask him to explain why, for
nearly 15 years, he'd been calling a wound he'd known to have been on
Kennedy's back a wound on the back of his neck?

No, of course not.

And that's not even the worst of it. If Specter had at this time come
forward and said "Wow, that wound really was on Kennedy's back; I
apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier descriptions of the
wound," he might have escaped with a smidgen of credibility.

But instead he doubled down.

Yep, in an unbelievably suspicious move, not only has Specter failed to
specify in his subsequent statements and articles that the doctors had
been mistaken about the back wound location depicted on the Rydberg
drawings--or apologize for his own misleading statements about this
wound's location--but he's continued--up till this day--to make claims
about its location that are demonstrably false...and continued to claim
even that the bullet creating this wound entered between two strap muscles
on the back of Kennedy's neck.

It's sad but true... After becoming a U.S. Senator in 1980, Specter made
very few public statements regarding the assassination. With the success
of Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK, however, he was no longer afforded this
luxury. This led him to publish a response to the film in the 1-5-92
Philadelphia Inquirer. As one might expect, his response was filled with
errors and misleading claims. Perhaps the worst of these, moreover, was
this one: "The movie mangles the facts on the single-bullet theory. The
House assassinations committee, very critical of the Warren Commission on
other matters, confirmed the single-bullet theory."

Well, this, of course, was smoke, and toxic smoke at that. Specter had
previously claimed the back wound was above the throat wound, and that, if
it was not, the autopsy surgeons were perjurers. The HSCA pathology panel
had then determined that the back wound was in fact below the throat
wound. With one exception, they'd concluded as well that the single-bullet
theory was viable, should Kennedy have been leaning sharply forward when
struck. Specter then seized upon this second conclusion, which in fact
dismantles his single-bullet theory, as "confirmation" of the theory he'd
proposed, and pushed upon the commission--entailing that the back wound
was well above the throat wound.

And that was just the beginning of Specter's '92 campaign. On 5-12-92,
Specter appeared before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
urging that it pass a bill he'd co-authored, requiring federal agencies
release as many JFK assassination-related documents as possible, and the
creation of the ARRB. (His appearance can be found online in the C-Span
Video Library.) He urged "Let the facts be disclosed" and said, of his
famous single-bullet theory, that he believed it had been "upheld" by
subsequent investigations, and would withstand further scrutiny. He then
added "If it isn't, so be it; let someone come along and disprove it." He
failed to acknowledge that the central beam around which his theory had
been constructed had long since been disproved.

Should one think this was Specter turning over a new leaf, however, one
would be wrong. It was, to the discerning eye, yet another of his smoke
screens, designed to hide his own failure to properly investigate the
case. During this testimony he repeatedly complained that the Warren
Commission did not have access to the autopsy photos and x-rays. He said
this was because "The wishes of the Kennedy family prevailed in not having
those available even to the commissioners or to the staff" and that "They
were not permitted to see them because there was a sense that they might
come into the public domain."

This apparently came as a surprise to the Committee. As a result, a number
of follow-up questions were asked on this issue. Under subsequent
questioning by Sen. Carl Levin, Specter admitted that Warren himself "may
have been shown the photographs. I have reason to believe he did see them
privately." He then injected "but that was my area of responsibility." He
never mentioned that he, too, had been shown a photograph.

Well, I'll be. Specter was once again blowing smoke. His 4-30-64 memo to
J. Lee Rankin, published by the HSCA in 1978, had revealed "When Inspector
Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully
understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector
Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them
available, but only wanted to be satisfied that they were really
necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General
its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be
viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission
for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's
drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records."

And not only that. Earl Warren's memoirs, in which he'd admitted viewing
the photos, had been available to the public since 1977. So why was
Specter, fifteen years later, telling congress Warren "may have been shown
the photographs" and acting as though this was inside information?

And where in the world did Specter get off blaming the commission's
failure to view the photos on the Kennedys and their "wishes," when he
knew full well that both Earl Warren and himself had viewed the back wound
photo, and had known that the commission's exhibits were inaccurate, and
had done nothing about it? What a piece of...work...

And I'm not the only one to have been troubled by his testimony.
Approximately an hour after Sen. Specter's initial statements, Sen. John
Glenn, the former astronaut, reading from a note presumably handed him by
a member of his staff, confronted Specter regarding his blaming of the
Kennedy family, and clarified for the record that the Kennedy family did
not have possession of the autopsy photos and x-rays during the Warren
Commission's investigation. This led Specter to back-pedal, at first
claiming "I did not say anything about the Kennedy family." Of course, he
had said something about the Kennedy family. Glenn failed to correct him
on this, however, and asked Specter again whose decision it was not to
inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays. Specter then admitted the truth. He
testified "I think the Kennedy family had a feeling on the subject. I can
not testify to that from my own personal knowledge." He then conceded: "It
was a Commission decision. The Kennedy family did not decide the issue. I
believe the Commission did." This concession, in turn, caught the
attention of Sen. Levin, who sought further clarification, whereby Specter
referred to his 4-30-64 and 5-12-64 memos to Rankin as proof he personally
had tried to view the photos and x-rays. He then claimed "I know I did not
get to see them" and "I know that I did not have access to them." Upon
further prodding by Levin, moreover, he once again conceded that the
commission's failure to view the autopsy photos and x-rays "may well have"
come as a result of a decision reached by the commissioners.

He never once mentioned that he had, in fact, been shown the main photo
he'd been seeking to see, the one establishing the location of the
President's back wound, and that he had been shown this by the member of
the Secret Service leading its investigation.

I repeat. What a piece of...work...

I mean, here was Specter testifying on this issue for a second time. And
here, for a second time, he was failing to reveal that "Oh yeah, by the
way, I did view a photo of the back wound which was subsequently
determined to have proved the exhibits I'd placed into evidence
inaccurate." Here he was, for a second time, failing to explain both why
he'd failed to discuss his viewing this photo with his superiors on the
commission, and why he'd proceeded to describe the back wound in the photo
as a neck wound after doing so...

Apparently, his dodging yet another karma bullet emboldened Specter. The
September 27, 1992 edition of Inquirer Magazine featured an extensive
profile of Specter which briefly discussed his time working for the Warren
Commission. While describing the single-bullet theory, he claimed the
bullet "entered between two large strap muscles." Yes, he once again
claimed the bullet "entered" the back of Kennedy's neck between two
muscles which Kennedy's "autopsy surgeon" made clear were at the front of
Kennedy's throat. On May 30, 1995, Specter was interviewed on CBS radio by
Tom Snyder, even worse, and once again revealed himself to be a serial
spreader of nonsense. He told Snyder "The bullet that hit the President in
the back of the neck passed between two large strap muscles." Yeah, sure
it did. Shouldn't Snyder have told him that a tracing of the autopsy photo
Specter looked at in 1964 was published by the government in 1979, and
made 100% crystal clear that the wound was on the back, and NOT on the
back of the neck, where Specter had long claimed it to have been? And
shouldn't Snyder have thrown in that "And, oh yeah, the strap muscles were
adjacent to the President's throat wound, and you should really stop
pretending that the bruising of these muscles indicates the bullet
creating the back wound traversed the body? But alas, no such luck.
Specter's nonsense was not only swallowed by Snyder, but applauded.

And so the trail of lies continued. When Specter discussed his being shown the autopsy photo before the 1964 re-enactment in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth, for example, he described it as “a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” Oh, my! Base of the neck? This once again steered clear of the fact that a tracing of this photo had been released by the government in 1979. This steered clear, moreover, of the incredibly inconvenient fact that this tracing PROVED the bullet hole to have been inches below the base of the neck. And what did he mean when he said "just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot?" Was he once again referring to the autopsy report, to hide that the exhibits he'd presented to the Warren Commission had been misleading?

In any event, Specter not only admitted in his memoirs that he failed to tell anyone on the commission he'd taken a look at the back wound photo, he tried to excuse his cowardice by adding “an unauthenticated photo was no way to establish facts for the record.” Well, this was the worst kind of nonsense. He'd admitted he was shown the photo by Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service inspector responsible for conducting its investigation of the assassination. He knew, moreover, that the Secret Service had possession of the photos. It would have been a simple matter then of his stopping by Bethesda for ten minutes and talking to Dr. Humes, to verify the wounds, and John Stringer, the photographer, to verify it was one of the photos he took on the night of the autopsy. He would then have had an authenticated photo.

That Specter's claiming the wound was at the base of the neck was not a one-time slip, whereby he accidentally repeated inaccurate information he'd grown used to telling, was made clear, for that matter, by his book's other references to the wound.

He first mentioned the wound in relation to his work for the commission.

"To nail down both the direction and the location of the bullet that struck the president's back, we wanted all possible indicators." p.68

Notice how he calls it a back wound. He then discussed his meeting with the autopsy doctors in preparation for their testimony.

"At Bethesda, Ball and I tried to clear up some confusion over how far the bullet that struck Kennedy's neck had traveled through his body." p.79
"they surmised that the bullet on the stretcher might have been pushed out the back of Kennedy's neck by the massage." p.79
"As the autopsy progressed, the surgeons realized that the bullet had passed farther through the president's neck." p.79

Now this last bit was just strange. The official story, of which Specter was presumably aware, was that the doctors didn't realize a bullet passed through Kennedy's neck until the morning after the autopsy, after Dr. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry and discovered that the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound. So what does Specter cite as evidence for them learning of this the night before?

Read on and be amazed:

"They saw that the muscles in the front of the neck had been damaged at about the same time the wound was inflicted on the top of the chest cavity."

Yes, truth is truly stranger than fiction. Here, in Specter's own book, was an accurate representation of Dr. Humes' testimony--that is, that the bruises on the strap muscles at the front of the neck had led him to suspect the neck wound pre-dated the tracheostomy. This, then, was as much as an admission he'd misled the public in his chapter in the Warren Report, and numerous interviews and articles, when he'd claimed the bullet slipped between these muscles upon entrance on the back of Kennedy's neck.

Or was it? Specter had a co-writer on his memoirs, Charles Robbins. Perhaps Robbins had caught Specter's mistake, and had added this bit into the book for the sake of accuracy.

This mystery only gets more curious, however, as we progress through Specter's book.

"When all the facts came in, it became clear that the neck shot had exited Kennedy's throat." p.80

Notice how what was formerly a back wound has now become a neck wound. Specter then discussed his being shown the back wound photo by Agent Kelley in 1964. As discussed, he presents this photo as:

"a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” p.88

He then describes a second viewing of the photo by him in 1999 in the company of Dr. Boswell.

"The entrance wound on the neck was about an inch below the shoulder line in the president's back . The exit wound at the site of the tracheotomy in his throat, was lower." p.88

Well, how can a wound be "on the neck below...the shoulder line in the...back? Does that make any sense? Was he trying to have it both ways? And have the wound be on the back where everyone who's seen the back wound photo knows it to be? Whilst simultaneously being on the neck, where his single-bullet theory needs it to be?

Not surprisingly, Specter then insisted that he and Boswell had convinced themselves the President’s back and neck wounds were “consistent with the Single Bullet Conclusion.” As if at this point we should take their word on anything...

Unfortunately, it seems the closest thing to an acknowledgment of error we’ll ever get from Specter is his related acknowledgement that the Rydberg drawings were “rough” and that he would never have had them created if he knew that people would credit them “with more precision than was intended.”

Specter then discusses the Parkland witnesses, and repeats much of his nonsense.

"They never saw the bullet entrance wounds in the back of his head and the back of his neck." p.100
"The Parkland doctors saw the clean, round, quarter-inch hole in the front of the president's neck but didn't know about the wound in the back of his neck." p.101
"Once the Parkland doctors were informed of the wound on the back of the president's head and neck..." p.101

Specter then slips up again (at least presumably).

"...before the doctors there knew about the entrance wounds on Kennedy's back and head..." p.103

The strangeness of Specter's book reaches a climax, however, when he discusses a conversation he had with Chief Justice Earl Warren, in which he convinced Warren of the soundness of the single-bullet theory. He claims he explained to Warren that:

"The autopsy showed that a bullet had struck Kennedy near the base of his neck on the right side and passed between two large strap muscles in his neck, striking only soft tissue as it continued in a slightly right-to-left, downward, and forward path..." p.109
"The president's garment had holes and tears showing that a missile entered the back in the vicinity of his lower neck..." p.110
"The wounds on the president and governor supported the Single-Bullet Conclusion. The first bullet would retain most of its high velocity after passing through the two large strap muscles in the back of the president's neck, slicing the pleural cavity, striking nothing solid, and then exiting from the front of his neck, nicking the left side of his tie." p.111

Yes, you read that right. While on page 79 of his book Specter acknowledged that the bruised strap muscles described by Dr. Humes in his testimony were at the front of Kennedy's neck, 30 pages later he asserted that while selling the single-bullet theory to Warren he'd told him they'd been on the back of Kennedy's neck. He failed to explain that what he'd told Warren was inaccurate. Now, was this "gaffe" an accidental slip-up by Specter, and an indication that he'd long known or at least now knew that the strap muscles were on the throat, and not the back of the neck? Or was his presenting the same muscles in two different locations within one book the responsibility of his co-writer?

[John Blubaugh]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html
>
>
>
>
>
> PF

They will have to screw him in the ground. He was too crooked to go in
straight....

JB

[markusp]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:48:59 PM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

Wes Liebeler characterized Specter as being very focused on everything
that would bolster his pet theory. Liebler's context was in such a way
that Liebeler thought Specter's theory became the center of attention, and
not the murder of JFK.

Arlen Specter was a shrewd, intelligent man. He was good at being a
lawyer. RIP!

[burgundy]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:00:22 PM UTC-5, Peter Fokes wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html
>
>
>
>
>
> PF

The AARB interviews with FBI agents Sibert and O'Meill show how Specter
had no use for their observations, which did not help neither his "wound
placement," nor the SBT.

Burgundy

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey man, he was just doing his job. Trying to prevent WWIII. When he
looked at the Zapruder film carefully and the autopsy photos he realized
it was a conspiracy. So for the good of the country he had to invent the
SBT to preserve the illusion of one shooter.

[John Reagor King]

In article <55cea7a4-dfab-446e...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-
> > 82.html
>

> Thank you, Arlen, for all the laughs!

Which don't even compare to all the laughs you've given us.

"Connally's holding a soda bottle."

"No wait, he's putting a pistol into his pocket."

"No wait, he's pulling a pistol out of his pocket to shoot JFK."

"No wait, JFK's back brace was rigged to explode."

[John Reagor King]

Of course all this ignores the fact that if Specter hadn't come up with
the single bullet theory someone else would have eventually done so
anyway, given that it is even more implausible to believe that there
were separate shots which entered his throat and his back with neither
of them exiting even though neither of them struck any bone directly to
slow them down enough to not exit, than it is to believe that simply one
is an entrance and one is an exit for the same bullet. To not accept
furthermore that the throat wound was an exit ignores the obvious fact
that the bullet that entered Connally's back did not enter nose first,
because of the elongated entry. Unless the bullet strikes or passes
through something else first, it is extremely implausible for Connally
to be hit by a bullet that is already obviously tumbling prior to
hitting him if his body is the first thing it hits after being fired.
On top of that we have Connally's own statements which remained
unchanged during his life that he turned to his right first upon hearing
the first shot, and that it was in the midst of a turn to look in the
other direction, the left, when he felt himself to be hit only halfway
to that turn, right at the point when he was facing straight forward.
This is precisely when we plainly see him jerk violently in the Zapruder
film, which is also precisely when we see JFK jerk violently; the
motions of both men begin at exactly the same instant, Z226. And that
is precisely when Connally has just turned from his right to facing
forward, exactly as he said. As the only surviving victim of the
shooting (besides James Tague) one would think Connally would know
better than anyone else exactly when he was hit.

All this would have eventually been noticed sooner or later, especially
after the film became widely available.

[John Reagor King]

In article <507b8b87$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 10/14/12 10:45 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at
> >> -82.html
> >>
> >> PF
> >
> > Thank you, Arlen, for all the laughs!
>
> But what is nearly as funny as someone's putting forth the notion of a
> remote-control device on the president's back brace? Wait, there's more:
> this person also claims that said device was detonated by the driver...
> "to fake a forward motion"! Aha! And the driver (but of course, now this
> all makes perfect sense) was the real assassin!

Oh that's not all. He's said that Connally was holding a soda bottle,
but later changed that to Connally putting a gun in his pocket, but then
later changed that to Connally withdrawing the gun to shoot JFK.

The mind that could conceive of all this must be of brilliant comedic
talents indeed.

> What could be more side-splittingly hilarious, more surreally absurd,
> than someone's asserting that there was "no shot at all" between
> Z-frames 312/313?!
>
> That even beats certain Truthers' "no planes" theory.
>
> I have to hand it to the satirical genius who thought it all up... and
> who should now step out from behind the pseudonym and take a bow.

Oh yes.

[Bud]

On Oct 15, 9:31 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:00:22 PM UTC-5, Peter Fokes wrote:

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-d...

>
> > PF
>
> The AARB interviews with FBI agents Sibert and O'Meill show how Specter
> had no use for their observations, which did not help neither his "wound
> placement," nor the SBT.

Or determining what happened.

> Burgundy

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You're missing something. The FBI and Secret Service both investigated the case, and studied the films, and came to conclude there had been three separate hits. Connally believed this. Johnson believed this. Many of those thinking Oswald acted alone believed this.

Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service. The SBT, which may have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of those currently defending it to the death.

Just think about it. The SBT may have been Mark Lane's theory, if Specter hadn't beat him to it.

Of course, Lane would have had it coming from the other direction, deflecting off Connally's rib, tumbling out his back, and then smacking the President on his throat. LOL.

[Bud]

On Oct 14, 10:45 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-d...

>
> > PF
>
> Thank you, Arlen, for all the laughs!

Hilarious to try to determine what happened using known facts, isn`t
it?

[Pamela Brown]

On Oct 14, 2:00 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-d...
>
> PF

With any luck, the 'magic bullet theory' that he manufactured will be
buried with him.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/16/2012 12:58 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> Of course all this ignores the fact that if Specter hadn't come up with
> the single bullet theory someone else would have eventually done so
> anyway, given that it is even more implausible to believe that there

I doubt that. I think even you could dream up a three shots, three hits
scenario to salvage the FBI report. For example, you could find ONE
FRAME before 210 when there is a clear shot underneath the tree.
And newer tests would show that the rifle COULD be fired that quickly.

> were separate shots which entered his throat and his back with neither
> of them exiting even though neither of them struck any bone directly to
> slow them down enough to not exit, than it is to believe that simply one

How do you know they didn't hit any bone? Don't you remember Dr. Perry's
theory? All you have to do is keep the autopsy Top Secret out of privacy
concerns for the Kennedy family and keep the autopsy report secret and
kill the autopsy doctors. Quite easy.

> is an entrance and one is an exit for the same bullet. To not accept
> furthermore that the throat wound was an exit ignores the obvious fact
> that the bullet that entered Connally's back did not enter nose first,
> because of the elongated entry. Unless the bullet strikes or passes

You are assuming things which do not have to be as you assume.

> through something else first, it is extremely implausible for Connally
> to be hit by a bullet that is already obviously tumbling prior to
> hitting him if his body is the first thing it hits after being fired.

I guess you've never shot a rifle and never heard of keyholing. What
about Posner's Magic Twig theory?

> On top of that we have Connally's own statements which remained
> unchanged during his life that he turned to his right first upon hearing
> the first shot, and that it was in the midst of a turn to look in the
> other direction, the left, when he felt himself to be hit only halfway
> to that turn, right at the point when he was facing straight forward.

Yes, Connally never believed in the SBT. Thank you for reminding us of
that FACT.

