Missing the first shot
Shi...@aol.com
first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
Andrew Mason
16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left and
bringing his hands to his throat area.
see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
None said he did not react. The first shot did not miss, according to
the evidence. So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could
have missed.
Andrew Mason
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Shiz,
Hmm, not sure if anyone HAS considered it, but I think you make some
pretty solid points.
*Too close range* could well describe the first shot.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
Have you ever considered that the reason why the first shot missed is
because the shooter was not familiar enough with that rifle and did not
realize that it shoots high at closer ranges?
That's why Oswald missed Walker at 120 feet. The scope is zeroed in for
200 yards and the iron sights are fixed at 300 meters. So the midrange
trajectory height can be as much as 10 inches above the line of sight. But
how could anyone miss everything in Dealey Plaza with the first shot?
Where did it go? Show me the bullet.
The hesitation for the first shot is because the target was not visible
until frame 210. That was when the first shot was fired.
Jas
Anyone who has any experience with firing a weapon through a scope at a
target at close range, as I do, will tell you it's extremely hard to find
the target quickly in the view of the scope. It's much easier to find it
with the target further down range. Add to that the Texas Live Oak, the
left to right movement of the limo underneath the TSBD, Oswald's probable
nervousness of taking a shot at the president of the United States in such
a public way, and you have a recipe for missing completely.
James
<Shi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bfcd1392-d35b-4631...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Mason
> Shi...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
>> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and
>> too close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable
>> view at such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving
>> target for a right handed shooter is more difficult than a target
>> moving straight away from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the
>> first shot was probably to allow more distance that would present a
>> easier target.
>>
>
>
> Have you ever considered that the reason why the first shot missed is
> because the shooter was not familiar enough with that rifle and did not
> realize that it shoots high at closer ranges?
>
> That's why Oswald missed Walker at 120 feet. The scope is zeroed in for
> 200 yards and the iron sights are fixed at 300 meters. So the midrange
> trajectory height can be as much as 10 inches above the line of sight.
> But how could anyone miss everything in Dealey Plaza with the first
> shot? Where did it go? Show me the bullet.
Oswald missed Walker by a few hairs. That does not explain how he could
have missed the entire limo (and the road, tree and everything else
outside the car). The only conclusion that fits the evidence is that he
did not miss.
Andrew Mason
Dave Reitzes
> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
I don't recall hearing anyone make this point.
Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
> from the shooter. �
This is indeed a point raised frequently by those who are experienced
shooting firearms.
Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
It's not clear that Oswald hesitated after the first shot. The growing
consensus among those who accept that Oswald fired all the shots is
that approximately 3 1/2 seconds separated the first two shots
(approximately at frames 155-160 and 223-224 of the Zapruder film),
while about five seconds separated the second and third shots (at
Z223-224 and Z312-213). (See Posner's CASE CLOSED, for example, or
Dale Myers' www.jfkfiles.com website.)
Dave
WhiskyJoe
The first shot would certainly be the most difficult for Oswald,
regardless whether scope or the iron sights were used. And the difficulty
would increase if he used the scope instead of the iron sights.
It is much easier to shoot at a moving target if one is firing directly
down the axis of travel of the target. Failing that, the next easiest
target is to be directly above the axis of travel, as the target moves
directly away.
The limousine was moving almost directly away from sniper's nest, with a
horizontal angle of 10 degrees or less, for the second and third shots at
frame 222 and 312. But for the first shot, around frame 154, the
horizontal angle was 25 degrees. Also, the limousine was moving the
fastest at that point.
The angular speed, the speed at which the shooter would have to
continuously adjust his aim, was greatest by far for the first shot. For
the frame 154 shot, the angular speed was around 5.6 degrees per second,
at the 15 mph limousine. For the frame 222 shot, the angular speed was
around 1.8 degrees per second, at the 12 mph limousine. For the frame 312
shot, the angular speed was around 0.7 degrees per second, at the 9 mph
limousine.
Expert shots should only miss by up to an inch per 100 yards of range to
target. Complications from a moving target can be largely eliminated by
positioning oneself to shoot down the axis of travel. All plausible ranges
at Dealey Plaza were 100 yards or less, certainly less than 200 yards.
Any missed shot, a shot that misses the head of JFK and his limousine,
strongly implies a shooter who is not experienced at moving targets. If
Oswald fired the first shot, at frame 154, that shot selection alone
implies a shooter who has very limited practice at moving targets and who
lacks judgment as to when a shot should be attempted. If he waited three
or four seconds, he would have had a target moving almost directly away
from him. And missing the limousine completely confirms, none to very
limited experience at moving targets.