> This is precisely when we plainly see him jerk violently in the Zapruder
> film, which is also precisely when we see JFK jerk violently; the
> motions of both men begin at exactly the same instant, Z226. And that
> is precisely when Connally has just turned from his right to facing
> forward, exactly as he said. As the only surviving victim of the
> shooting (besides James Tague) one would think Connally would know
> better than anyone else exactly when he was hit.
>
> All this would have eventually been noticed sooner or later, especially
> after the film became widely available.
>

Sure, maybe 100 years later.

[Anthony Marsh]

Variations of the Single Bullet Theory crossed the minds of some
reporters and some doctors late that afternoon.

> Just think about it. The SBT may have been Mark Lane's theory, if Specter hadn't beat him to it.
>

I'd like to see the WC defenders explain the exact shooting sequence
without any damn stinkin SBT.
And BTW the HSCA proved conspiracy and also had its own SBT. There was a
competition to see how much more the HSCA could lie than the WC to sell
its SBT.
Baden won with his lean theory.

> Of course, Lane would have had it coming from the other direction,
> deflecting off Connally's rib, tumbling out his back, and then smacking
> the President on his throat. LOL.
>

It that any more ridiculous than Dr. Perry's theory of the throat shot
blowing out the back of JFK's head?

[John Reagor King]

In article <bda93db2-b35b-4d09...@googlegroups.com>,

Oh no, I'm not missing that, as I've been aware of it for many years.
That was an *early* conclusion. I do not believe for a moment that that
conclusion would have stood up very long under close scrutiny once the
Zapruder film became widely available to the general public and could be
compared by many more people than ever before to Connally's statements
about the shooting.

> Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just
> rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.

Possibly so. But my point in the article to which you were here
responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm
now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have
*eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people
after the film became widely available to the general public, even if
that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its
conclusions.

> The SBT, which may
> have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a
> challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of
> those currently defending it to the death.

I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific." The elongated entry
in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would
be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone
through something prior to entering his back. And quite obviously,
passing through something else first would slow down the velocity of the
bullet significantly prior to it entering Connally's back, and there is
quite obviously nothing even slightly "unscientific" about that assertion
either.

> Just think about it. The SBT may have been Mark Lane's theory, if Specter
> hadn't beat him to it.
>
> Of course, Lane would have had it coming from the other direction, deflecting
> off Connally's rib, tumbling out his back, and then smacking the President on
> his throat. LOL.

Which would also be a conclusion that would not stand up at all well under
close scrutiny, and would be woefully *unscientific*. The bullet would
have to be fired from somewhere near the floorboard to go up through
Connally's torso, since the wound in his chest was quite a bit lower than
the wound in his back. It would also fail to explain why the bullet would
suddenly *stop* tumbling upon entering JFK, since both his throat wound
and his back wound were almost perfectly circular. That bullet would have
to be at least a thousand times more "magical" than the wildest assertions
that have ever been made about the single bullet fired from the SN.

Btw, Mr. Speer, I have been waiting for two weeks for you to reply to my
reply to you in "Anthony Marsh says I can't do this ;-). On October 2 you
said this to me in that thread:

"FWIW, Chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com is far and way the largest
collection of witness statements yet assembled. I don't specifically break
them down by the perceived direction of the shots, except briefly in the
last chapter, where I note that the vast majority of witnesses standing in
front of the TSBD thought the last shot came from west of their location."

The following day I noted to you that you seemed to be implying that all
these witnesses meant that *only* the last shot came from west of their
location, yet when I read through all your quotations of any such
witnesses in all of those chapters on your site, I failed to find a quote
of even one such witness specifically saying that it was only the final
shot that came from the west. In a second reply I posted to you in that
thread today, I have said that for the past two weeks I have continued to
look every day at all of those chapters on your website, and have still
not located an instance of you quoting a single one of them saying that it
was only the last shot that came from the west.

Were you not implying that this "vast majority" meant that ONLY the last
shot came from west of their location? Because what I have found when
reading what they actually said was that the vast majority thought ALL the
shots had come from west of their location.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like 100 years later? How about the autopsy report? How
well would that have stood up if the NYT had published the autopsy
photos the next week?

>> Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just
>> rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.
>
> Possibly so. But my point in the article to which you were here
> responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm
> now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have
> *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people
> after the film became widely available to the general public, even if
> that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its
> conclusions.
>

Duh! Long after anyone cares or can do anything about it. That is the
whole damn point of a conspiracy. So what if Canada admitted that it
assassinated Lincoln? No one cares. The purpose of a cover-up is to
change current events into ancient history. So what if we have absolute
proof that Nero started the fire?

>> The SBT, which may
>> have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a
>> challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of
>> those currently defending it to the death.
>
> I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific." The elongated entry
> in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would
> be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone
> through something prior to entering his back. And quite obviously,

No, it doesn't. What you just said is scientific nonsense.
What did your bullet go through before hitting JFK's head and causing
what you think it an elogated wound exactly as long as Connally's? You
guys will never answer that because you know you would come up empty.

> passing through something else first would slow down the velocity of the
> bullet significantly prior to it entering Connally's back, and there is
> quite obviously nothing even slightly "unscientific" about that assertion
> either.
>
>> Just think about it. The SBT may have been Mark Lane's theory, if Specter
>> hadn't beat him to it.
>>
>> Of course, Lane would have had it coming from the other direction, deflecting
>> off Connally's rib, tumbling out his back, and then smacking the President on
>> his throat. LOL.
>
> Which would also be a conclusion that would not stand up at all well under
> close scrutiny, and would be woefully *unscientific*. The bullet would
> have to be fired from somewhere near the floorboard to go up through
> Connally's torso, since the wound in his chest was quite a bit lower than
> the wound in his back. It would also fail to explain why the bullet would

You don't know the exact angle do you? So you misrepresent the evidence
confident that no one can correct you since you never made a clear
claim. But if ever figure out the angle someone could fire a contact
shot aimed only slightly upwards to produce that angle.

> suddenly *stop* tumbling upon entering JFK, since both his throat wound
> and his back wound were almost perfectly circular. That bullet would have
> to be at least a thousand times more "magical" than the wildest assertions
> that have ever been made about the single bullet fired from the SN.
>

It's very hard to dream up a backwards SBT. I've never seen anyone ever
attempt it. But maybe you could diagram what it would look like.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

That's my point. It would have stood up for a few years, before the public
got wise. Then the government would have been forced to come up with a new
theory. But, in the meantime, until it became "official," assuming it
would have become "official", the SBT would have been seen as a challenge
to the Johnson Administration's credibility, and denounced by the same
people who so ardently embraced it.

This is precisely what happened, BTW, with the moving head wounds and
ever-changing time for the SBT. The government tossed off some stuff,
waited for it to be successfully called into question, then tossed off
more stuff.

>
>
>
> > Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just
>
> > rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.
>
>
>
> Possibly so. But my point in the article to which you were here
>
> responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm
>
> now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have
>
> *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people
>
> after the film became widely available to the general public, even if
>
> that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its
>
> conclusions.

And my point is that those detecting these flaws would have been denounced
and hounded by the FBI, just as the early critics of the WC were denounced
and hounded by the FBI. A bit ironic, don't you think?

>
>
>
> > The SBT, which may
>
> > have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a
>
> > challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of
>
> > those currently defending it to the death.
>
>
>
> I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific." The elongated entry
>
> in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would
>
> be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone
>
> through something prior to entering his back.

As pointed out by Tony, the head wound entrance was purportedly just as
elongated, and yet no one claims that bullet hit something first. You
neglect as well that Dr. Shaw insisted that the bullet hitting Connally
had not hit something first. In other words, there is nothing to suggest
the bullet striking Connally first struck Kennedy beyond your hopes and
dreams. Not exactly scientific.

> And quite obviously,
>
> passing through something else first would slow down the velocity of the
>
> bullet significantly prior to it entering Connally's back, and there is
>
> quite obviously nothing even slightly "unscientific" about that assertion
>
> either.

Wrong. Olivier had no idea what kind of bullet hit Connally, so his
supposition the bullet would have to have been slowed to do so little
damage was misleading at best.

When you read the statements and testimony of the witnesses, it's clear
that very few of them had a strong sense of where the first sound came
from and that their impression of direction was derived from the last
burst of sounds or shots.

If, however, you'd like to believe everyone had an immediate grasp of
where the loud bursts were coming from, please explain why the majority of
those in front of the TSBD thought the shots came from their right, when
the HSCA's psycho-acoustics tests showed that it was easy to tell a shot
from above and behind them from a shot from their right.

[charles wallace]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:00:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Fokes wrote:
>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/arlen-specter-senator-dies-at-82.html
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

The photo of JFK's killer is available on my website. There are three
different versions of the same original photo that has been cropped
for greater clarity of the person seen. The address:

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oh, my goodness!
It was done by a ghost!
An invisible man!
Maybe you can send me the special glasses so I can see him.

I can sort of make out a cartoon alligator there, with two googly white
eyes and a vertical white grin.

/sandy

[John Reagor King]

In article <3afaa61b-9204-4ae3...@googlegroups.com>,

Your point is invalid. What at least *some* of the public got wise to
*after* the Zapruder film became much more widely available than ever
before, most especially with it appearing in the movie "JFK," and later
being released on the MPI video, and then becoming easily viewed on the
Internet, is that JFK and Connally both jerk violently at precisely the
same instant. Also what they could become wise to is the absolute
*fact* that Connally almost *always* said that he turned to the right
*first*, and then, just as he was about halfway through a turn to the
left, but only got as far as facing about straight forward, that's
exactly when he felt himself to be hit. And it is precisely when he
faces forward after being continuously turned to the right for many
frames, that we see him jerk violently. Many more of the general public
than ever before can now also see on the Internet many postings on many
different websites of CE 399 shown from the base, and obviously severely
flattened, demolishing the obvious myth or factoid that the bullet was
"nearly pristine" or other similar hogwash. With the advent of the
Internet many more people than ever before were also able to read for
themselves what Connally *really* said about when he was hit, and could
see for themselves how it matches the Zapruder film to absolute
perfection.

> Then the government would have been forced to come up with a new
> theory. But, in the meantime, until it became "official," assuming it
> would have become "official", the SBT would have been seen as a challenge
> to the Johnson Administration's credibility, and denounced by the same
> people who so ardently embraced it.

The Johnson administration's credibility, or lack of it, is irrelevant
to what I said. Sooner or later, whether it was before or after
Johnson's presidency, or even before or after his death, people would
have eventually started to notice how perfectly Connally's statements
match the instant when he and JFK are plainly seen in the film to jerk
violently at precisely the same instant. It happens at the exact
instant when Connally turns his head forward, just as he said.

> This is precisely what happened, BTW, with the moving head wounds and
> ever-changing time for the SBT.

The only reason there was an "ever-changing time" for the SBT is that
both the WC and the HSCA failed to come down firmly on exactly when in
the film it happens. The WC especially failed to watch the film nearly
enough times. But now that the film is available to us in much clearer
versions than the WC or HSCA ever had the opportunity to see, it is
plain as day that both men jerk violently starting at exactly the same
instant, frame 226. I alone have probably seen the film more times than
anyone in the WC or HSCA did, and I'm hardly unique in that regard. I
would think you've seen it more times than they did too.

> The government tossed off some stuff,
> waited for it to be successfully called into question, then tossed off
> more stuff.

Sure, but the obvious fallacies in what they tossed off would still have
eventually been noticed.

> > > Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just
> > > rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.
> >
> > Possibly so. But my point in the article to which you were here
> > responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm
> > now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have
> > *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people
> > after the film became widely available to the general public, even if
> > that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its
> > conclusions.
>
> And my point is that those detecting these flaws would have been denounced
> and hounded by the FBI, just as the early critics of the WC were denounced
> and hounded by the FBI. A bit ironic, don't you think?

Oh? I've never been denounced and hounded by the FBI, or any government
agency. Neither have the vast majority of people I've seen say that the
FBI's initial conclusions about three separate hits were wrong.

> > > The SBT, which may
> > > have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a
> > > challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of
> > > those currently defending it to the death.
> >
> > I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific." The elongated entry
> > in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would
> > be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone
> > through something prior to entering his back.
>
> As pointed out by Tony, the head wound entrance was purportedly just as
> elongated,

Excuse me, purported by whom, exactly? I cannot at this moment think of
even *one* person who claimed that the entrance in his head was
elongated. Please quote such a person, along with the original source,
who said that.

> and yet no one claims that bullet hit something first.

Since the entrance in JFK's head wasn't elongated, that is not
surprising.

> You
> neglect as well that Dr. Shaw insisted that the bullet hitting Connally
> had not hit something first.

Please quote him verbatim, along with the original source, saying
exactly that. I'm looking right now at him saying exactly the
*opposite* to the WC:

**********

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in
hpyothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper
portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm. missile
passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck, proceeding
through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating the pleural
cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the neck, with the
missile having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of
approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being approximately
160 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the missile was a copper
jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that bullet to have then
proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would it be possible for it
to have struck Governor Connally in the back and have inflicted the
wound which you have described on the posterior aspect of his chest, and
also on the anterior aspect of his chest?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative
answer to that question, Dr. Shaw?
Dr. SHAW - Because I would feel that a missile with this velocity and
weight striking no more than the soft tissues of the neck would have
adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the
Governor's chest.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet
identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which
inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile
similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical
question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance
with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689?
Dr. SHAW - Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck
you mean?
Mr. SPECTER - No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next
question.
Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I
feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the
examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed
some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same
missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than
three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist.
Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption
that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet
which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is
the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.
Dr. SHAW - I see.
Mr. SPECTER - Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have
described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted nil of the
wounds on the Governor?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet
are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone
through the President in the way that I have described and proceed
through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether
or not it was bullet 399?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.

**********

Now true, he did express some doubts about CE 399 *itself*, because he
was shown certain photographs only of the bullet, I think, and not
necessarily photographs of the *base* which show it to be severely
flattened, but that was only regarding how much mass the bullet in the
photos still had. He did *not* specifically dispute the idea of *a*
bullet passing through both men, nor the idea of the bullet tumbling
before it entered Connally's back, nor did he say that the bullet would
be at all likely to tumble if it had not hit something or pass through

something first.

> In other words, there is nothing to suggest
> the bullet striking Connally first struck Kennedy beyond your hopes and
> dreams. Not exactly scientific.

Nonsense. Shaw did not specifically say that the bullet would not have
tumbled if it had not struck or passed through something else first
before entering Connally's back. And both you and Tony are wrong when
you say that the entry in the rear of JFK's head was elongated. I know
of no one who saw his head who said anything even remotely like that,
and if there is anyone who I'm forgetting at this moment, they are
decidedly in the minority.

> > And quite obviously,
> > passing through something else first would slow down the velocity of the
> > bullet significantly prior to it entering Connally's back, and there is
> > quite obviously nothing even slightly "unscientific" about that assertion
> > either.
>
> Wrong. Olivier had no idea what kind of bullet hit Connally, so his
> supposition the bullet would have to have been slowed to do so little
> damage was misleading at best.

I don't even remember at this moment who "Olivier" is, though doubtless
I could remind myself. And no one has any need whatsoever to know what
type of bullet is being fired to still know that it is extremely
unlikely that any type of bullet fired from any type of gun will start
tumbling until it has struck or passed through something.

Ah, but if that is so (which it isn't in many cases) then that's also a
very strong argument against your claim, because if they didn't have a
sense of where the initial shots came from, then you can't know that the
initial shots came from a *different* direction than the final shot,
since hardly any of them said that specifically. And I know of plenty
of witnesses who very specifically said they perceived an auditory
direction from the *first* shot. Mary Woodward, whom you yourself quote
on your website, is a prime example, and she is nowhere near the only
one.

> If, however, you'd like to believe everyone had an immediate grasp of
> where the loud bursts were coming from, please explain why the majority of
> those in front of the TSBD thought the shots came from their right,

Yes, they thought ALL the shots had come from their right. You implied
that they thought that only the *last* shot came from their right, but
that is not what the vast majority of them said. You are also ignoring
the fact that it wasn't just direction that they talked about. The vast
majority of the witnesses also said nothing about any individual shot
sounding louder and/or closer, or farther, than any other individual
shot, and quite a few of them specifically said that all the shots
sounded approximately equal in volume.

> when
> the HSCA's psycho-acoustics tests showed that it was easy to tell a shot
> from above and behind them from a shot from their right.

No. I have read the HSCA's study on why so many witnesses differed on
their sense of direction with the sounds, and at least in some places in
that study they attribute the confusion to obvious, everyday, mundane
aspects of the reflection of sound waves. True, in other places in the
same document some confusion is also expressed on why the witnesses
differed so widely, but there is no firm conclusion in the document that
they necessarily would have *all* been able to tell the "true" direction
no matter where they were situated. And even the HSCA failed to notice
adequately enough how so many witnesses each named only one direction
for all of the gunfire, even if it was a different direction from other
witnesses, and how so very few individual witnesses said the gunfire
sounded as if it came from multiple directions, and from multiple
distances.

And again, you are avoiding what I actually said. It is merely your
*opinion* that so many witnesses recognized direction only by the time
of the last shot. But that is a sweeping generalization, and like most
sweeping generalizations, almost always untrue, at least in part. I
continue to note that you did not on your website *quote* anything even
remotely close to the "vast majority" of these witnesses *specifically*
*saying* that *only* the final shot came from west of their location.
In fact, hardly *any* of them *specifically* said that. What the vast
majority of them actually said was that ALL the shots came from that
direction. You are merely *assuming* that they meant "only" the last
shot.

In short, you, not I, are putting words into their mouths that they
never uttered, and you certainly do not *quote* them saying what you
claim they "meant" on your own website.

[John Reagor King]

In article <ed3aa513-74d4-46a6...@googlegroups.com>,

charles wallace <chas1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The photo of JFK's killer is available on my website. There are three
> different versions of the same original photo that has been cropped
> for greater clarity of the person seen. The address:
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

Yes, you posted that before on 9-27, and I notice you still have not
replied to my extensive critique of that that I posted on 10-5 in direct
reply to you, so here it is again:

You make some statements on that page that I find to be quite curious.

"At approximately 12:23 PM B. R. Williams is at the sixthfloor SE corner
window of the TSBD according to the witness testimony of Arnold Rowland,
and also Oswald is looking out the doorway of the domino room on the
first floor. While eating his cheese sandwich he sees Harold Norman and
Junior Jarman come in the back door turn their backs to him going to the
western elevator to go to the fifth floor. DPD Captain Will Fritz's
notes confirm this."

I have recently re-read Fritz's notes, and I do not recall him claiming
that Oswald specifically said he saw Jarman and Norman come in the back
door and turn their backs to him. Perhaps I just missed that? Please
quote verbatim from Fritz's notes where he says Oswald told him this. I
only recall Fritz saying that he saw the two men at some point during
lunch.

"I contend Oswald then goes to the front of the TSBD eating an apple. He
is out front standing behind Bill Shelley finishing his lunch and sees
the excitement. Again this is confirmed by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Could I have made an error? Of course, I could have the place where he
ate the apple and the cheese sandwich reversed."

Har. Nothing of the sort is "confirmed" by Fritz's testimony and notes.
Fritz said Oswald claimed that he was *inside* the building when the
motorcade passed by and did not go outside until *afterward* to go talk
to William Shelley across the street. And where are you getting Oswald
standing behind Shelley from? I do hope you are not one of those people
who "still believes" that that is Oswald instead of Billy Lovelady this
many decades after that silly myth was conclusively debunked. Or are
you referring to some other person in the photographs? I've never seen
anyone in those photographs who looks even remotely like Oswald. I
never did even think that Lovelady looked all that much like Oswald,
although others have said they do.

Below this, when talking about the Dillard and Murray photos, you say,

"Upon close examination of this figure in the window, it appears that it
is a white male, Caucasian, approximately 35 years old."

Good lordy, how on earth can you, or any other human, possibly come even
remotely close to attributing an *age* to that extremely blurry and
grainy image, which might or might not even be a person?

Then further down:

"This is a cropped photo showing the shooter. Can you see him?

No, I honestly can't.

"A face circled cropping of the shooter appears on down the web page. Or
if you go to the address

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/YellowHighlighter

you can see where I have highlighted it."

Yeah, and in the original black and white, I can't even tell there's
anyone there. In your yellow highlighted version, it appears to me that
you simply chose a spot to put that in arbitrarily. And you're getting
all sorts of things like age and race from THAT? Even in your
highlighted version no facial features can be made out at all. Can't
even tell if it's a man or woman, if it really is someone there. This
is awfully meager evidence.

Further down:

"The first shot is fired at approximately Zapruder frame number 180-181.
This is the shot that Governor Connally hears."

It is? Strange then that this conflicts directly with what Connally
actually said. He said he heard a shot and turned to his right to look
for the source of the sound. His head plainly turns to the right no
later than Z165 and remains continuously facing right all the way to
when he disappears behind the sign. When he emerges from behind the
sign his head is still turned to the right for a few more frames. He
said he turned to the right *after* he heard the shot, not *before* he
heard the shot. You've got him hearing the shot *after* he turned to
the right, which is exactly the opposite of what he said.

In the sentences immediately following what I quoted above you say this
was the shot that hit JFK in the back only, but that he didn't
necessarily think it to be different from his normal back pain. You
also say that this bullet penetrated only a little way. But nowhere do
you explain why it would penetrate such a short distance, "no more than
a little finger's depth," when it had not yet struck anything hard
enough, such as bone, to penetrate much farther in.

In the next paragraph:

"The second shot is from the grassy knoll and strikes JFK in the throat.
This occurs at approximately Zapruder frame number 199-200. This
bullet's fragments were reported by autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol
Custer to have been seen on an x-ray that is now missing. I postulate a
small .22 caliber hollow nose short lead bullet and subsonic velocity.
The autopsy doctors did not know of this bullet entry during its
procedures. After the autopsy, the autopists learned from Parkland
Hospital's Dr. Perry about the small throat wound that was obscured by
the tracheostomy performed to assist the President's breathing. All
Parkland Hospital medical personnel that saw this wound thought that it
was one of entrance. I speculate that this projectile was fired from one
of the two barrels of a hunter's 'over and under' rifle. The shooter is
behind the small concrete wall on the grassy knoll to JFK's right front.
JFK unmistakably reacts to these first two shots at Z225."

So you have JFK waiting to react to both shots until Z225. Strange.
And again, nowhere here do you explain why a frontal shot to his throat
would not exit the other side of the body when it didn't strike any bone
to slow it down enough not to exit.

Next paragraph:

"The third shot strikes Governor Connally. It is from the Texas School
Book Depository shooter. It enters his back and exits his chest. The
bullet lodges itself in JBC's thigh at approximately Zapruder frame
number 228-229. It is lost at Parkland Hospital during the efforts to
save JBC's life. JBC thought the bullet was found by a nurse in Trauma
Room no.2. The shot occurs as JFK is in full reaction to his wounds.
Connally's wife, Nellie says she turned upon hearing noise and saw the
President with his hands up towards his throat, then her husband John
was hit. JBC reacts visibly at Zapruder frame number 237 to 238 with his
cheeks puffing out with air from his pierced collapsing lung. Oswald's
rifle scope was misaligned to shoot high and to the right."

Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.

Now let's get into the next paragraph:

"The fourth shot hits JFK in the head at Zapruder frame number 312-313.
It is from the grassy knoll. It deflects upon entry towards JFK's right.
Its fragments are mostly lost to the left rear of the limousine causing
reports of a bullet striking the street."

Wrong. Obviously. Not nearly all reports of a bullet striking the
street were associated with that shot. Virgie Rachley Baker, for
example, said she saw something strike the street with the *first* shot.
And the bullet deflected upon entry to JFK's right? You mean right back
toward the shooter? Yet you say the fragments mostly went to the left
rear? You are contradicting yourself.

Three sentences later:

"All witnesses to the head wound said there was a large opening in the
rear of JFK's head."

No, they did not "all" say that, but the majority of them did. However,
most of them also said it was in the *right* rear of his head. What on
earth is a shot from the *right* front doing exiting the *right* rear of
his head. Wouldn't it exit the *left* rear of his head?

Of course that hole in the right rear of his head wasn't caused by a
bullet exiting anyway, as I have explained many times.

Oh, and I love the first sentence in the next paragraph:

"The final shot is from the TSBD at approximately Zapruder frame number
322-323 and it strikes JBC in the wrist."

Sorry, I don't remember Connally ever saying that he felt a separate
strike to his wrist. Also by Z322 Nellie has pulled him down in the
seat. Strange that you make no mention of how a trajectory from the
TSBD to his wrist would work at this point. Wouldn't his wrist be too
low in the car by then to be hit by a shot from there?

Let's keep going:

"The grassy knoll shooter is shown in Mary Moorman's photo and named
"Badge Man" but is really much closer in my opinion than behind the
stockade fence."

Objection. The grassy knoll shooter is *allegedly* shown in that photo.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being conclusively
proven that there is really a person there. You also fail to mention
how none of the witnesses in that area ever said that any single shot
sounded much louder and closer than the other shots.

"He is positioned in "Black Dog Man's" location behind the low concrete
wall. BM is BDM. He used a hunter's 'over and under' rifle (a .22
caliber barrel and a .3xx type caliber barrel) in my opinion."

You even claim to know what type of rifle he probably used? This is
some of the wildest speculation I've ever seen in this case, from any CT
or LN.

"Knoll witness Gordon Arnold claims the knoll shooter had an unusual
looking rifle and that the man kicked him upon stopping to take away the
film from his camera."

Strange that you don't mention that it has never been proven that Gordon
Arnold was even there that day. He didn't come forward until 1978. You
also don't mention that Arnold thought ALL of the shots had come from
the same rifle directly behind him. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots. That means no shots at all
from the TSBD. He can be used to support a grassy knoll shooter only.
He CANNOT be used to support MULTIPLE shooters.

Further down:

"The Walther FBI report confirms a conspiracy because a lone nut Oswald
would not extend both hands holding his rifle out of the window before
the shooting. But a conspirator would do this to show his partner in
crime that the patsy Oswald brought in the rifle and the assassination
can continue as planned."

I honestly cannot follow your logic here. Why, exactly, wouldn't a lone
nut extend both hands out? He could still be seen from below whether he
stuck his hands out or not. Several of the other witnesses saw him when
he wasn't sticking his hands out too.

Oh no, and down below I see this:

"Approximately 60 seconds of that time was spent kicking Gordon Arnold
and taking away the film in his camera on the ground behind the wall
just as he related in the video The Men Who Killed Kennedy. If you had
just shot the President of the United States and you knew that the
person behind you had filmed you doing it, would not you take the time
to get that film?"

Unbelievable. You claimed Arnold was behind the shooter.

Arnold said the shooter was behind *him*. He said one of the bullets
whizzed right past him. He *never* said that he might have captured the
shooter on film.

A little farther down:

"DPD Fritz's notes (first one) quote Oswald as saying he was out front."

No. Fritz's notes say that Oswald claimed to have gone out front AFTER
the shooting and to have talked to William Shelley. Fritz's notes do
NOT say that Oswald claimed to be out front DURING the shooting.

"The Altgens photo shows a man that looks like Oswald out front during
the shooting. The Wiegman film shows this man also but shows another man
that could be Oswald. They both can't be Lovelady."

One of them obviously is. The other? Who knows? But he can't be seen
with nearly enough clarity to come within one-million light-years of
proving it's Oswald.

"The encounter of DPD Baker and Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is
enough time for Oswald to go up the front stairs but not enough time to
come from the sixth floor SE corner window."

Nonsense. I tested it in that very building. Also, Victoria Adams said
she and Sandra Styles got to the first floor about a minute after the
last shot, and that Baker and Truly had not even reached the elevator
yet, since she said she didn't see them there and the stairway emerged
onto the first floor right beside the elevator. Nor did Baker and Truly
see the two women either. So if Adams was correct in her timing, Baker
and Truly took longer to get to the 2nd floor than any of their
recreations showed, and Baker freely admitted that the actual time on
the day could have been longer than the recreations.

"Oswald was calm when confronted by Baker with his drawn gun. Marina
said Oswald was visibly shaken after shooting at General Edwin Walker.
Oswald developed nerves of steel in six months?"

Too many people exaggerate Baker's description of Oswald in the
lunchroom. Baker observed him for only a few seconds at most, and then
was immediately told by Truly that Oswald was an employee; Baker then
immediately dismissed Oswald as a suspect and turned away from him and
went back to the stairs. Oswald did not even speak the entire time.
Baker's observation of him was far too brief and insubstantial for him
to be certain that Oswald was calm. How do you know that Oswald would
have *sounded* calm, for example, had he spoken? No one has any
possible way of knowing that since he didn't speak. And was Marina's
impression of Oswald being shaken after the Walker shooting at least
partially based on the way he *sounded*? Any reasonable person would
think so. She also observed him for a much longer time than Baker did.

"A very credible eye witness, Lillian Mooneyham told the FBI that she
saw a man staring out of the sixth floor window after the shots. This
person could not have been Oswald or an investigating officer."

Why, exactly, is she "very credible"? Is she corroborated on this by
any other witness?

"The three fifth floor ear witnesses did not hear anyone walking away
from the sixth floor window nor did they hear anyone walking down the
wooden stairs even though Norman could hear even an empty shell hit the
floor."

You seem to envision Oswald stomping on the floor as loudly as possible.
And duh, of *course* they didn't hear anyone walking down the wooden
stairs. Those stairs were in the *rear* of the building. The three men
stayed at the *front* of the fifth floor for several minutes after the
shooting.

"Oswald is seen on the first floor in a storage closet after the Baker
encounter by the vice president of the TSBD."

I do not remember Ochus Campbell, the very vice president you're talking
about, ever saying anything even remotely like that. There is a
secondhand claim made to Harold Weisberg that a person heard a
*reporter* claim that Mr. Campbell said that, but I am not finding any
original document quoting Campbell *himself* saying that.

"The Oswald's rifle bullet, CE 399 found at Parkland Hospital broke
bones we are told but shows no damage that could be reasonably expected."

I strongly disagree. I think it shows *exactly* the expected damage and
no more. The bullet went through JFK first, which would obviously slow
it down considerably, but did not strike any bone. It was quite
obviously tumbling upon exiting his throat because the entry in
Connally's back was elongated. If the bullet had not gone through
anything before entering his back, why would it be tumbling? Wouldn't
the entrance be circular instead? Now yes, in it's passage through his
torso it did indeed strike his rib, but there is no evidence that it
struck the rib nose first, and plenty of evidence that it entered his
back sideways. There is also no evidence that upon exiting his chest it
struck his wrist nose first either. So shattering or fragmentation of
the bullet wouldn't necessarily be expected. What we do see is severe
flattening of the base of the bullet. The bullet would have also been
slowed down by first passing through JFK, so its velocity when striking
Connally's bones would obviously be slower than if the bullet only
injured Connally, more evidence that it wouldn't necessarily fragment
when striking those bones.

"Parkland medical personnel described wounds to the throat and head of
JFK that were consistent from some one firing from the front."

Duh, because they didn't know about the back wound at the time.

"JFK is shown in the Zapruder film of the assassination moving violently
back and to the left after the head shot. It is not unreasonable to
believe that a powerful force from the front caused that movement."

It is also not unreasonable to believe that powerful force to be a great
deal of matter exploding forward out of his head.

"Many ear witnesses said they thought there were shots from the front of
JFK."

Typical CT misdirection. Nearly all of those same witnesses thought ALL
the shots came from in front of JFK. Not just one of the shots. Not
just some of the shots. ALL of the shots.

"There are witnesses that heard more than three shots and many that
heard a double bang at the end."

A *very* small minority of the witnesses said they heard more than three
shots. And there were not "many" who heard a double bang at the end.
Some did, yes. Others said the amount of time between shots 1 and 2 was
approximately twice the amount of time as between shots 2 and 3. Still
others simply said that shots 2 and 3 were closer together, but never
said how much closer together.

"In the Dillard photograph there appears to be a man with a policeman's
uniform standing in the SN window set. His standing appearance matches
Lillian Mooneyham's description of him."

That's one of the wildest stretches I've ever seen. Even in your yellow
outline, if I didn't know this was about the JFK assassination I would
honestly say that I couldn't even tell if that's a man or a woman there,
much less anything else about the person.

"Oswald tells his family while in jail 'not to believe the so called
evidence'."

Oh, like it's unusual for a true murderer to say things like that?

Then much farther down:

"Conspiracy was proven over 40 years ago. If you choose false trails of
evidence to follow then you will never solve the assassination crimes. I
submit that just Lillian Mooneyham's FBI report proves conspiracy. This
lady innocently reported what she saw and heard. In three instances in
her report she proves there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The
only way for this not to be correct is that she would have to be lying.
If you believe she lied then you have lied to yourself. Mistaken floor
after a month when everyone in the world knew which window? Mistaken
when she heard the last two shots? Not likely."

Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? I'm looking right at
that very report in the midst of typing this sentence. I don't see her
being mistaken as to when she heard the last two shots. It is simply
said there that they were closer together than shots 1 and 2, just as I
said above. It says nothing about how *much* closer together they were.
I believe they were closer together too. Yet I also believe in one
shooter. "Strange" how I'm able to reconcile that. And why can't she
be honestly mistaken about how long after the shots were fired that she
supposedly saw the man in the window? That is not at all an unusual
mistake. Remember how Emmett Hudson said the last shot was fired
several minutes after the others? How do you know that Mooneyham didn't
take longer to walk over there than she thought? And if the assassin
was there that late, 4 to 5 minutes after the shooting, when she said
she saw the man, where did he go? So many people make so much out of
Adams and Styles not hearing or seeing Oswald coming down the stairs,
and no other TSBD employee hearing or seeing him either. Wouldn't that
be exactly the same problem for a different assassin as well? And
you're having this assassin leave the floor a good deal later than
Oswald would have, so an even greater possibility that he'd be unable to
get out of the building undetected. And when did he enter the building?
No TSBD employee said any strange man was seen anywhere in the building
prior to the shooting.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh so the WC were a bunch of idiots? And the HSCA experts were confused?
And only you were smart enough and had X-ray vision to see the exact
moment when both men were hit. And you've been hiding this revelation
from the American public for 49 years?

> enough times. But now that the film is available to us in much clearer
> versions than the WC or HSCA ever had the opportunity to see, it is
> plain as day that both men jerk violently starting at exactly the same
> instant, frame 226. I alone have probably seen the film more times than
> anyone in the WC or HSCA did, and I'm hardly unique in that regard. I
> would think you've seen it more times than they did too.
>

No, it is not. But that still does not tell us WHEN the bullet hit. You
still are not brave enough to speculate on that. Maybe in another 49 years.

>
>> The government tossed off some stuff,
>> waited for it to be successfully called into question, then tossed off
>> more stuff.
>
> Sure, but the obvious fallacies in what they tossed off would still have
> eventually been noticed.
>

How, when they cover up all the evidence? You forget that it was us
kooky theorists who got the information out which you now rely on.

>>>> Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just
>>>> rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.
>>>
>>> Possibly so. But my point in the article to which you were here
>>> responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm
>>> now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have
>>> *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people
>>> after the film became widely available to the general public, even if
>>> that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> And my point is that those detecting these flaws would have been denounced
>> and hounded by the FBI, just as the early critics of the WC were denounced
>> and hounded by the FBI. A bit ironic, don't you think?
>
> Oh? I've never been denounced and hounded by the FBI, or any government
> agency. Neither have the vast majority of people I've seen say that the
> FBI's initial conclusions about three separate hits were wrong.
>

Because you've never been a WC critic.

>>>> The SBT, which may
>>>> have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a
>>>> challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of
>>>> those currently defending it to the death.
>>>
>>> I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific." The elongated entry
>>> in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would
>>> be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone
>>> through something prior to entering his back.
>>
>> As pointed out by Tony, the head wound entrance was purportedly just as
>> elongated,
>
> Excuse me, purported by whom, exactly? I cannot at this moment think of
> even *one* person who claimed that the entrance in his head was
> elongated. Please quote such a person, along with the original source,
> who said that.
>

Humes. 15 x 7 mm.

Mr. SPECTER. State your full name for the record.
Dr. OLIVER. Dr. Alfred G. Olivier.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your occupation or profession?
Dr. OLIVER. A supervisory research veterinarian and I work for the
Department of the Army at Edgewood Arsenal, Md.

Why do you claim to be a WC defender and yet you don't know it?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

It appears you have much to learn.

From patspeer.com, chapter 11.

Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the
Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound
as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was clearly
spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size
and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw
concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the
large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which
was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a
tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating
that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing,
Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its
largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small
and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was not
the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd
cut away the damaged skin along its edge.

By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of the
back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as
conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the
influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times,
cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the
single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden
testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the
entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling
when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the
Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that
when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent with
the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President
Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the
Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was
the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the
bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid wound
is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object."

The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the
significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as
discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a
Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the
Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8
centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around
this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr.
Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm
Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second
measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual
size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of
Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not
merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As
demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.

This, of course, would have been the word of but one sloppy
researcher/zealot had Baden and others not fallen under Lattimer's
smell/spell. Not only did Dr. Baden oversell the significance of this
ovoid shape to the HSCA, he produced a smelly lie of his own in his 1989
book Unnatural Death. While an HSCA report written by Baden records the
length of Connally's back scar as 1 1/8 inches (or 2.9 cm), Baden told
Unnatural Death's readers the back wound scar was 2 inches long (or 5 cm).

The impact of Lattimer's and Baden's fibs upon the single-assassin theory
has been palpable. In 1992, in the mock trial of Oswald put on by the
American Bar Association and televised on Court TV, Dr. Martin Fackler,
testifying for the prosecution, repeated the 3 cm lie, and made matters
worse by incorrectly testifying, when it was pointed out to him that Dr.
Shaw had told the HSCA that the wound was really 1.5 cm, that Dr. Shaw had
only changed his recollection "later on." (Dr. Shaw had, in fact, insisted
since first asked that the bullet hole was 1.5 cm long, and that the 3 cm
measurement on his report reflected not the size of the bullet hole, but
the size of the wound after skin had been removed.) Since then,
"researchers" (more like single-bullet theory aficionados or Lattimerites)
such as Gus Russo and Dale Myers have also misrepresented the back wound
as 3 cm or more in their work. Myers, on his website, actually links to an
HSCA report to support that the wound was 3 cm, failing to tell his
readers that just below the statement by Shaw in this report is another
statement, in which Shaw clarifies his earlier statements, and insists the
3 cm measurement was the measurement of the wound after he'd cut away some
of Connally's skin.

Not only do these theorists misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound
to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and
shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm,
respectively, an impossibility if the wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they
propose.

While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry
Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm
entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the
bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally.
He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the
defect in Kennedy's jacket was even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than
Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt
was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also
overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at
an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head
was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature
of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they
more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as
proposed by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964.

Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia,
1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a
bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication
that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This
assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's
Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema
and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.

Just a little something to think about.

As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's
and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the
wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the
program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45
mm.

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

[John McAdams]

On 20 Oct 2012 20:33:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:36:13 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
>> In article <3afaa61b-9204-4ae3...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. on its
longest dimension.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=152

This sort of thing isn't worthy of you. You are not Mark Lane.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

But the WC defenders keep saying it was 3 cm on its longest dimension. And
we use to have a WC defender here who said the elongation was vertical.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
others were not.

[John McAdams]

On 21 Oct 2012 19:17:18 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>

You are *slow* getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at it's
longest diameter *when* it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted above shows that.

During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf

Go to page 272.