An early miss is very bad because it may cause the target, JFK, to duck
out of sight. U. S. Sniper's motto is "One Shot, One Kill" precisely
because a missed shot will usually cause failure, due to the target
ducking. Most successful sniper attacks have a first shot that is fatal.
The biggest handicap that Oswald operated under, was not his lack of
practice at moving targets, but his lack of judgment in being able to
figure out when he should fire and when he should wait. Of course,
extensive practice at moving targets of various types, moving at right
angle, moving at an angle, moving directly away, would have made it self
evident when he should fire. But he did not have that experience.
Likely, Oswald used the iron sights. For the price he paid for the rifle
and scope, the scope was probably not mounted by an expert. There is no
evidence it ever had the shims needed to adjust it. And it's unlikely the
company that shipped the rifle would have had this properly adjusted. He
likely would have discovered, even in limited practice, that the iron
sights were much better. The iron sights are robust and reliable. And his
training in the Marines was with iron sights, not with scopes. Also, his
firing at frame 222, just 0.8 seconds after JFK clears the tree, strongly
implies the use of the iron sights. It would be difficult to acquire the
target with a scope in just 0.8 seconds, particularly for someone with
limited experience at moving targets.
An extremely unfortunate aspect of this shooting is the iron sights. The
were zero sighted at 200 meters. This means that when firing at a target
less than 200 meters away, the shot tends to miss high by several inches.
More than 200 meters, the shot missed low, by over foot after something
like 250 meters.
The purpose of fixed sights were to allow just one less thing to go wrong
in battle. For soldiers who are tired, scared, sleep deprived, etc., it is
very common for them to forget to adjust the sights of there rifles. This
can result in wild misses, by several feet or more.
The last successful cavalry charge in the history of the British Empire,
in 1917, by the Australian Light Horse, probably owned it's success to
most of the Turkish infantry having their adjustable sights set to 1600
meters, the maximum range, the range they opened fired at during the
charge. 1600 meters is way to far, for non experts, and probably for
experts, even with the sights adjusted correctly for this range, at moving
targets. As the range closed, most forget to adjust the sights. So, at the
decisive range, 100 meters or less, the Turkish bullets bore in right at
chest height, 1500 meters behind the charging Australians, but missing the
Australians themselves by several feet, over their heads.
Most decisive combat, by non expert shooters, takes place at 200 meters or
less, often, at lot less. Using fixed sights set at 200 meters ensures a
shooter's aim won't be off by more than about seven inches at any range
for 0 to 230 meters. Had the Turks been provided with Carcano rifles, they
likely would have caused the Charge of the Light Horsemen to fail.
Now, what effect would the movement of the limousine have for a shot fired
at frame 310? It would take about 0.13 seconds for the shot to arrive,
about 2.5 Zapruder frames. During that time, the 9 mph limousine would
move about 24 inches. However, since Oswald is firing not at right angles,
but at 4 degrees horizontally (almost directly behind, but slightly to the
right) and down at 13 degrees relative to the limousine, the target will
move, from Oswald's point of view, sin(13) * 24 = 5 inches upward and
about sin(4) * 24 = 1.5 inch to the left. And so, unfortunately, fixed
iron sights should cause the rifle to miss high by 5 inches at 88 yards.
So, the error caused by the movement of the target, 5 inches, is canceled
out by the error cause by the fixed iron sights being set for 200 meters
instead of 88 yards. This was very bad luck. Oswald's iron sights provided
him with the perfect lead for the frame 312 shot, to make up for the
movement of the target.
The fixed sights also provided a pretty good lead for the frame 222 shot,
where one would expect a miss of 2 inches horizontally and two inches
vertically. Of course, Oswald missed by 8 inches, probably because the
still relatively high angular speed, 1.8 degrees per second, and only
allow himself 0.8 seconds to aim at a totally unobstructed target.
The fixed sights caused not nearly as good a solution for the frame 154
shot, a horizontal miss of around 9 inches. Of course, his missing the
limousine was not caused by this problem but by some other problem, most
likely, the 5.6 degrees per second angular speed of the target.
In conclusion, there was a lot of bad luck at Dealey Plaza. The bend in
Elm Street allowed Oswald a perfect stretch of road to fire down, with the
target moving directly away from him, without Oswald having to make an
impossible lean out the window if Elm Street was straight, as so many
other streets are in Dallas. And the fixed irons sights providing him with
a very good lead for the shot at frame 222 and particularly for frame 312.
The Furies worked against us that day.
Jas
Disinformation, plain and simple.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:hZGdnYCOnpvLArvV...@posted.sasktel...
Andrew Mason
> Andrew wrote: "The first shot did not miss, according to the evidence.
> So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have missed."
>
> Disinformation, plain and simple.
Now you can argue that 16 witnesses got it all wrong the same way. But
you can't accuse me, fairly, of spreading disinformation. It is real
information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK reacted to
the first shot. I am just pointing it out.