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said
yes.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59Ie_Lattimer.pdf

So you essay gives the entirely *false* impression that the judgment
of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm.
figure.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2012 8:03 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2012 19:17:18 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:40:21 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 20 Oct 2012 20:33:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. on its
>>>
>>> longest dimension.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=152
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This sort of thing isn't worthy of you. You are not Mark Lane.
>>
>> Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
>> Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
>> Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
>> something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
>> bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
>> difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
>> others were not.
>
> You are *slow* getting this.
>
> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at it's
> longest diameter *when* it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.
>

You think that the FPP firmly concluded that the bullet was absolutely
tumbling. I don't think they were that stupid.

> The link I posted above shows that.
>
> During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf
>
> Go to page 272.
>
> I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
> were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.
>
> But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.
>
> I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
> whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said
> yes.
>

Lattimer would say anything to promote a SBT. That's why he diagrammed
JFK as a hunchback.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59Ie_Lattimer.pdf
>
> So you essay gives the entirely *false* impression that the judgment
> of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm.
> figure.
>

They saw it as one possibility, not the only possibility.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Herbert Blenner]

On Oct 21, 8:03 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2012 19:17:18 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:40:21 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:

> >> On 20 Oct 2012 20:33:32 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>

>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. on its
>
> >> longest dimension.
>

> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&...

>
> >> This sort of thing isn't worthy of you.  You are not Mark Lane.
>
> >Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
> >Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
> >Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
> >something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
> >bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
> >difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
> >others were not.
>
> You are *slow* getting this.
>
> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at it's
> longest diameter *when* it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.
>
> The link I posted above shows that.
>
> During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence.
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_...

>
> Go to page 272.
>
> I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
> were.  If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.
>
> But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.
>
> I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
> whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said
> yes.
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/H...

>
> So you essay gives the entirely *false* impression that the judgment
> of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm.
> figure.
>
> .John

> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The FPP knew that a 15-mm wound made by a 30-mm bullet striking with a
30-degree yaw angle makes a rectangular wound with rounded corners. In
fact they described a wound made by a sideways bullet as virtually
rectangular.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0087b.htm

The FPP should have known that Doctor Shaw described the wound on
Governor Connally’s back as elliptical. Instead the panel ignored the
testimony of the surgeon who repaired the Governor and revised history
by calling the wound ovoid.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0094b.htm

Baden made his contribution toward this deceptive analysis of the back
wound by directing Ida Dox to produce graphics which contradicted the
verbal description of the virtually rectangular wound made by a bullet
with a considerable angle of yaw.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic1.jpg

http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic2.jpg

In particular the HSCA published a graphic showing an entry by a
yawing bullet with the wound made by a tangential entry and a second
picture of a tangential entry by a bullet accompanied by a drawing of
a wound made by a bullet with a considerable yaw angle.

The HSCA used a charlatan to testify that a yawed bullet makes an
elliptical hole. Without doubt Baden and company out sleazed the WC.

Herbert

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/375112eeacc6e154?#375112eeacc6e154

PAT SPEER SAID:

Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report
was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said

they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a
bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it
"probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of
alinement. That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was
unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You are SLOW getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted above shows that [linked again below].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0076b.htm

During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0138b.htm

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said

yes:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0150a.htm

So you essay gives the entirely FALSE impression that the judgment of

a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm.
figure.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and
whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is,
indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a
Carcano/WCC bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will
nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence,
result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same
distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile
in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in
these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over
end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost
sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that
these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck."

[...]

"An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test
bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end.
Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of
[the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the
type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally
target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right
of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of
"K&L"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they
were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING
ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they
turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and
265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

-------------

The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:

The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to
be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly
the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the
back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the
entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-
shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/
south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width
of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and
is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the
measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice
but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't
look that egg-shaped to me):

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound
being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper
back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling
when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head
was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet
almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of
Kennedy's head.

So the retort made by CTers over the years has been --- Why are you so
certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you
certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had
NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that
was the exact same size?

It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:

"It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute
angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left
rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of
Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

"Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a
relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of
Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit.
In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility
that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet
striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7
HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report,
April 22, 1964, p.3)

"However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a
bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and
proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know
from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the
moment of impact.

"Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be
very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an
angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would
explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat,
which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the
tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately
two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an
entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an
inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s
throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

----------------

Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:

"As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86
of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a
fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry
than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an
inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a
fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391
of "Reclaiming History"

---------------

To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of
Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing
factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape.
Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth
contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably
forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.

Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John
Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size
of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which
is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page
86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the
entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also
cited above).

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--
which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back
wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often
bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into
Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's
throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a
tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr.
Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets
that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a
simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I
think.**

----------

* Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be
advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike.
It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means
when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor
Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).


** And there's very likely something in the official WC and/or HSCA
volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some
reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-
millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly
the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a
15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was
obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.

David Von Pein
October 21-22, 2012

[Herbert Blenner]

On Oct 22, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report
> was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said
> they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a
> bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it
> "probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of
> alinement. That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was
> unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> You are SLOW getting this.
>
> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
> longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.
>
> The link I posted above shows that [linked again below].
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

>
> During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence:
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...

>
> I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
> were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.
>
> But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.
>
> I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
> whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said
> yes:
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

Lattimer lied and his own targets prove it.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/tumbling.jpg


These five targets show bullet holes with parallel sides and slight
rounding of their corners. So Lattimer had no justification to call the
holes made by “tumbling” bullet ovals. It is that simple; an oval does
not have straight sides.

Herbert

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? That is only one of three well known possible causes. You can't
look at three choices and claim one is the truth just because it agrees
with your biases.

> Quoting Dr. Lattimer:
>
> "Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same
> distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile
> in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in
> these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
> striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over
> end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost
> sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that
> these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck."
>

This test alone proves that Connally's back wound was not caused by a
tumbling bullet. In Lattimer's tests the elongation was VERTICAL and
exactly the length of the bullet, 3 cm. On Connally the elongation was
horizontal and the length was only 1.5 cm. Thanks for debunking the SBT.

> [...]
>
> "An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test
> bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
> causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end.
> Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of
> [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the
> type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally
> target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right
> of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of
> "K&L"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they
> were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING
> ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they
> turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and
> 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)
>

Fun. Where are his tests with WCC bullets fired from a sawed down barrel
to produce keyholing?

Great info. The one aspect of the conversion of 91 rifles to carbines
that had never occured to me until reading "Hobbs" was that the last
foot or so of the progressive rifling was eliminated from the full
length rifle, and as a result you had a carbine barrel that failed to
inpart the needed spin to sufficiently stabilize the projectile. This
of course resulted in abysmal accuracy and frequent "keyholing".

Thank you for responding Richard.

The reason I asked for a small quantity, was that I am having some
issues with bullet tumbling/keyholing with the 160gr. Hornady bullet in
the .268 diameter. I am strictly adhereing to their data, and this is
happening in the shorter barreled Cavalry Carbine.

Anyway, I thought I might try a few loadings of the 'pulled down'surplus
bullets in my handloads, and see if that might possibly resolve the issue.

Regards,

Bill

Different brands of bullets also keyhole if they are not wide enough to
grab the grooves.

jmoore
07-24-2009, 12:35 AM
The Prvi is good brass, but the bullets are undersized, measuring
0.264". Accuracy suffers as the intended bullet size is 0.267-0.268".
I'm not generally going to promote a single brand, however only Hornady
has taken the effort to make proper components and ammuntion for the
Italian rifles.
The accuracy improvement with the new Hornady ammo is impressive! All of
our Italian rifles and carbines shoot much better! Most shoot around 2
to 3 MOA out to 200 yards although vertical stringing is common due to
the "almost, but not quite, hide the front sight top at bottom of the
rear sight notch" method used at distances less than 300m. The Kennedy
Rifle clone shoots repeatable 1 1/2 MOA w/ its little Japanese scope
(same as the Oswald gun). Works nicely on deer too!
Anyway, try the Hornady stuff; it actually costs a little more than the
Prvi but, we've found it to be well worth it! ("we" being myself and a
couple of friends)
Patrick Chadwick
07-31-2009, 04:28 PM
Get the PRVI with the 264 bullets and fire it off without worrying about
the groups, so that you have fire-formed cases. Neck size. CCI250
primers. Then reload with the Hornady 268 bullets over about 28-30 gn of
Reloder 15 or equivalent load, seating them just so far in that the case
mouth is at the back end of the crimp ring but DO NOT crimp. Overall
length for my 91/41 is 75.25 mm (test in your chamber), or a trifle over
3". You will be amazed how the groups shrink. The PRVIs were keyholing
and missing the target at 50 meters. The Hornady reloads were instantly
2 MOA. Further optimizatin will require some fettling of the ingenious
backsight.

P.S: PRVI Partisan is NOT made in the Czech republic, which does not use
Cyrillic lettering, but in ex-Yugoslavia. Hence the headstamp that looks
like nny The ns are actually Cyrillic Ps (like the mathematical "Pi").

Patrick

The chief engineer for Hornady did extensive research on the 6.5 Carcano
a few years back before they released the 160 gr. RN in .268
specifically for the Carcano. He did specify that only certain powders
with specific amounts and certain primers (WLRM) should be used with
this bullet.

My readings indicate that the Carcano has extra deep rifling (for longer
barrel life) and that is why the larger diameter bullet is needed to
seal the bore. While the .264 bullet may make contact with the rifling,
it will not sufficiently grip the rifling and seal the bore and thus
causes the inaccuracy and keyholing that has been problematic with these
rifles for too many years. It took the experts from Hornady to figure it
out and they found the 6.5 Carcano to be quite accurate using the proper
bullets and loads.

Pressure testing also found that the action was virtually indestructible
regardless of the crap you may read on the internet. Do your own
research from RELIABLE SOURCES, not some, "my girlfriend's cousin's
brother-in-law said" bull crap. Italy used the best steel available
(Hungarian) for their rifles. Remember that this same action was used in
the 7.9mm (8mm Mauser) Carcano which run chamber pressures upwards of
50,000#. With a 17 13/16 barrel and a 6lb 10oz rifle, they do kick like
a mule. Mine is as accurate as I can see the sights on the target at 100
yds.

Buffalo Arms also has 140 gr, SP bullets in .268 available for the 6.5
Carcano.

Have a great day.

> -------------
>
> The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:
>
> The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to
> be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly
> the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the
> back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the
> entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-
> shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/
> south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width
> of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and
> is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the
> measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice
> but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't
> look that egg-shaped to me):
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg
>
> So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound
> being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper
> back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling
> when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head

Illogical. Another bullet could have been tumbling or keyholing for
other reasons.

> was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet
> almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of
> Kennedy's head.

You don't know that for a fact. Maybe it went through Posner's Magic Twig.

>
> So the retort made by CTers over the years has been --- Why are you so
> certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you
> certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had
> NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that
> was the exact same size?
>

No, we are just pointing out your hypocrisy.

> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.

Duh! WE knew that 20 years ago. Are you going to also tell us that the
Titanic sunk?

> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.
>

Perhaps the answer could be the position of YOUR head. Stuck up your
posterior.

> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>
> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute
> angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
> Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left
> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of
> Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
> direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.
>
> "Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a
> relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of
> Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit.
> In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility
> that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet
> striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7
> HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report,
> April 22, 1964, p.3)

The bullet smashed the fifth rib.

>
> "However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a
> bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and
> proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know
> from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the
> moment of impact.
>

So now that he's lost the argument the Bug wants to change the
definition of the SBT. Now, just for him, it can make zigs and zags.

> "Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be
> very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an
> angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would
> explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat,
> which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the
> tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately
> two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an
> entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an
> inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s
> throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in
> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>

As if that is the only alernative. How about the fact that the bullet
actually hit the curved inside surface of his armpit?
A tangential wound often appears elongated.

> ----------------
>
> Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:
>
> "As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86
> of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a
> fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry
> than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an
> inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a
> fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391
> of "Reclaiming History"
>
> ---------------
>
> To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of
> Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing
> factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape.

But only he is allowed to propose such a cause. Not conspiracy believers.

> Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth
> contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably
> forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.
>
> Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:
>
> After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John
> Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size
> of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which
> is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page
> 86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the
> entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also
> cited above).
>
> Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--
> which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back
> wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often
> bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into
> Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's
> throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a
> tumbling missile?
>
> The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr.
> Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets
> that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a
> simulated Kennedy neck.
>

Lattimer's tests debunk the SBT.

> But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I
> think.**
>
> ----------
>
> * Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be
> advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike.
> It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means
> when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor
> Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).
>
>
> ** And there's very likely something in the official WC and/or HSCA
> volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some
> reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-
> millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly
> the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a
> 15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was
> obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.
>

You assume things because you can't prove them.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "These five targets show bullet holes with parallel sides and slight
rounding of their corners. So Lattimer had no justification to call the
holes made by “tumbling” bullet ovals. It is that simple; an oval does
not have straight sides." <<<

Any additional nitpicky points you would care to make, Herbert? Was
Lattimer's hair parted on the wrong side during his MC/WCC bullet tests
too? That could be a major gaffe, right?

Geez.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Perhaps the answer could be the position of YOUR head. Stuck up your
posterior." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie for Tony! He slipped this one past the moderators. I'll bet
Marsh is prouder than a peacock.

>>> "So now that he's lost the argument the Bug wants to change the
definition of the SBT. Now, just for him, it can make zigs and zags." <<<

Bugliosi never said anything of the sort. In fact, he said exactly the
opposite:

"The same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet
from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat and proceeding ON
A STRAIGHT LINE into Connally's body." [Emphasis DVP's]

>>> "Lattimer's tests debunk the SBT." <<<

To a person who thinks day is night and guilty is innocent, maybe. But to
anyone else, your last comment is just flat-out stupid.

>>> You assume things because you can't prove them." <<<

Talk about a Pot/Kettle moment -- this one's a lulu. As if any conspiracy
theorist has EVER "proved" any of their theories.

You're a (continuous) howl, W. Anthony.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/22/2012 8:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "These five targets show bullet holes with parallel sides and slight
> rounding of their corners. So Lattimer had no justification to call the

> holes made by ?tumbling? bullet ovals. It is that simple; an oval does

> not have straight sides." <<<
>
> Any additional nitpicky points you would care to make, Herbert? Was
> Lattimer's hair parted on the wrong side during his MC/WCC bullet tests
> too? That could be a major gaffe, right?
>
> Geez.
>

Maybe he was using the wrong rifle. He did use the same ammo as Oswald's.
But he said his rifle's serial number was C2766. Since that was Oswald's
short rifle, maybe he had the calvary carbine which had been made by
cutting down the barrel of a 1891 long rifle with progressive gain twist.

[Herbert Blenner]

The shape of the hole tells the analyst whether the bullet entered
while “tumbling” or entered tangentially.

The linear dimension of a rectangular hole divided by the linear
length of the bullet equals the sine of the yaw angle while the
direction of this longer dimension coincides with the direction of the
long axis of the bullet as it struck the victim.

An elliptical wound tells the analyst that the bullet had a round
cross section, was properly aligned when it struck the victim at an
incidence angle whose cosine equals the smaller axis divided by the
larger axis.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/holegeometry.jpg

The direction of the elongation gives the azimuthal angle of the
entering bullet. In turn the incident angle enables the analyst to
calculate the trajectory of the entering bullet as the distance
parallel to the surface for one unit directly into the victim. This
ratio equals the trigonometric tangent of the incidence angle.

It is that simple, David. Anyone who considers the shapes of bullet
holes as "nitpicky points" is denying analytic geometry taught in our
high schools and colleges.

Herbert

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/22/2012 10:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Perhaps the answer could be the position of YOUR head. Stuck up your
> posterior." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Oh, goodie for Tony! He slipped this one past the moderators. I'll bet
> Marsh is prouder than a peacock.
>

As I said before, you can slip things past the moderators if you know
big words.

>
>>>> "So now that he's lost the argument the Bug wants to change the
> definition of the SBT. Now, just for him, it can make zigs and zags." <<<
>
> Bugliosi never said anything of the sort. In fact, he said exactly the
> opposite:
>
> "The same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet
> from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat and proceeding ON
> A STRAIGHT LINE into Connally's body." [Emphasis DVP's]
>

But then it can zig and zag in Connally. No other SBT did that before.
Used to be that the straight line had to go through all points of damage.
Now, anything goes. Ever see the Free Frank Warner diagrams?

>
>>>> "Lattimer's tests debunk the SBT." <<<
>
> To a person who thinks day is night and guilty is innocent, maybe. But to
> anyone else, your last comment is just flat-out stupid.
>

I enjoy when blowhards set out to prove a theory and in the process
accidentally disprove it.

>
>>>> You assume things because you can't prove them." <<<
>
> Talk about a Pot/Kettle moment -- this one's a lulu. As if any conspiracy
> theorist has EVER "proved" any of their theories.
>

Oh yeah? I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. Do you dispute
that, Mr. Kettle?

[John Reagor King]

In article <21a82755-a3eb-42ec...@googlegroups.com>,

It appears that I don't, at least not what you think. And I notice you
totally ignored what I said regarding your sweeping generalization about
witnesses not perceiving direction until the final shot. I say again that
that idea would still undermine your argument as, while it wouldn't
necessarily support the idea that the witnesses meant all the shots came
from the same direction, it also doesn't support the idea of different
directions either if they can't be relied upon to know what direction the
earlier shots came from anyway. Do you see the obvious flaw in your
reasoning now?

And the other flaw is that no sweeping generalization like that is ever
going to be true of such a large group of people. Common sense would
indicate that some people will recognize direction immediately with the
first shot. Others will not perceive it until the second shot. Others
will not perceive it until the final shot. Others will never be sure of
any direction at all.

I say again: it is ill-advised to put words into witnesses' mouths on a
matter such as this. You did not specifically quote more than a tiny
number of witnesses on your website as *specifically* saying that the
shots sounded as if they came from multiple directions. Thus it is
unreasonable for you to make the argument that a much larger number meant
that "only" the final shot came from west of their location, when not
nearly as many as you imply specifically *said* that.

> From patspeer.com, chapter 11.

Yes, I've read that. But none of that addresses two crucial points:

1. The bullet's velocity had been slowed so much that it only penetrated
a little way into Connally's thigh. Would it have been slowed enough by
going through his torso and wrist only?

2. It is blindingly obvious that both JFK and Connally jerk violently at
precisely the same instant, beginning in Z226. You just can't make that
go away, as it has been preserved for all posterity and it's all over
the Internet by now.

> Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia,
> 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a
> bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication
> that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer.

I'm sorry, but I find that any claim of a silencer is just too convenient.
For example, when people claim that more than three shots were fired, and
then are confronted with the vast majority of the witnesses saying that
three or *fewer* shots were heard, all they have to do to get out of that
is claim use of a gun with a silencer. They can do exactly the same thing
when confronted with the fact that only a tiny minority of witnesses
specifically said that the shots sounded as if they came from multiple
directions, and the closest witnesses to the grassy knoll said nothing
about any shot sounding much louder and closer to them than the other
shots. Oh, but it was a silencer, and then one can wriggle out of that.

> As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's
> and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the
> wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the
> program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45
> mm.
>
> Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Naturally no recreation, no matter how closely they try to match the
original circumstances, can ever perfectly replicate the precise degree of
tumbling or yawing of the bullet that occurred in the original event.
There will always be too many minute factors that are unknown. Just one
example would be the precise velocity of the bullet when first fired out
of the muzzle. It is not even slightly uncommon for two different
bullets, even out of the same batch from the same manufacturer, to have
slightly different degrees of explosive charge. No two bullets will be
precisely the same, even when fired out of the same weapon. Also no
replication will ever perfectly duplicate the precise variations in
density and tension in Kennedy's neck, as there is no possible way to ever
know which muscles were contracting to what degree as the bullet was
passing through him. And Discovery did not use a living person, for
obvious reasons. And for that reason alone no recreation will ever be
perfect.

Ever.

[John Reagor King]

In article <826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
> Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
> Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
> something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
> bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
> difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
> others were not.

There's a lot more to this than just the shape of the entry in Connally's
back. What about both men jerking violently beginning in exactly the same
frame, Z226? What about the bullet having so little velocity by the time
it hit Connally's thigh that it penetrated only a very short way?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You can slip things past the moderators if you know big words." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure Tony. "Posterior" is such a humongous and obscure word. I'm
nearly positive that Professor McAdams has never heard that word before in
his entire life.

>>> "But then it can zig and zag in Connally. No other SBT did that
before." <<<

And no SBT does this now. And Bugliosi never once said the bullet had to
"zig and zag" in order to get from JFK's throat to Connally's upper back.
In fact, as I stressed previously, Bugliosi said the exact opposite. So,
you're just making shit up (again).

And any deflection in the bullet path AFTER it gets into Connally's upper
back is irrelevant to any "SBT" discussion. The bullet, in fact, almost
certainly WAS deflected to some degree and changed course from a
17.72-degree downward angle when it entered Connally's back to a steeper
25-degree (approx.) downward angle as it coursed along the rib of
Connally. We know that happened. But so what? It doesn't matter one bit,
because once the bullet gets into the second victim (JBC), the SBT bullet
then followed its ultimate path until it was "spent" in JBC's thigh.

And we know that Connally was struck by ONLY ONE BULLET. His own doctor
(Shaw) stated that "one bullet" very likely caused all of the Governor's
wounds. And Shaw made that "one bullet" statement within just hours of the
shooting on November 22.

Now, Tony, argue with me incessantly about how I can never "prove" that
Gov. John B. Connally of Texas was struck by "ONLY ONE BULLET". Tell me
I'm full of shit when I say such a thing. I want to hear you embarrass
yourself further. (Similar to last week's embarrassment, when you insisted
that I don't even know how to spell my own name.)

[Anthony Marsh]

More likely a very tiny lead core fragment.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your sweeping generalization is not true. The Army did tests and found
that varying conditions will influence how people perceive where a shot
came from.
The HSCA did listening tests which you have not bothered to read.

> I say again: it is ill-advised to put words into witnesses' mouths on a
> matter such as this. You did not specifically quote more than a tiny
> number of witnesses on your website as *specifically* saying that the
> shots sounded as if they came from multiple directions. Thus it is
> unreasonable for you to make the argument that a much larger number meant
> that "only" the final shot came from west of their location, when not
> nearly as many as you imply specifically *said* that.
>

Why have you not yet written a book specifically and only about the
witnesses? Too lazy.

>> From patspeer.com, chapter 11.
>
> Yes, I've read that. But none of that addresses two crucial points:
>
> 1. The bullet's velocity had been slowed so much that it only penetrated
> a little way into Connally's thigh. Would it have been slowed enough by
> going through his torso and wrist only?
>

Probably. You don't know.

> 2. It is blindingly obvious that both JFK and Connally jerk violently at
> precisely the same instant, beginning in Z226. You just can't make that
> go away, as it has been preserved for all posterity and it's all over
> the Internet by now.
>

Connally saw that he reacted to being hit at Z-230. Kennedy had already
reacted by the time we see him emerge from behind the sign.

>> Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia,
>> 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a
>> bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication
>> that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer.
>
> I'm sorry, but I find that any claim of a silencer is just too convenient.

A silencer is not the only possible cause.

> For example, when people claim that more than three shots were fired, and
> then are confronted with the vast majority of the witnesses saying that
> three or *fewer* shots were heard, all they have to do to get out of that
> is claim use of a gun with a silencer. They can do exactly the same thing

No, people are reporting hearing 4 or more LOUD shots.

> when confronted with the fact that only a tiny minority of witnesses
> specifically said that the shots sounded as if they came from multiple
> directions, and the closest witnesses to the grassy knoll said nothing
> about any shot sounding much louder and closer to them than the other
> shots. Oh, but it was a silencer, and then one can wriggle out of that.
>

They don't have to specify louder or closer. Only you think they do.

>> As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's
>> and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the
>> wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the
>> program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45
>> mm.
>>
>> Ovoid? Oy Vey!
>
> Naturally no recreation, no matter how closely they try to match the
> original circumstances, can ever perfectly replicate the precise degree of
> tumbling or yawing of the bullet that occurred in the original event.
> There will always be too many minute factors that are unknown. Just one
> example would be the precise velocity of the bullet when first fired out
> of the muzzle. It is not even slightly uncommon for two different
> bullets, even out of the same batch from the same manufacturer, to have
> slightly different degrees of explosive charge. No two bullets will be

That was tested why White Laboratories using Oswald's rifle and ammo and
we know the average and the range of deviation.

> precisely the same, even when fired out of the same weapon. Also no
> replication will ever perfectly duplicate the precise variations in
> density and tension in Kennedy's neck, as there is no possible way to ever
> know which muscles were contracting to what degree as the bullet was
> passing through him. And Discovery did not use a living person, for
> obvious reasons. And for that reason alone no recreation will ever be
> perfect.
>

Now you are getting just plain silly. Why don't you also complain that
they didn't duplicate the temperature and the humidity? Or that they
were at the wrong altitude. There is a word for what you are doing, but
I am not allowed to say it.

> Ever.
>

[Herbert Blenner]

On Oct 22, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

[snip by HB]

> The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:
>
> The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to
> be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly
> the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the
> back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the
> entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-
> shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/
> south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width
> of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and
> is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the
> measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice
> but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't
> look that egg-shaped to me):
>

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

>
> So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound
> being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper
> back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling
> when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head
> was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet
> almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of
> Kennedy's head.
>
> So the retort made by CTers over the years has been --- Why are you so
> certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you
> certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had
> NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that
> was the exact same size?

Knowledgeable people explain that the shapes of President Kennedy’s
scalp wound and Governor Connally’s back wound were elliptical. This
match shows that both bullets were not “tumbling” when they entered
the victims. Instead the long axes of the missiles were aligned with
their direction of motions when they tangentially entered Kennedy and
Connally.

>
> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Professionals have the answer. The spatial orientation, not the
possible, of the struck victim and the direction of the tangentially
striking bullet determine the dimensions of the wound when
elliptical.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/holegeometry.jpg

>
> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>
> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute
> angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
> Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left
> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of
> Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
> direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

The location of Connally’s back wound is disputed. Dr. Shaw placed the
wound between the right backbone and the nearer armpit. This position
causes a problem for an exit beneath and the right nipple since the
back at the position of entry is nearly parallel to the flat of the
back.

Based upon the Connally’s jacket, the FPP placed the entry wound in
the right armpit. This location has surfaces whose directions differ
substantially from the direction of the flat of the back. So a bullet
on a straight course for exit below the right nipple could strike the
armpit at a huge angle of incidence and produce an elongated
elliptical wound. Further the wound on the interior surface of the
armpit would be elongated in the transverse (horizontal) direct while
a wound on the superior surface of the armpit would have longitudinal
(vertical) elongation. Obvious a strike upon the arch that joins the
inner and superior surface of the armpit would have a diagonal
elongation.

>
> "Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a
> relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of
> Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit.
> In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility
> that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet
> striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7
> HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report,
> April 22, 1964, p.3)
>
> "However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a
> bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and
> proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know
> from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the
> moment of impact.

A straight path through Connally’s torso required that he was turned
slightly to his left for the wound locations reported by Dr. Shaw.
Moving the back wound to the armpit changes the necessary orientation
of Connally from facing slightly left to facing nearly forward.

>
> "Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be
> very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an
> angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would
> explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat,
> which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the
> tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately
> two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an
> entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an
> inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s
> throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in
> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>

Bugliosi is confused. The incidence angle of the bullet that struck
Connally’s back depends upon the trajectory of the bullet in space and
the direction of the perpendicular to the point of impact. This latter
direction which may differ substantially from the direction of the
flat of the back is what is missed by Bugliosi.

Herbert

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Kennedy reacts shortly after Z-190. Connally saw that in 64. And the HSCA
photography panel confirmed it in 78. The "both men react at the exact
same time" argument is deliberate smoke, IMO. If you research Dale Myers'
animation, you'll find that he only simulated 1 out of every 9 frames
during the time period the HSCA concluded Kennedy was hit. This, in
effect, smoothed out the hurky-jerky movements by Kennedy in the Zapruder
film that the HSCA found so compelling. My! What a coinky-dink!

[Herbert Blenner]

On Oct 23, 8:25 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>,
>

>  "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
> > Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
> > Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
> > something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
> > bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
> > difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
> > others were not.
>
> There's a lot more to this than just the shape of the entry in Connally's
> back.

I agree. Michael Baden directed Ida Dox to produce graphics which
contradicted the verbal description of the relationship between a
“tumbling” bullet and the virtually rectangular shape of its wound.

In particular the HSCA published a graphic showing an entry by a

yawing bullet with the wound made by a tangential entry.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic1.jpg

A second drawing of a tangential entry by a bullet accompanied by an
insert of a wound made by a bullet with a considerable yaw angle
completed their deception.

http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic2.jpg

The HSCA used a self-proclaimed expert who could not do high-school
physics to testify that a yawed bullet makes an elliptical hole.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0213b.htm

Mr. STURDIVAN. As I recall from reviewing the same material that the
forensic pathologists reviewed, the entry hole had been excised and
destroyed by the surgeons at Parkland Memorial, but that a subsequent
description of that hole was given which, as I recall, was elliptical,
and in attempting to make a drawing of the shape of that hole, the
surgeon drew an ellipse on a piece of paper. The ellipse that was
drawn measured 8 millimeters by 15 millimeters. However, I am not sure
that indicated the size of the hole so much as the elliptical shape.
Mr. FITHIAN. So, is it your judgment, then, that the bullet had to
have struck something else and was tumbling when it hit Governor
Connally?
Mr. STURDIVAN. If it indeed had the shape that was described, then it
would have to have been yawed and having been yawed, it would require
that it struck something else before it struck the Governor.
Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you.

I wonder whether you demote the importance of the shape of Connally’s
back wound because I exposed the HSCA misrepresenting the
relationships between the motions of an entering bullet and the shapes
of the wounds?

Herbert

[pjsp...@aol.com]

They don't need to specifically say it. It's implicit in the statements and behavior of the witnesses. How many looked back toward Houston and Elm after the first sound? Only a few. These witnesses--Rosemary Willis, Brennan, the SS agents--claimed they'd thought the first sound came from that direction. And yet a large number of those not making such a claim or turning their heads after the first sound thought the last sound or sounds came from west of the TSBD. You would have us believe it's just a coincidence that those turning their heads (or racing their motorcycles a la Baker) after the first sound thought the shots came from the vicinity of the TSBD, while many if not most of those failing to react until the second burst thought the shots came from the vicinity of the knoll. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's never been demonstrated, for that matter, that witnesses hearing a volley of shots would readily identify the direction of each sound individually, or whether they would operate, for the most part, under the assumption the sounds were coming from the same place. I suspect the latter. Feel free to point me to RESEARCH indicating otherwise.

As far as your griping about silencers...the use of subsonic ammunition and silencers was not a novelty, as you seem to suspect, but an established tactic taught by the CIA in its manual on assassination. The use of long-fused firecrackers as diversionary devices was an established tactic used by snipers in WWII. There is no reason to think an assassination team would refrain from using these tactics.

[Anthony Marsh]

What hurky-jerky movement did the HSCA document in frames 210-224 and
please site their discussion of those frames?

[Anthony Marsh]

> Knowledgeable people explain that the shapes of President Kennedy�s
> scalp wound and Governor Connally�s back wound were elliptical. This
> match shows that both bullets were not �tumbling� when they entered

> the victims. Instead the long axes of the missiles were aligned with
> their direction of motions when they tangentially entered Kennedy and
> Connally.
>
>>
>> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
>> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
>> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.
>
> Professionals have the answer. The spatial orientation, not the
> possible, of the struck victim and the direction of the tangentially
> striking bullet determine the dimensions of the wound when
> elliptical.
>
> http://hdblenner.com/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>
>>
>> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>>
>> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute

>> angle�as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
>> Connally's back]�from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
>> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy�s and Connally�s left

>> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of

>> Connally�s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
>> direction immediately after entering the governor�s body.
>
> The location of Connally�s back wound is disputed. Dr. Shaw placed the

> wound between the right backbone and the nearer armpit. This position
> causes a problem for an exit beneath and the right nipple since the
> back at the position of entry is nearly parallel to the flat of the
> back.
>

> Based upon the Connally�s jacket, the FPP placed the entry wound in

> the right armpit. This location has surfaces whose directions differ

As Robert Groden showed, the entrance hole was in Connally's right
sleeve, not on the back of the jacket.

> substantially from the direction of the flat of the back. So a bullet
> on a straight course for exit below the right nipple could strike the
> armpit at a huge angle of incidence and produce an elongated
> elliptical wound. Further the wound on the interior surface of the
> armpit would be elongated in the transverse (horizontal) direct while
> a wound on the superior surface of the armpit would have longitudinal
> (vertical) elongation. Obvious a strike upon the arch that joins the
> inner and superior surface of the armpit would have a diagonal
> elongation.
>

Something like that.

>
>>
>> "Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a
>> relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of

>> Connally�s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit.

>> In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility
>> that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet
>> striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7
>> HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report,
>> April 22, 1964, p.3)
>>
>> "However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a

>> bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy�s throat and
>> proceeding on a straight line into Connally�s body, which, we know

>> from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the
>> moment of impact.
>

> A straight path through Connally�s torso required that he was turned

> slightly to his left for the wound locations reported by Dr. Shaw.
> Moving the back wound to the armpit changes the necessary orientation
> of Connally from facing slightly left to facing nearly forward.
>
>>
>> "Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be
>> very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an
>> angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would

>> explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy�s throat,

>> which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the
>> tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately
>> two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an

>> entrance wound to Connally�s back that was around six-tenths of an
>> inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy�s

>> throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in
>> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>
>
> Bugliosi is confused. The incidence angle of the bullet that struck

> Connally�s back depends upon the trajectory of the bullet in space and

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2012 11:41 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "You can slip things past the moderators if you know big words." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Oh, sure Tony. "Posterior" is such a humongous and obscure word. I'm
> nearly positive that Professor McAdams has never heard that word before in
> his entire life.
>

WHo said that it was McAdams who passed the message?

>
>>>> "But then it can zig and zag in Connally. No other SBT did that
> before." <<<
>
> And no SBT does this now. And Bugliosi never once said the bullet had to
> "zig and zag" in order to get from JFK's throat to Connally's upper back.

Lots of SBTs make zigs and zags now. You are arguing in favor of zigs
and zags. Again, did you look at Free Frank Warner's diagrams?

> In fact, as I stressed previously, Bugliosi said the exact opposite. So,
> you're just making shit up (again).
>

Said what. Bugliosi is chickenshit. He wasn't even brave enough to make up
his mind if the SBT frame was 210 or 224. Someone else drew his diagram.
Consensus by committee.

> And any deflection in the bullet path AFTER it gets into Connally's upper
> back is irrelevant to any "SBT" discussion. The bullet, in fact, almost

I'm glad you say that because it opens the door to a modified SBT where
the bullet only went through Kennedy and Connally's torsos and then
another bullet hit Connally's wrist.

Dale Myers was not brave enough to show the complete paths of his bullets.
Again look at how Free Frank Warner had the SBT shot go through Connally's
thumb. Clean up your own house before you go around criticizing others.

> certainly WAS deflected to some degree and changed course from a
> 17.72-degree downward angle when it entered Connally's back to a steeper
> 25-degree (approx.) downward angle as it coursed along the rib of
> Connally. We know that happened. But so what? It doesn't matter one bit,
> because once the bullet gets into the second victim (JBC), the SBT bullet
> then followed its ultimate path until it was "spent" in JBC's thigh.
>

So you DO believe in zigs and zags. But you say that conspiracy
believers are not allowed to.

> And we know that Connally was struck by ONLY ONE BULLET. His own doctor
> (Shaw) stated that "one bullet" very likely caused all of the Governor's
> wounds. And Shaw made that "one bullet" statement within just hours of the
> shooting on November 22.
>

No, we don't. Other doctors thought it could have been two bullets.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "It's implicit in the statements and behavior of the witnesses. How
many looked back toward Houston and Elm after the first sound? Only a
few." <<<

Pat,

The big (huge!) difference is:

There was CORROBORATING EVIDENCE (shells, rifle, Sniper's Nest) in the
place where the witnesses looked to their rear.

Doesn't the corroborating PHYSICAL evidence on the sixth floor of the
TSBD mean anything to conspiracists? Is it just totally ignored? Along
with Prof. McAdams' pie charts, which indicate, with near unanimity,
that ALL of the shots came from just ONE single direction:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Location-Of-Shots.jpg

[John Fiorentino]

Spear:

I can tell right now that Dr. Lattimer's experiments were all above board
and meticulously documented.

I think its despicable when someone is called a "liar" who isn't.
Especially a dead man.

John F.



"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com...

[Herbert Blenner]

> > Knowledgeable people explain that the shapes of President Kennedy’s
> > scalp wound and Governor Connally’s back wound were elliptical. This
> > match shows that both bullets were not “tumbling” when they entered

> > the victims. Instead the long axes of the missiles were aligned with
> > their direction of motions when they tangentially entered Kennedy and
> > Connally.
>
> >> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
> >> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
> >> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.
>
> > Professionals have the answer. The spatial orientation, not the
> > possible, of the struck victim and the direction of the tangentially
> > striking bullet determine the dimensions of the wound when
> > elliptical.
>
> >http://hdblenner.com/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>
> >> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>
> >> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute

> >> angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
> >> Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
> >> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left

> >> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of

> >> Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
> >> direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.
>
> > The location of Connally’s back wound is disputed. Dr. Shaw placed the

> > wound between the right backbone and the nearer armpit. This position
> > causes a problem for an exit beneath and the right nipple since the
> > back at the position of entry is nearly parallel to the flat of the
> > back.
>

> > Based upon the Connally’s jacket, the FPP placed the entry wound in

> > the right armpit. This location has surfaces whose directions differ
>
> As Robert Groden showed, the entrance hole was in Connally's right
> sleeve, not on the back of the jacket.

As Robert Frazier testified the transverse angles measured from the
jacket and the shirt had different values which were substantially
larger than the approximate 20-degree declination angle of the bullet.
These results show the uselessness of the Governor Connally’s clothing
to determine trajectory angles of the bullet through his body.

Source: - Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13,
1964 - 5H, 72

Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified
as that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there any
observable angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the
Governor’s coat to the front side of the Governor’s coat?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir ; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward
angle.
Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from -
Mr. FRAZIER. That is -
Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back?
Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor’s shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or
slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front
of the Governor’s shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward
from back towards the front.

Doctor Shaw examined Governor Connally and measured a 25-degree transverse
angle. He signed a document that placed the entry wound in the back
between the right shoulder blade and the nearer armpit. This document
gives a 11-degree sagittal (right to left) angle through the body.

Herbert

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You are arguing in favor of zigs and zags." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I am certainly not.

I am not purporting some crazy zigging & zagging bullet going from
Kennedy's NECK to Connally's BACK. And that's what most CTers seem to
think MUST happen (a zagging bullet) in order for the SBT to be true. A la
Oliver Stone's movie. But such a theory is provably wrong.

Yes, the bullet almost certainly changed direction AFTER it got into
Connally's body. But, IMO, that's a "so what?" and "who cares?" situation.
Once the bullet goes from JFK to JBC (on a straight path, not zigging or
zagging), the work is pert-near done (from the POV of -- one bullet can
travel from Kennedy & into Connally on a straight- line path).

>>> "No, we don't. Other doctors thought it could have been two bullets."
<<<

Where's the other bullet then, Tony? Why isn't it in the National
Archives?

Answer (of course):

There was no second bullet to put into the Archives, because Gov. Connally
(just like Dr. Shaw said on Nov. 22) was struck by just "one bullet".

[claviger]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. Any hunter, cop, or
combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through
wounds are nothing new. The SBT has been proved conclusively using the
Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a
long time ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

And according to your logic the exact angles do not matter. As long as
Connally is seated somewhere in front of Kennedy.


The Austrlian test disproved the SBT. Arlen Specter disproved the SBT
when he held that surveyor's rod ABOVE JFK's shoulder.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2012 10:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "You are arguing in favor of zigs and zags." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> No, I am certainly not.
>
> I am not purporting some crazy zigging & zagging bullet going from
> Kennedy's NECK to Connally's BACK. And that's what most CTers seem to
> think MUST happen (a zagging bullet) in order for the SBT to be true. A la
> Oliver Stone's movie. But such a theory is provably wrong.
>

You seem perpetually confused. We only say that to make fun of the WC.

> Yes, the bullet almost certainly changed direction AFTER it got into
> Connally's body. But, IMO, that's a "so what?" and "who cares?" situation.
> Once the bullet goes from JFK to JBC (on a straight path, not zigging or
> zagging), the work is pert-near done (from the POV of -- one bullet can
> travel from Kennedy & into Connally on a straight- line path).
>

Prove your straight line from JFK to Connally. I have shown that a
straight line would hit Connally too far to the left of his back wound.

>
>>>> "No, we don't. Other doctors thought it could have been two bullets."
> <<<
>
> Where's the other bullet then, Tony? Why isn't it in the National
> Archives?
>

Found on the floor of the limo as two large pieces. You certainly don't
prove where the rest of the broken bullet(s) went so don't demand that
of me.

> Answer (of course):
>
> There was no second bullet to put into the Archives, because Gov. Connally
> (just like Dr. Shaw said on Nov. 22) was struck by just "one bullet".
>

He said he wasn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> Knowledgeable people explain that the shapes of President Kennedy?s
>>> scalp wound and Governor Connally?s back wound were elliptical. This
>>> match shows that both bullets were not ?tumbling? when they entered

>>> the victims. Instead the long axes of the missiles were aligned with
>>> their direction of motions when they tangentially entered Kennedy and
>>> Connally.
>>
>>>> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
>>>> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
>>>> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.
>>
>>> Professionals have the answer. The spatial orientation, not the
>>> possible, of the struck victim and the direction of the tangentially
>>> striking bullet determine the dimensions of the wound when
>>> elliptical.
>>
>>> http://hdblenner.com/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>>
>>>> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>>
>>>> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute

>>>> angle?as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
>>>> Connally's back]?from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
>>>> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy?s and Connally?s left

>>>> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of

>>>> Connally?s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
>>>> direction immediately after entering the governor?s body.
>>
>>> The location of Connally?s back wound is disputed. Dr. Shaw placed the

>>> wound between the right backbone and the nearer armpit. This position
>>> causes a problem for an exit beneath and the right nipple since the
>>> back at the position of entry is nearly parallel to the flat of the
>>> back.
>>

>>> Based upon the Connally?s jacket, the FPP placed the entry wound in

>>> the right armpit. This location has surfaces whose directions differ
>>
>> As Robert Groden showed, the entrance hole was in Connally's right
>> sleeve, not on the back of the jacket.
>
> As Robert Frazier testified the transverse angles measured from the
> jacket and the shirt had different values which were substantially
> larger than the approximate 20-degree declination angle of the bullet.

> These results show the uselessness of the Governor Connally?s clothing

> to determine trajectory angles of the bullet through his body.
>
> Source: - Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13,
> 1964 - 5H, 72
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified
> as that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there any
> observable angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the

> Governor?s coat to the front side of the Governor?s coat?

> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir ; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward
> angle.
> Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from -
> Mr. FRAZIER. That is -
> Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back?
> Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front.

> Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor?s shirt?

> Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or
> slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.
> Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front

> of the Governor?s shirt?

> Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward
> from back towards the front.
>
> Doctor Shaw examined Governor Connally and measured a 25-degree transverse
> angle. He signed a document that placed the entry wound in the back
> between the right shoulder blade and the nearer armpit. This document
> gives a 11-degree sagittal (right to left) angle through the body.
>
> Herbert
>

As usual you ignore what I said and change the subject because you can't
deal with reality.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2012 10:20 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Spear:
>
> I can tell right now that Dr. Lattimer's experiments were all above
> board and meticulously documented.
>
> I think its despicable when someone is called a "liar" who isn't.
> Especially a dead man.
>
> John F.
>

So you don't think he could make a simple mistake? I called him a liar
when he was alive and he didn't sue me. But he did admit that his rifle
did not have the serial number C2766 as he wrote in his book. Do you
understand why it couldn't??

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

After first studying the autopsy photos, Lattimer claimed the back wound was higher than the wound depicted in the Rydberg drawings. This was ludicrous. Like Neil Armstrong saying the moon really was made of cheese. When the HSCA contradicted him on this, moreover, he doubled down, and released a book in which he repeated his claims. I've seen video of him, in fact, claiming that the back wound--which he acknowledges was several inches below JFK's shoulder line--was nevertheless at the level of Kennedy's chin. He was thereby stating that Kennedy's shoulder line was several inches above his chin. Think about that. Look at a picture of Kennedy. Look at a picture of anyone. And then understand how absolutely bonkers or dishonest someone would have to be to make such a claim.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, it means that they framed him. Doesn't the presence of the French
note found in the German Wmbasssy prove that he was the Traitor? Why
yes, the court ruled that it did and convicted him of Treason. Then a
new investigation found that the real Traitors forged the documents used
to convict him.

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony:

First off, it was a *TYPO*..............YOU ever heard the word???

I mean, your manners are atrocious. Ever thought of charm school?

I'm sure your parents taught you better.......Just where did you go wrong?

Re: C2766, I didn't just fall off the back of a tomato truck pal.

"understand why it couldn't??"

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5088c229$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Speare sends this to my personal e-mail:

"After first studying the autopsy photos, Lattimer claimed the back wound
was higher than the wound depicted in the Rydberg drawings. This was
ludicrous. Like Neil Armstrong saying the moon really was made of cheese.
When the HSCA contradicted him on this, moreover, he doubled down, and
released a book in which he repeated his claims. I've seen video of him,
in fact, claiming that the back wound--which he acknowledges was several
inches below JFK's shoulder line--was nevertheless at the level of
Kennedy's chin. He was thereby stating that Kennedy's shoulder line was
several inches above his chin. Think about that. Look at a picture of
Kennedy. Look at a picture of anyone. And then understand how absolutely
bonkers or dishonest someone would have to be to make such a claim."

I sent this response back to him:

Speare:

I personally worked with him on many occasions. He wrote the intro to my
book.

You're all wet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(new for this post)

Do me a favor and please don't send anymore crap to me personally. Post it
on the n/g if you want to make a fool of yourself.

BTW, there was no shot at z-190. It's a photographic artifact. I've
studied the film and included it in my manuscript.


John F.

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:87dc2af7-4006-4ddb...@googlegroups.com...

[Bud]

On Oct 25, 5:13 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:20:24 PM UTC-7, John Fiorentino wrote:
> > Spear:
>
> > I can tell right now that Dr. Lattimer's experiments were all above board
>
> > and meticulously documented.
>
> > I think its despicable when someone is called a "liar" who isn't.
>
> > Especially a dead man.
>
> > John F.
>

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

>
> >news:826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:40:21 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>

> > > On 20 Oct 2012 20:33:32 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>

> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&...

>
> > > This sort of thing isn't worthy of you.  You are not Mark Lane.
>
> > Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
>
> > Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
>
> > Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
>
> > something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
>
> > bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
>
> > difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
>
> > others were not.
>
>

After first studying the autopsy photos, Lattimer claimed the back wound
was higher than the wound depicted in the Rydberg drawings. This was
ludicrous. Like Neil Armstrong saying the moon really was made of cheese.
When the HSCA contradicted him on this, moreover, he doubled down, and
released a book in which he repeated his claims. I've seen video of him,
in fact, claiming that the back wound--which he acknowledges was several
inches below JFK's shoulder line--was nevertheless at the level of
Kennedy's chin. He was thereby stating that Kennedy's shoulder line was
several inches above his chin. Think about that. Look at a picture of
Kennedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

His chin looks to be several inches below his shoulder line in the
photo on this page. In fact in almost every photo.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2012 9:52 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Speare sends this to my personal e-mail:
>
>
> "After first studying the autopsy photos, Lattimer claimed the back
> wound was higher than the wound depicted in the Rydberg drawings. This
> was ludicrous. Like Neil Armstrong saying the moon really was made of
> cheese. When the HSCA contradicted him on this, moreover, he doubled
> down, and released a book in which he repeated his claims. I've seen
> video of him, in fact, claiming that the back wound--which he
> acknowledges was several inches below JFK's shoulder line--was
> nevertheless at the level of Kennedy's chin. He was thereby stating that
> Kennedy's shoulder line was several inches above his chin. Think about
> that. Look at a picture of Kennedy. Look at a picture of anyone. And
> then understand how absolutely bonkers or dishonest someone would have
> to be to make such a claim."
>
> I sent this response back to him:
>
> Speare:
>
> I personally worked with him on many occasions. He wrote the intro to my
> book.
>
> You're all wet.

Obviously you never bothered reading his book and did not see his
diagram which makes JFK into a hunchback.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2012 9:51 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony:
>
> First off, it was a *TYPO*..............YOU ever heard the word???
>

It was not a typo. It was an proofreading error. Did you think he meant
to type C3766?
He admitted his error in a letter which you did not bother to read.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/lattimerreriflenoerror3.jpg

> I mean, your manners are atrocious. Ever thought of charm school?
>

Boo Hoo. Someone's picking on you. Go cry to McAdams.

> I'm sure your parents taught you better.......Just where did you go wrong?
>
> Re: C2766, I didn't just fall off the back of a tomato truck pal.
>

Yes, you did.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

LOL. This is pretty funny. I DID NOT SEND THAT EMAIL TO YOU! Presumably,
someone else did because they couldn't stomach my getting the better of
you. So tell us, John. Who was your little helper?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You're joking, right? The shoulder line is not where the collar meets the
neck.

The photo on the left side of the image below was taken on the morning of
the 22nd. It's hard to see how a bullet entering at the level of Kennedy's
chin could leave a hole inches below his shoulder line.

http://www.patspeer.com/endoftheline2.jpg

[Herbert Blenner]

> deal with reality.- Hide quoted text -
>

I am not surprised that you ignored the evidence that proves the
uselessness of clothing in determining the trajectory angles of the bullet
through Governor Connally’s body. In reality you lack what it takes to
deal with the 35-degree transverse angle or the 20-degree sagittal angle
through the jacket. In fact, I suspect you do not know how these angles
differ from the trajectory angles of the bullet.

Herbert

[John Fiorentino]

NOW Speare claims the following, again sent to me personally:

"LOL. This is pretty funny. I DID NOT SEND THAT EMAIL TO YOU! Presumably,
someone else did because they couldn't stomach my getting the better of
you. So tell us, John. Who was your little helper?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's the msg source on his first e-mail:

Return-path: <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
Path: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Received: from mta20.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
(mta20.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.114]) by mstr29.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-9.20 (built Jul 15 2010))
with ESMTP id <0MCF005X...@mstr29.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
jefior...@optimum.net; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:39:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-da0-f60.google.com
(mail-da0-f60.google.com [209.85.210.60]) by mta20.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007))
with ESMTP id <0MCF00DR...@mta20.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
jefior...@optimum.net (ORCPT jefior...@optimum.net); Thu,
25 Oct 2012 03:39:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-da0-f60.google.com with SMTP id e7so1158393dad.25 for
<jefior...@optimum.net>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.223.229 with SMTP id qx5mr5588035pbc.15.1351150791625;
Thu,
25 Oct 2012 00:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter dies
In-reply-to: <508861aa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
To: alt.assass...@googlegroups.com
Cc: John Fiorentino <jefior...@optimum.net>
Message-id: <379c3ac8-f0e3-4edd...@googlegroups.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=76.87.119.34;
posting-account=qDxz-AoAAAAGHKb10gUasuGMD77QXJ74
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-IP: 76.87.119.34
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
NNTP-posting-host: 76.87.119.34
References: <6t2m7819u4jcr84gi...@4ax.com>
<2a6c6f96-5a28-4ea4...@googlegroups.com>
<10h6881k7nb9dcsq4...@4ax.com>
<826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>
<508861aa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Original-recipient: rfc822;jefior...@optimum.net
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 2013.0.2741 [2617/5852]
X-AVG-ID: ID55878FEF-3BE0691B
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have NO "helpers" Speare, perhaps you've lost touch with reality?

John F.



"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:5089a7e9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Bud:

Don't expect to get a lucid reply from Speer, or Speare, I haven't figured
out which yet.

John F.




"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:a6afdca6-212a-42d5...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

[Bud]

I thought you were. I could produce a dozen photos of Kennedy with
his chin beneath his shoulder line.

>  The shoulder line is not where the collar meets the
> neck.

According to tailors it is...

http://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2009/09/constructing-pagoda-shoulder-part-1.html

The upper green line in the illustration.

> The photo on the left side of the image below was taken on the morning of
> the 22nd. It's hard to see how a bullet entering at the level of Kennedy's
> chin could leave a hole inches below his shoulder line.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/endoftheline2.jpg

Ignore the clothing and look at the hole in Kennedy`s back.
Doubtless the hole in the clothing matched that at the time of the
shooting.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not my problem, man. I said nothing about the actual angle through the
torso. This was about the angle from JFK's throat to Connally's wound. I
added the point that many people were falsely assuming that Connally's
wound was on the flat of his back.

[Anthony Marsh]

Doubtless? Why should it. The jacket could be bunched up a couple of
inches at the exact time of the shot.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Nonsense. Please provide us one photo of Kennedy standing upright, and anywhere near the anatomic position, where his chin is inches below his shoulder line.

>
>
>
> >  The shoulder line is not where the collar meets the
>
> > neck.
>
>
>
> According to tailors it is...
>
>
>
> http://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2009/09/constructing-pagoda-shoulder-part-1.html
>
>
>
> The upper green line in the illustration.

Yes, by all means look at that illustration. The chin is inches above the location of the wound on Kennedy's back. Please please please demonstrate how Kennedy's back wound could be at such a level.

[John Fiorentino]

Speare says......

"Nonsense. Please provide us one photo of Kennedy standing upright, and
anywhere near the anatomic position, where his chin is inches below his
shoulder line."

I say..........

That's the point Speer. We're concerned with the way JFK was seated when
struck in the back. Not with the "anatomic position."

You and Baden should get together as you both seem enthralled with the
phrase "anatomic position."

John F.



"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:59728a31-da31-4c05...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2012 2:59 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Speare says......
>
> "Nonsense. Please provide us one photo of Kennedy standing upright, and
> anywhere near the anatomic position, where his chin is inches below his
> shoulder line."
>
> I say..........
>
> That's the point Speer. We're concerned with the way JFK was seated when
> struck in the back. Not with the "anatomic position."
>
> You and Baden should get together as you both seem enthralled with the
> phrase "anatomic position."
>
> John F.
>

Anatomical.

Because animals can change orientation with respect to their environment,
and because appendages (arms, legs, tentacles, etc.) can change position
with respect to the main body, it is important that positional descriptive
terms refer to the organism when it is in its standard anatomical
position.

Unlike the situation in zootomy, standard anatomical position is rigidly
defined for human anatomy. As with other vertebrates, the human body is
standing erect and at rest. Unlike the situation in other vertebrates, the
limbs are placed in positions reminiscent of the supine position imposed
on cadavers during autopsy. Therefore, the body has its feet together (or
slightly separated), and its arms are rotated outward so that the palms
are forward, and the thumbs are pointed away from the body (forearms
supine). As well, the arms are usually moved slightly out from the body,
so that the hands do not touch the sides.[1][2] The positions of the limbs
(and the arms in particular) have important implications for directional
terms in those appendages.

[Bud]

Moving the goalpost, aren`t you?

And you don`t think Kennedy was standing when he was shot, do you?

> > >  The shoulder line is not where the collar meets the
>
> > > neck.
>
> >   According to tailors it is...
>

> >    http://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2009/09/constructing-pagoda-shoul...

>
> >   The upper green line in the illustration.
>
> Yes, by all means look at that illustration.

I produced it for you, so you can figure out where the shoulder line
was.

>The chin is inches above the location of the wound on Kennedy's back. Please please please demonstrate how Kennedy's back wound could be at such a level.

Look at the photo...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3323/136/320/JFKbackwound.0.png

The bullet entrance is about 3-4 finger widths down from the crease
in the back of JFK`s neck. Find that crease in your neck, go down four
fingers and hold the spot with a finger from your other hand. The
remove that had and place a finger from it around front where a trach
would be performed. The finger holding the place on your back will be
considerably higher than the finger on your throat.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Speare says......
>
>
>
> "Nonsense. Please provide us one photo of Kennedy standing upright, and
>
> anywhere near the anatomic position, where his chin is inches below his
>
> shoulder line."
>
>
>
> I say..........
>
>
>
> That's the point Speer. We're concerned with the way JFK was seated when
>
> struck in the back. Not with the "anatomic position."
>
>
>
> You and Baden should get together as you both seem enthralled with the
>
> phrase "anatomic position."
>
>
>
> John F.
>

You just don't get it. Your friend Lattimer never said "the back wound
entered Kennedy's back at or below the level of his throat wound, but this
still suggests he was hit from above and behind because the Z-film shows
his back was lifted at this time, and was above the exit wound in his
throat" or anything like that. He said, and pretended till the end, that
the autopsy photos and x-rays showed an entrance wound on Kennedy's back
at the level of his chin, and that the trajectory for this wound channel
was steeper than as shown in the Rydberg drawings.

Are you willing to admit that this was nonsense? Or are you gonna stand by
his nonsense till the end?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Nope. No one can reasonably dispute that the back wound could have been
higher than the throat wound at the moment of the shot should Kennedy have
been leaning sharply forward. The problem is that the autopsy photos prove
that the back wound was not above the throat wound when in the anatomic
position, and LNs have been unable to demonstrate that he was ever leaning
sharply forward enough to make the SBT, or at least their version of the
SBT, possible. Canning's trajectory analysis was a joke; in order to sell
the single-assassin conclusion, he actually pretended Kennedy was leaning
forward before he was shot, then sat up slightly before he was shot in the
head. Dale Myers' animation was also a joke, with bizarre looking models
and roving back wound locations.

>
>
>
> And you don`t think Kennedy was standing when he was shot, do you?
>
>
>
> > > >  The shoulder line is not where the collar meets the
>
> >
>
> > > > neck.
>
> >
>
> > >   According to tailors it is...
>
> >
>
> > >    http://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2009/09/constructing-pagoda-shoul...
>
> >
>
> > >   The upper green line in the illustration.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, by all means look at that illustration.
>
>
>
> I produced it for you, so you can figure out where the shoulder line
>
> was.
>
>
>
> >The chin is inches above the location of the wound on Kennedy's back. Please please please demonstrate how Kennedy's back wound could be at such a level.
>
>
>
> Look at the photo...
>
>
>
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3323/136/320/JFKbackwound.0.png
>
>
>
> The bullet entrance is about 3-4 finger widths down from the crease
>
> in the back of JFK`s neck. Find that crease in your neck, go down four
>
> fingers and hold the spot with a finger from your other hand. The
>
> remove that had and place a finger from it around front where a trach
>
> would be performed. The finger holding the place on your back will be
>
> considerably higher than the finger on your throat.

Nope. They're at the same level. I demonstrate this in part 2 of my video
series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXg98M6lF68

Feel free to make your own video and post a link.

[John Fiorentino]

"Anatomical."


You really don't have much to do, hey Tony.

Anatomical and Anatomic are essentially interchangeable.

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:508c33cb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Bud:

Not particularly scientific, but you are nonetheless correct.

John F.



"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:dd61e8b6-e476-46ea...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Show the cites Spear, and in their correct contexts.

John F.

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:366bb461-f476-4165...@googlegroups.com...

[Bud]

Yes. You suggested that anyone could look at a photo of Kennedy and see
that his chin is not several inches below his shoulder line. I did as you
suggested and found that in almost all the photos of Kennedy I looked at
his chin is several inches below his shoulder line. I even produced an
illustration showing where the shoulder line is, since you seemed to be
confused about this. Now I see you are off on sixteen different tangents
below, and I can only assume if I choose one to pursue you will only
divert from the idea I addressed further.

What prevents you from attempting the simple demonstration I
suggested? You seem to have two hands in the video.

[John Reagor King]

In article <8ec10f86-4864-4217...@googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:25:07 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <21a82755-a3eb-42ec...@googlegroups.com>,

> > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:36:13 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
> > > > In article <3afaa61b-9204-4ae3...@googlegroups.com>,

> > > > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > when
> > > > > the HSCA's psycho-acoustics tests showed that it was easy to tell a
> > > > > shot
> > > > > from above and behind them from a shot from their right.
> >
> > > > No. I have read the HSCA's study on why so many witnesses differed on
> > > > their sense of direction with the sounds, and at least in some places
> > > > in
> > > > that study they attribute the confusion to obvious, everyday, mundane
> > > > aspects of the reflection of sound waves. True, in other places in the
> > > > same document some confusion is also expressed on why the witnesses
> > > > differed so widely, but there is no firm conclusion in the document
> > > > that
> > > > they necessarily would have *all* been able to tell the "true"
> > > > direction
> > > > no matter where they were situated. And even the HSCA failed to notice
> > > > adequately enough how so many witnesses each named only one direction
> > > > for all of the gunfire, even if it was a different direction from other
> > > > witnesses, and how so very few individual witnesses said the gunfire
> > > > sounded as if it came from multiple directions, and from multiple
> > > > distances.
> >
> > > > And again, you are avoiding what I actually said. It is merely your
> > > > *opinion* that so many witnesses recognized direction only by the time
> > > > of the last shot. But that is a sweeping generalization, and like most
> > > > sweeping generalizations, almost always untrue, at least in part. I
> > > > continue to note that you did not on your website *quote* anything even
> > > > remotely close to the "vast majority" of these witnesses *specifically*
> > > > *saying* that *only* the final shot came from west of their location.
> > > > In fact, hardly *any* of them *specifically* said that. What the vast
> > > > majority of them actually said was that ALL the shots came from that
> > > > direction. You are merely *assuming* that they meant "only" the last
> > > > shot.
> >
> > > > In short, you, not I, are putting words into their mouths that they
> > > > never uttered, and you certainly do not *quote* them saying what you
> > > > claim they "meant" on your own website.

> >
> > > It appears you have much to learn.
> >

> > It appears that I don't, at least not what you think. And I notice you
> > totally ignored what I said regarding your sweeping generalization about
> > witnesses not perceiving direction until the final shot. I say again that
> > that idea would still undermine your argument as, while it wouldn't
> > necessarily support the idea that the witnesses meant all the shots came
> > from the same direction, it also doesn't support the idea of different
> > directions either if they can't be relied upon to know what direction the
> > earlier shots came from anyway. Do you see the obvious flaw in your
> > reasoning now?
> >
> > And the other flaw is that no sweeping generalization like that is ever
> > going to be true of such a large group of people. Common sense would
> > indicate that some people will recognize direction immediately with the
> > first shot. Others will not perceive it until the second shot. Others
> > will not perceive it until the final shot. Others will never be sure of
> > any direction at all.
> >
> > I say again: it is ill-advised to put words into witnesses' mouths on a
> > matter such as this. You did not specifically quote more than a tiny
> > number of witnesses on your website as *specifically* saying that the
> > shots sounded as if they came from multiple directions. Thus it is
> > unreasonable for you to make the argument that a much larger number meant
> > that "only" the final shot came from west of their location, when not
> > nearly as many as you imply specifically *said* that.
>
> They don't need to specifically say it. It's implicit in the statements and
> behavior of the witnesses.

I strongly disagree that any such thing is "implicit." You are making an
unfounded assumption, and trying to attribute one single type of
perception to much too large and diverse a group of witnesses. And again,
that very same argument can be turned right around in the opposite way
upon you: if they said nothing *specific* about the earlier shots coming
from a *different* direction from the final shot, then that could be said
to neither dispute OR support shots from multiple directions.

> How many looked back toward Houston and Elm after

> the first sound? Only a few. These witnesses--Rosemary Willis, Brennan, the
> SS agents--claimed they'd thought the first sound came from that direction.

They also claimed that ALL the sounds came from that direction.

And nearly all of the people who said shots came from the grassy knoll
said that ALL the shots came from that direction, or else named no other
direction in their entire statements.

And nearly all of the people who said that shots came from the Triple
Underpass said that ALL the shots came from that direction, or else named
no other direction in their entire statements.

And plenty of the above said that this impression of direction came with
the *first* shot.

> And yet a large number of those not making such a claim or turning their
> heads after the first sound thought the last sound or sounds came from west
> of the TSBD.

Nearly all of whom thought ALL the shots came from that direction.

> You would have us believe it's just a coincidence that those
> turning their heads (or racing their motorcycles a la Baker) after the first
> sound thought the shots came from the vicinity of the TSBD, while many if not
> most of those failing to react until the second burst thought the shots came
> from the vicinity of the knoll.

I am having no one believe any such thing. I am instead simply saying
that depending on where a witness was located, witness A will think all
the sounds are coming from the Dal-Tex building, witness B will think all
the sounds are coming from the TSBD, witness C will think all are coming
from the pergola, witness D will think all are coming from the fence on
the knoll, witness E will think all are coming from the railroad yards,
witness F will think all are coming from the Triple Underpass, and so
forth.

Let's go through just a few examples:

James Jarman thought ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from below
and to the left of the fifth floor window where he was, in other words
below and to the *east*.

Harold Norman thought ALL of the shots came from the floor immediately
above him.

Victoria Adams thought ALL of the shots came from below and to the right
of the fourth floor window where she was, i.e. below and to the *west*.

Mary Woodward thought ALL of the shots came from behind her and slightly
to her right, and she very specifically said that this was her immediate
impression starting with the *first* shot.

Bobby Hargis thought ALL of the shots came from the Triple Underpass.

Marrion Baker thought ALL of the shots came from the roof of the TSBD.

Danny Arce thought ALL of the shots came from the railroad tracks.

Virgie Rachley Baker thought ALL of the shots came from the Triple
Underpass.

> I don't think that's a coincidence. It's
> never been demonstrated, for that matter, that witnesses hearing a volley of
> shots would readily identify the direction of each sound individually, or
> whether they would operate, for the most part, under the assumption the
> sounds were coming from the same place. I suspect the latter. Feel free to
> point me to RESEARCH indicating otherwise.

I'm greatly surprised that you, of all people, would need to be pointed to
any such thing. It is a common, everyday, mundane aspect of the acoustics
of sound that two different people in two different locations can hear the
same sound from the same source, such as a car alarm, for example, and
depending on what is nearby that might be reflecting the sound waves in
various ways, such as buildings, one person will think the sound of the
car alarm might be coming from, let's say, the east end of the parking
lot, whereas the other person will think it is coming from the west end,
even though both are hearing the same car alarm. I would be astonished if
you were to claim that not once in your life have you heard a sound,
initially thought that it came from one direction, then when you
discovered the source of the sound found that it was being produced in a
different location than you initially thought. If you claim such a thing
in any subsequent article, that you have never even once in your life
noticed such a phenomenon, I will truthfully say that you are a very
unusual person. I've noticed it many, many, many times in my life. For
someone to claim that they've "never once" noticed such a thing would
almost be tantamount to claiming they've "never once" seen the sun rise or
set.

I also do have some degree of qualification on this subject. I have
always told the truth here when I have said that I have both a bachelors
and a masters in music, and quite obviously music has a good deal of
relevance to the science of sound. I was even required to take a physics
course in acoustics. I do not claim that this makes me one of the world's
foremost experts in acoustics, but I'm not exactly a blithering idiot in
this subject either, as I have had to use my ears to make my living, if
you take my meaning, having taught music, and performed it, over a period
of many years and several decades. I have also done some extensive work
recently in remastering some old recordings, the two Rings conducted by
Furtw?ngler, which has required me to be quite sensitive to numerous
aspects of sound.

There are all sorts of things which affect the way sound waves travel,
including the temperature of the air, movements of the air, and many other
factors. All sorts of things can affect one's perception of the direction
of origin of any sound. Further variations are caused by reflection of
sound waves off of various objects, structures, etc. and these variations
increase with variations of the type of material, density of material,
shape of material, etc. With buildings lots of factors come into play,
such as whether the side of the building is flat, or whether there are
indentations of any type in the outer walls, such as various types of
architectural design, recesses for doors and windows, columns, and all
sorts of other aspects of shape. The height and width of the building is
also a factor.

Things also change quite dramatically with multiples sounds from multiple
locations. Now you're going to have much more variation in the ways the
sound waves will travel, including the patterns of their reflections.
You'll have a lot more individual people stating specifically that the
sounds came from multiple directions, the more so the farther apart the
sources of the sounds are.

You want research? It's all over the Internet. I found all sorts of
stuff with one simple Google search. I'm astonished that you couldn't
have done that just as easily as me. But for your, and anyone else's
perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_source_localization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/refract/refract.html

http://www.ese.wustl.edu/~nehorai/paper/paper2/ieeetassp90-3.pdf

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/Phy
sics/wavepropagation.htm

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Fundamentals_of_Acoustics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_wave

http://www.fishdsp.com/research/icassp2005.pdf

http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v44/i2/p542_s1?isAuthorized=no

That's just a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the material available. And
I found all this using just a single search on two keywords, and they're
all within the first six pages of matches.

> As far as your griping about silencers...the use of subsonic ammunition and
> silencers was not a novelty, as you seem to suspect,

I never said it was a novelty. I said that this argument can be
considered too convenient for anyone wishing to overcome the overwhelming
majority of witnesses saying that they heard three or few shots and the
tiny minority saying that shots came from multiple directions, and the
stunning lack of physical evidence for a shooter anywhere else besides the
TSBD.

> but an established
> tactic taught by the CIA in its manual on assassination.

It is irrelevant how common or uncommon silencers were by 1963. Where is
the *specific* evidence of their use in *this* assassination? We have the
vast majority saying they heard three or fewer shots, and more saying
three, period, than saying any other number. We have that same number of
shells being found and a rifle on the same floor. We have some degree of
ballistic match. We plainly see both men jerk violently at exactly the
same instant, starting at Z226. If they are indeed reacting to the same
bullet passing through them, that bullet can only come from behind, since
to go through them from the opposite direction would have the gun being
fired from the floorboard in front of them, and that won't work anyway
because there is no thigh exit in Connally, only an entrance. No one sees
anyone firing a weapon except from the TSBD.

> The use of
> long-fused firecrackers as diversionary devices was an established tactic
> used by snipers in WWII. There is no reason to think an assassination team
> would refrain from using these tactics.

"No reason"??? As in "no reason whatsoever"? I rather disagree. If
there actually *was* an assassination "team," perhaps. But where is the
*conclusive* evidence of it? Firecrackers? Are you seriously suggesting
that? To fool this large a majority of this large a number of witnesses
that all the loud sounds came from a single direction, whatever each
individual witness thought that single direction was, then all
firecrackers have to be set off in a single location, or extremely close
to each other. Yet we don't have a single witness saying that they
actually *saw* a *real* firecracker, and I do not recall any evidence of
the remains of any *real* firecracker ever having been found by anyone.
Firecrackers don't disintegrate into nothing when they explode, as I
assume you and every other reader of this newsgroup, including the ones
who don't post here, has known since childhood.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Read the msg. I sent it to alt.assassination.JFK. I see now, however, that
when I post on this newsgroup in the new google groups, a box appears at
the top in which the person I'm responding to's email address is presented
by the letters "CC", with a check mark in it that has to be removed with a
click. In other words, google automatically forwarded my email to you
without my knowledge. Apparently, it's been doing the same to you, as all
your responses have been getting forwarded to my personal email.

Pat

[Anthony Marsh]

I can and I have.

> that the back wound was not above the throat wound when in the anatomic
> position, and LNs have been unable to demonstrate that he was ever leaning
> sharply forward enough to make the SBT, or at least their version of the

Maybe because they were not smart enough to place their SBT when JFK
can't be seen behind the sign.

> SBT, possible. Canning's trajectory analysis was a joke; in order to sell
> the single-assassin conclusion, he actually pretended Kennedy was leaning
> forward before he was shot, then sat up slightly before he was shot in the
> head. Dale Myers' animation was also a joke, with bizarre looking models
> and roving back wound locations.
>

Canning did not show JFK leaning forward. You are thinking of Baden.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 11:16 AM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Speare says......
>>
>>
>>
>> "Nonsense. Please provide us one photo of Kennedy standing upright, and
>>
>> anywhere near the anatomic position, where his chin is inches below his
>>
>> shoulder line."
>>
>>
>>
>> I say..........
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the point Speer. We're concerned with the way JFK was seated when
>>
>> struck in the back. Not with the "anatomic position."
>>
>>
>>
>> You and Baden should get together as you both seem enthralled with the
>>
>> phrase "anatomic position."
>>
>>
>>
>> John F.
>>
>
> You just don't get it. Your friend Lattimer never said "the back wound
> entered Kennedy's back at or below the level of his throat wound, but this
> still suggests he was hit from above and behind because the Z-film shows
> his back was lifted at this time, and was above the exit wound in his
> throat" or anything like that. He said, and pretended till the end, that
> the autopsy photos and x-rays showed an entrance wound on Kennedy's back
> at the level of his chin, and that the trajectory for this wound channel
> was steeper than as shown in the Rydberg drawings.
>

Lattimer solved the problem by making JFK a hunchback.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<2815621b-d8f3-4994...@10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Oct 23, 8:25�pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>,
> >

> > �"pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds
> > > with
> > > Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
> > > Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first
> > > striking
> > > something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
> > > bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
> > > difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer,
> > > while
> > > others were not.
> >

> > There's a lot more to this than just the shape of the entry in Connally's
> > back.
>

> I agree. Michael Baden directed Ida Dox to produce graphics which
> contradicted the verbal description of the relationship between a
> �tumbling� bullet and the virtually rectangular shape of its wound.
>
> In particular the HSCA published a graphic showing an entry by a
> yawing bullet with the wound made by a tangential entry.
>
> http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic1.jpg
>
> A second drawing of a tangential entry by a bullet accompanied by an
> insert of a wound made by a bullet with a considerable yaw angle
> completed their deception.
>
> http://hdblenner.com/temps/correctedgraphic2.jpg
>
> The HSCA used a self-proclaimed expert who could not do high-school
> physics to testify that a yawed bullet makes an elliptical hole.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_021
> 3b.htm
>
> Mr. STURDIVAN. As I recall from reviewing the same material that the
> forensic pathologists reviewed, the entry hole had been excised and
> destroyed by the surgeons at Parkland Memorial, but that a subsequent
> description of that hole was given which, as I recall, was elliptical,
> and in attempting to make a drawing of the shape of that hole, the
> surgeon drew an ellipse on a piece of paper. The ellipse that was
> drawn measured 8 millimeters by 15 millimeters. However, I am not sure
> that indicated the size of the hole so much as the elliptical shape.
> Mr. FITHIAN. So, is it your judgment, then, that the bullet had to
> have struck something else and was tumbling when it hit Governor
> Connally?
> Mr. STURDIVAN. If it indeed had the shape that was described, then it
> would have to have been yawed and having been yawed, it would require
> that it struck something else before it struck the Governor.
> Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you.
>
> I wonder whether you demote the importance of the shape of Connally�s
> back wound because I exposed the HSCA misrepresenting the
> relationships between the motions of an entering bullet and the shapes
> of the wounds?

"Demote"? I am unclear on what you mean by that, certainly as applied
to what you exposed regarding the HSCA.

[John Reagor King]

In article <87dc2af7-4006-4ddb...@googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:25:30 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>,

> > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds
> > > with
> > > Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
> > > Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first
> > > striking
> > > something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
> > > bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
> > > difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer,
> > > while
> > > others were not.
> >
> > There's a lot more to this than just the shape of the entry in Connally's

> > back. What about both men jerking violently beginning in exactly the same
> > frame, Z226? What about the bullet having so little velocity by the time
> > it hit Connally's thigh that it penetrated only a very short way?
>
> Kennedy reacts shortly after Z-190.

"Reacts" by doing what? I see nothing even remotely resembling any
violent jerk on his part anywhere near that early. I very plainly see a
*violent* jerk on his part that begins precisely at Z226. I see Connally
exhibit a *violent* jerk beginning in exactly the same frame. At no other
point previously in the film is either man seen to do anything even
remotely like that.

> Connally saw that in 64.

Saw what in '64? Please quote him verbatim, along with a valid original
source, saying *specifically* that he believed he saw JFK react starting
at Z190 to being *struck* by a bullet, and precisely what it was about
what he saw that caused Connally to believe this. I am well aware of the
twofold origin of Connally's skepticism of the single bullet:

1. His wife told him that she thought JFK already had his arms up before
she heard the second shot.

2. The WC never came down firmly on the second shot only being the single
bullet, and instead assigned equivalent possibility to it being the first
shot. As Connally knew perfectly well that he had not been hit by the
first shot, this misunderstanding persisted for the rest of his life, and
even the HSCA failed to clarify this issue sufficiently. I seem to recall
that even decades later he was still disputing the single bullet
specifically because he thought that the WC had claimed it to have been
caused by the *first* shot.

> And the HSCA
> photography panel confirmed it in 78.

Oh, like the HSCA got everything right? Even you quite obviously dispute
at least *some* of their conclusions about the assassination, correct?

> The "both men react at the exact
> same time" argument is deliberate smoke, IMO.

Nonsense. It is what I plainly see in the film, and I'm nowhere close to
the only one. I will be astonished if you claim that you "don't see" JFK
very *suddenly* begin to raise both of his arms starting no earlier than
Z226. I will be astonished if you claim that you "don't see" the very
obvious flip of Connally's hat that begins in exactly the same frame. If
you *do* claim that you "don't see" these things, I'll be the one to
*truthfully* accuse *you* of producing deliberate smoke, as both of these
movements by both of these men are absurdly obvious to anyone with even
average eyesight. That would be like claiming that you "can't tell" that
the limousine is in forward motion anywhere in the film, since that is
just as obvious.

> If you research Dale Myers'
> animation, you'll find that he only simulated 1 out of every 9 frames
> during the time period the HSCA concluded Kennedy was hit.

I saw both men jerk violently at exactly the same instant years (plural)
before I even knew who Dale Myers is, let alone before the very first time
I saw any of his animations. I can plainly see it in real time, and in
every degree of slower motion, whether at half speed, three quarters
speed, one third speed, etc. It is just as blindingly and absurdly
obvious when watched at *any* speed. It is also quite obvious when
looking at it frame by frame that JFK's right hand does not begin to rise,
in what will end up being a continuous motion that stops with both elbows
being splayed, until Z226, with the left hand beginning to rise almost
immediately afterward. It is also quite obvious that the flip of
Connally's hat does not begin until the same frame.

> This, in
> effect, smoothed out the hurky-jerky movements by Kennedy in the Zapruder
> film that the HSCA found so compelling. My! What a coinky-dink!

There are certainly some claims that are "coinky-dink," but perhaps not
quite what you appear to think.

[John Reagor King]

In article <00a7dad7-612a-4bd6...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> LOL. This is pretty funny. I DID NOT SEND THAT EMAIL TO YOU! Presumably,
> someone else did because they couldn't stomach my getting the better of
> you. So tell us, John. Who was your little helper?

Did you see the full header of the email that Mr. Fiorentino posted? It
contains this line:

Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=76.87.119.34;
posting-account=qDxz-AoAAAAGHKb10gUasuGMD77QXJ74

In the full header of your present article that I am now replying to I
plainly see this line:

Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=76.87.119.34;
posting-account=qDxz-AoAAAAGHKb10gUasuGMD77QXJ74

Exactly the same originating IP appears in your email to Mr. Fiorentino
and in your present article to this newsgroup:

76.87.119.34

That resolves to:

cpe-76-87-119-34.socal.res.rr.com

I see exactly the same IP in an article you posted this past Wednesday.
This proves beyond all possible doubt that both of your articles AND your
email to John F. originated from the same computer connected to the
Internet through Road Runner.

It was absurdly easy to determine this. Since you have made such an
obviously false claim that you did not send an email which provably was
sent from the same computer that posted your articles in this newsgroup, I
now have cause to wonder about the credibility of other claims of yours,
including those you have made about the JFK assassination.

[John Reagor King]

In article <508a8497$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Originating IP 76.87.119.34. Exactly the same IP I see in two different
articles on two different dates that Mr. Speare has posted in this
newsgroup, proving beyond all possible doubt that the articles and the
email came from the same computer, since Road Runner, and indeed any ISP,
can only assign one IP per computer.

> posting-account=qDxz-AoAAAAGHKb10gUasuGMD77QXJ74
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-IP: 76.87.119.34
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> NNTP-posting-host: 76.87.119.34
> References: <6t2m7819u4jcr84gi...@4ax.com>
> <2a6c6f96-5a28-4ea4...@googlegroups.com>
> <10h6881k7nb9dcsq4...@4ax.com>
> <826a3e0b-e1b2-4129...@googlegroups.com>
> <508861aa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> Original-recipient: rfc822;jefior...@optimum.net
> X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 2013.0.2741 [2617/5852]
> X-AVG-ID: ID55878FEF-3BE0691B
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I have NO "helpers" Speare, perhaps you've lost touch with reality?
>
> John F.

Apparently so, and this is extremely damaging to his credibility that he
claims he didn't send an email he quite obviously *did* send from the same
computer from which he posts many, if not all, of his articles here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2012 6:19 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "Anatomical."
>
>
> You really don't have much to do, hey Tony.
>
> Anatomical and Anatomic are essentially interchangeable.
>
> John F.
>

That's why they are spelled exactly the same. Show me an anatomy text
book which uses anatomic instead of anatomical.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This has already been explained. The new google groups had been automatically emailing those to whom I'd been responding.

As far as credibility, give me a break. Your book features an intro from Lattimer... Lattimer... who got caught pretending the back wound was on the neck and then started pretending Kennedy was a hunchback.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

And I have 25 gold and platinum records. Read up on masking and understand how it helps explain how so many witnesses near the limo would think they heard two shots, while so many further away thought they heard three, with the last two bang-bang. And then realize these witnesses were telling us the last two sounds came from different locations.

It's only "too convenient" to those desperate to avoid facing the possibility they don't know what happened.

No, not perhaps. NO reason. An assassination team would take advantage of whatever tools they had, including firecrackers.

>But where is the
>
> *conclusive* evidence of it?

Why would you expect to find conclusive evidence for such a thing?

>Firecrackers? Are you seriously suggesting
>
> that? To fool this large a majority of this large a number of witnesses
>
> that all the loud sounds came from a single direction, whatever each
>
> individual witness thought that single direction was, then all
>
> firecrackers have to be set off in a single location, or extremely close
>
> to each other.

Not at all.

>Yet we don't have a single witness saying that they
>
> actually *saw* a *real* firecracker,

No, but a number of them said they saw smoke. Hmmm...

>and I do not recall any evidence of
>
> the remains of any *real* firecracker ever having been found by anyone.

Was anyone looking for such a thing? Of course not. It could have been thrown in a trash can, or in a car trunk.

>
> Firecrackers don't disintegrate into nothing when they explode, as I
>
> assume you and every other reader of this newsgroup, including the ones
>
> who don't post here, has known since childhood.

The thought occurs that you have NEVER read the HSCA testimony and Report of Harvard psychoacoustics professor David Green.

I sum it up in chapter 9 of my webpage:

When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report, Harvard Psychophysics Professor David Green, makes a point of stating that although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was unable to hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he was nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast with a similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the trained observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office Annex on the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot fired from the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo, but that someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the original source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind himself. OK, so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on the knoll were incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD? Well, the report goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone standing in front of the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high overhead, and that some of the witnesses may have localized on a subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a second later from the area of the overpass “especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the TSBD.”

This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green didn’t really believe his offered explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the TSBD was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the building. Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to shoot accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes stacked in front of the window for support, this statement argues against a lone gunman’s ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper’s nest without his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily identifiable. Indeed, in his appearance before the committee, Green made this point abundantly clear.

Early in his testimony, he offered: "when you are situated immediately under the Texas School Book Depository, which was our general location for the second sequence of shots, two things are rather confusing. First of all, the N wave comes right over your head so you tend to localize the source directly over your head or on occasion you directly localize the source in whatever direction you were facing. You could, for example, move your head into different directions. I once looked down Elm Street in this direction fairly well convinced that the sound came from this direction, and the other observers did likewise, pointed their heads in different directions and said that that influenced their judgments. Also when you are in this location the sound sweeps down the building and the apparent source of the sound is rather large, probably because it scattered off the regular surface of the building. That was caused by the blast wave." He was then asked if this confusion caused his observers to incorrectly identify the source of any of the shots, and responded "They certainly made some inaccurate responses. I would say in the order of 10 percent."

Well, this suggests it really wasn't that confusing. And sure enough, Dr. Green summed up his tests as follows: “there are certain locations that are best for observing certain shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular surface of the building and it was quite evident.”

Unstated but implied in Green’s report is his knowledge that 11 of the 14 witnesses in this “general region” in front of the depository, including those on its front steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 9 pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green’s attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less noise—which was believed to have been beyond the “lone nut” Oswald’s capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative, as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex or County Records buildings would not necessarily have been interpreted as coming from those locations, even if the weapon were not equipped with a silencer.

But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80 times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll, one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26 times, claiming that the un-silenced shots fired were readily identifiable as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a shot coming from that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including Abraham Zapruder, believed the shots came from somewhere further back. (Why they failed to perform tests using silenced weapons is never explained.) When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood on the street in front of the Depository, in addition, it reveals they correctly identified the source 18 of 20 times.

These actual results reveal that the report’s musings about people being confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option of defending the Warren Commission’s conclusions. Instead, the results reveal it’s fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the single-assassin theorists maintain that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine who heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6 witnesses on the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times. These results indicate that it is the single-assassin theorists who are wrong, yet again. That those convinced of a conspiracy have failed to embrace this report as the convincing argument for a conspiracy that it is can only be explained by their blind reluctance to embrace any evidence or testimony that calls into doubt that the headshot came from the stockade fence.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:37:49 PM UTC-7, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Show the cites Spear, and in their correct contexts.
>
>
>
> John F.
>

Here's some stuff to chew on:

An October 24, 1968 article in the New York Post reflects that Lattimer had started giving talks on the feasibility of the single-bullet theory to his fellow physicians, and that he believed at so early a date, long before the Zapruder film was widely available, that the first shot "hit a tree branch and never reached the President's car," and that the second "struck the back of President Kennedy's neck, went through his voice box, and 'came out at the knot of his tie,'" before striking Governor Connally. This marks him once again as more theorist than scientist. The eyewitnesses overwhelmingly claimed the first bullet struck Kennedy. The autopsy report fails to note damage to the voice box, or larynx. The drawings created by the autopsy doctors for the Warren Commission, moreover, depicted the bullet exiting below Kennedy's voice box or larynx, on his trachea, or windpipe. Lattimer's assertion that the first bullet hit a tree branch and the second bullet went through Kennedy's voice box, then, can only be seen as his ignoring the findings of the Warren Commission and re-interpreting the shooting sequence and bullet's angle of descent within the neck...for reasons all his own.

In any event, following his inspection of the autopsy materials on January 9, 1972, Lattimer told the New York Times that the photographs and x-rays “eliminate any doubt completely” about the validity of the Warren Commission’s conclusions and that Oswald fired all the shots. He said further that the photos and x-rays demonstrate that the back wound was actually higher than the Commission reported (yes, that’s right, even higher than on the Rydberg drawings) and that the angle of descent within the neck was far greater. He said the wound was so high in comparison to the throat wound, in fact, that in order for the throat wound to have been an entrance wound as so many believed, someone would have to have been firing from the floor of the limousine in front of Kennedy. Lattimer didn’t seem to understand that this comment meant conversely that the bullet exiting the neck should have hit the floor and not Connally, and that this statement was therefore an argument against the single-bullet theory he was so adamantly defending.

Perhaps the man had suffered some sort of meltdown. On January 10, the next day, he was interviewed by John Nebel on WNBC. and admitted that after reading the Warren report he "still had considerable doubts, and uh these doubts revolved about the such items as the trajectory of the bullet that went through President Kennedy's neck" and asserted that the Warren Commission drawing for this trajectory, CE 385, "makes the bullet track look as if it's much parallel with the ground. And that worried me a good deal, and, uh, I know that it's little things like this that combine to worry you about the whole massive text." But that was in the past. Lattimer told Nebel that upon viewing the autopsy photos "I was interested to observe that the rear hole, which is clearly a wound of entrance, is quite far above the front hole, which is presumed to be a wound of exit." As it would later be shown that the bullet entrance on CE 385 was in fact two inches too high, and that the the rear wound Lattimer claimed was "far above" the front wound was in reality either below or at the same level as the front wound, it's clear that Lattimer, perhaps overcome with "worry," simply reported what he wanted to see, or felt others should believe he saw.

But this was not the end of Lattimer's trail of "whoa!" For Lattimer's May 1972 Resident and Staff Physician article on his trip to the archives he created a drawing depicting his interpretation of Kennedy's back wound, and the path of the bullet purportedly entering Kennedy's back and exiting his throat. This drawing was staggeringly, and shockingly, inaccurate. While acknowledging in a February 14, 1972 letter to Robert Biecher found in the Weisberg Archives that "the wound on the back of the neck" which he'd discussed with the press "was certainly the one 14 cm. below the right mastoid process," and while acknowledging in the text of his article that the back wound was 5 cm below the neck crease “at the juncture of neck and back,” Lattimer inexplicably depicts the wound in his drawing about 5 cm below the mastoid process, at the juncture of neck and back. Equally strange, in order to explain the bruise on Kennedy's lung, Lattimer depicts the upper dome of the lung adjacent to the bullet path descending Kennedy's neck...and, in the process, lifts the dome of the lung into the neck, above the knot on Kennedy's tie. Even more absurd, to account for the holes in Kennedy's clothing being so much lower on Kennedy's back than Lattimer's proposed location for the back wound, Lattimer bunches up a gigantic fold of clothing on the back of Kennedy's neck in the drawing. No such fold, of course, can be seen on any of the assassination films.

Now that's already way too much, but Lattimer's drawing also has the bullet path descending 27 degrees through Kennedy's body, which, since the limousine was on a downhill slope of 3 degrees, means he believed the bullet was descending 30 degrees from the horizontal plane. Since he eventually claimed the bullet came from the sniper’s nest at Z-224, when the angle of descent from the sniper’s nest was 21 degrees, this suggests he believed Kennedy was leaning 9 degrees backwards when struck.

From there Lattimer’s story gets even more absurd. There is apparently no belief too absurd, or no lie too great, for him to shy from, should it suggest Oswald's sole guilt. On May 7, 1975 he was interviewed by the Rockefeller Commission, and repeated much of what he’d told the New York Times. He went even further, however, and told them that inspecting Kennedy’s brain would be unnecessary, seeing as Dr. Humes had been “particularly thorough about finding any foreign material in the brain” and that “we have surprisingly good x-rays of it and surprisingly good photographs of it.” He claimed further that this provided him with a “reasonable basis for knowing what the situation in the brain was, relative, at least, to the direction of the missiles.” He ignored that he'd previously concluded that the ever-thorough Humes had incorrectly identified the entrance of the bullet on the back of Kennedy’s head, and had been off by four inches.

In November, 1976, moreover, as a response to Congressman Thomas Downing's public declaration that the Zapruder film had convinced him Kennedy was shot from the front, Lattimer popped up yet again. Somehow, someway, he just so happened to make an appearance before a luncheon of the National Press Club, and show them films of experiments he'd performed by shooting bullets into animal skulls (no doubt, your typical luncheon entertainment). Not surprisingly, these tests (later debunked by Wallace Milam) showed the skulls flying back in the direction of the bullet, and supposedly undercut Downing's claims the rearward movement of Kennedy's head suggested the fatal shot came from the front.

Evidently, these tests convinced Lattimer he’d solved everything and that no further investigation was necessary, because on March 22, 1977, an article carried by the Ridder News Service reported that Lattimer had told some 300 members of the Fayette County Medical Society that “Reviving the investigation of President Kennedy’s death would be expensive and unnecessary.” Now, why would he do this? Was he concerned that a new investigation would reveal that he had been untruthful when he asserted that the back wound was even higher than in the Rydberg drawings? Or was he really that confident? If he was really that confident, well, then, he had NO reason to be, as other statements attributed to him in this article reveal that he was simply making stuff up in order to justify shutting down the investigation already underway.

According to the article Lattimer described the shots as follows: “The first shot probably struck the branch of a tree and was deflected to the pavement where it was absorbed…Five seconds later, with the limousine now only 190 feet away from Oswald’s position, the second shot was fired. It hit the president in the back of the neck, passed through it, and entered Gov. John Connally’s side…Five seconds later, the third shot was fired from a striking distance of about 250 feet, striking Kennedy in the back of the head…” Well, wait a second! If the first shot was fired five seconds before the single-bullet shot, which was at the latest frame 224, then it was fired around frame 131, TWO seconds before any of the trees in front of the school book depository would interfere with a shot from the sniper’s nest. Could Lattimer really be proposing that Oswald led the limousine by 30 feet or more?

Okay. Okay. It seems possible Lattimer misspoke about the five seconds… A 2-27-78 HSCA Contact Report on a conversation with Lattimer, after all, reports that by then he was postulating that "the first shot occurred at Zapruder frame (Z) 166 and was a miss." But it gets worse. The 1977 article quotes Lattimer as discussing Oswald and his motivation as follows: “After returning to this country, Oswald began a propaganda campaign for Cuban revolutionaries in New Orleans and eventually ended up in Dallas. There, three weeks before he shot the President, he attempted to kill a retired Army general. He learned from having tried to shoot the general that it would take more than one shot to kill Kennedy...If he’d been assigned to shoot Kennedy, he wouldn’t have been firing at someone else just three weeks before.”

The omissions and mistakes in Lattimer’s scenario are more revealing than what he gets correct. First of all, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, with whom Oswald was affiliated in New Orleans, was not a violent or revolutionary organization, as implied by Lattimer. Second of all, Lattimer omits that this “retired general,” General Edwin Walker, was forced out of the military by Kennedy for his reactionary and racist political activities and that there is reason to doubt that anyone contemplating his assassination would kill Kennedy instead. Third, the attempt on Walker did not take place three weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, as asserted by Lattimer, but on April 10, 1963, more than 7 months before! Needless to say, Lattimer’s understanding of Oswald and his background was as wildly inaccurate as his strange belief the back wound was further above the throat wound than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.



And here's some more on your pal.

Yep, when it comes to bald-faced lying about the murder of a president, Lattimer pretty much set the standard with Kennedy and Lincoln. While discussing Kennedy's throat wound, for example, he asserted, “any bullet that might have exited through this hole had had a definite downward course through Kennedy’s neck, rather than the relatively horizontal course …depicted in the official schematic diagram made by medical staff artist H.A. Rydberg.” Incredibly, even after the HSCA released a drawing of Kennedy taken from an autopsy photo showing his back wound to be, well, on his back, Lattimer chose to re-publish his 1972 drawing depicting the back wound to be at the level of Kennedy's chin, and the bullet to be descending on an even steeper trajectory through the President’s neck than in the drawings created for the Warren Commission. This trajectory, if projected forward from the back wound in the autopsy photos, amazingly, would have passed right through the President’s sternum, inches below the supposed exit on his throat.

In 1993, in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lattimer tried to explain this last discrepancy. He asserted that a large fat pad on Kennedy’s neck, aka the "hunch" or "hump," deflected the bullet downwards, and that Kennedy may have leaned forwards to talk to Connally just before he was shot at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. Astonishingly, Lattimer and the editors at JAMA had failed to realize that this proposed lean would lessen the degree of descent within Kennedy’s body, and make the 27 degree descent depicted in his drawing even more unlikely.

This was not all that surprising. By 1993, Lattimer had become something of a guru to his fellow single-assassin theorists, including JAMA's editor George Lundberg. As a consequence, in April 1993, he was invited to present his findings at an assassination conference in Chicago. Videotapes of this conference indicate that he was still 100% committed to his appallingly incorrect understanding of Kennedy's anatomy and wounds. As he showed the audience the Warren Commission's depiction of the single-bullet theory, CE 385, he explained: "I knew President Kennedy and this was not President Kennedy. President Kennedy had a big hump on the back of his neck from all the steroids he was taking. And the point of entry, for example, of the bullet, isn't down there (pointing out the entrance on CE 385), it's way up here (pointing to the back of the neck) at the level of the base of his chin." Later, when presenting his own drawing to the audience, he added: "The hump on the back of his neck brought the point of impact of the bullet up to the level of his chin and the downward course of the bullet coming out low on his neck, where Dr. Perry did the tracheostomy."

Well, this was just crazy talk. In Kennedy and Lincoln, Lattimer published a photograph of a shirtless Kennedy at Santa Monica Beach and claimed this photograph proved Kennedy's shoulders to be unusually high as a result of his Addison's disease. This was totally misleading. True, Kennedy's chin was below his right shoulder in the photo. But this was because he was leaning slightly forward, and to his left. His chin, tellingly, was not below his left shoulder. When one looks at other photos of a shirtless Kennedy taken after he'd contracted his disease, moreover, it becomes abundantly clear that his shoulders did not extend above his chin, and that his chin was at best at the level of the crease at the base of his neck. (The second shirtless photo of Kennedy on the slide above was taken in the mid-50's.)

I mean, just look at Lattimer's drawing, and compare it to the autopsy photo of the back wound... The autopsy photo proves the back wound to be inches below the point where Kennedy's shoulders connected to his neck. And yet, Lattimer's drawing presents this wound at the level of his chin. It follows then--yes, I know it's hard to believe that such a respected man could make such a crazy assertion--that Lattimer believed Kennedy's shoulders attached to his neck inches above his chin.

Don't believe me? Well, then consider that at the '93 Chicago conference, Lattimer showed the audience the JFK beach photo on the slide above, and pointed out the trajectory of the bullet through Kennedy's neck, beginning at the level of the light blue line on the slide above.

I mean, really, just who was Lattimer trying to fool?

Apparently, all of us...

Unfortunately, Lattimer’s actions on behalf of his beloved single-assassin theory extended way beyond his creating a flawed drawing or two, and/or his inability to see its inaccuracies. He helped sell a whole generation of doctors and devotees that the single-bullet theory was viable and supported by meticulous research. Since his work on the head wounds was equally misleading, many in the conspiracy community assumed he was some sort of government plant. Upon his death in 2007, however, another possibility was revealed--that he was every bit as eccentric and wacky as the wackiest conspiracy theorist. You see, buried within his obituaries was an astonishing fact--that among Lattimer's many collectibles and prized possessions was an historically significant item he'd purchased some years before at auction, for a reported 3,000 dollars...Napoleon's shriveled penis!