Andrew Mason
yeuhd
> 16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left and
> bringing his hands to his throat area.
Context needed: How many witnesses said that JFK did *not* bring his
hands to his throat area after the first shot?
Anthony Marsh
> Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
>> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
>> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
>> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
>> such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
>> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
>> from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
>> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>
>
>
> The first shot would certainly be the most difficult for Oswald,
> regardless whether scope or the iron sights were used. And the difficulty
> would increase if he used the scope instead of the iron sights.
>
> It is much easier to shoot at a moving target if one is firing directly
> down the axis of travel of the target. Failing that, the next easiest
> target is to be directly above the axis of travel, as the target moves
> directly away.
>
> The limousine was moving almost directly away from sniper's nest, with a
> horizontal angle of 10 degrees or less, for the second and third shots at
> frame 222 and 312. But for the first shot, around frame 154, the
> horizontal angle was 25 degrees. Also, the limousine was moving the
> fastest at that point.
>
You start with several false assumptions. The angle was not 25 degrees
to the right. And the limo was still going slowly then. It would not
have been a difficult shot.
> The angular speed, the speed at which the shooter would have to
> continuously adjust his aim, was greatest by far for the first shot. For
> the frame 154 shot, the angular speed was around 5.6 degrees per second,
> at the 15 mph limousine. For the frame 222 shot, the angular speed was
Show us your data for 15 MPH.
> around 1.8 degrees per second, at the 12 mph limousine. For the frame 312
> shot, the angular speed was around 0.7 degrees per second, at the 9 mph
> limousine.
>
> Expert shots should only miss by up to an inch per 100 yards of range to
> target. Complications from a moving target can be largely eliminated by
> positioning oneself to shoot down the axis of travel. All plausible ranges
> at Dealey Plaza were 100 yards or less, certainly less than 200 yards.
>
Even firing at a stationary target the rifle itself misses by 6 or 7
inches at such close distances.
> Any missed shot, a shot that misses the head of JFK and his limousine,
> strongly implies a shooter who is not experienced at moving targets. If
How could anyone miss hitting ANYTHING in Dealey Plaza at that distance?
> Oswald fired the first shot, at frame 154, that shot selection alone
> implies a shooter who has very limited practice at moving targets and who
> lacks judgment as to when a shot should be attempted. If he waited three
> or four seconds, he would have had a target moving almost directly away
> from him. And missing the limousine completely confirms, none to very
> limited experience at moving targets.
>
And you are forgetting that the rifle is a bolt action which takes about
a couple of seconds between shots. If the shooter needed all 4 shots to
do the job that would take about 6 seconds, by which time the limo could
have sped up and gotten away.
> An early miss is very bad because it may cause the target, JFK, to duck
> out of sight. U. S. Sniper's motto is "One Shot, One Kill" precisely
> because a missed shot will usually cause failure, due to the target
> ducking. Most successful sniper attacks have a first shot that is fatal.
>
> The biggest handicap that Oswald operated under, was not his lack of
> practice at moving targets, but his lack of judgment in being able to
> figure out when he should fire and when he should wait. Of course,
> extensive practice at moving targets of various types, moving at right
> angle, moving at an angle, moving directly away, would have made it self
> evident when he should fire. But he did not have that experience.
>
You seem to be forgetting about the oak tree.
> Likely, Oswald used the iron sights. For the price he paid for the rifle
> and scope, the scope was probably not mounted by an expert. There is no
The scope WAS mounted and sighted by an expert.
> evidence it ever had the shims needed to adjust it. And it's unlikely the
They had to shim it to test fired it. It was loose and damaged.
> company that shipped the rifle would have had this properly adjusted. He
Klein's did so.
> likely would have discovered, even in limited practice, that the iron
> sights were much better. The iron sights are robust and reliable. And his
> training in the Marines was with iron sights, not with scopes. Also, his
> firing at frame 222, just 0.8 seconds after JFK clears the tree, strongly
> implies the use of the iron sights. It would be difficult to acquire the
> target with a scope in just 0.8 seconds, particularly for someone with
> limited experience at moving targets.
>
Where do you get your 0.8 seconds?
> An extremely unfortunate aspect of this shooting is the iron sights. The
> were zero sighted at 200 meters. This means that when firing at a target
> less than 200 meters away, the shot tends to miss high by several inches.
> More than 200 meters, the shot missed low, by over foot after something
> like 250 meters.
>
For some rifles with some ammo. Show us the specifics for Oswald's rifle
using Oswald's ammo.
> The purpose of fixed sights were to allow just one less thing to go wrong
> in battle. For soldiers who are tired, scared, sleep deprived, etc., it is
> very common for them to forget to adjust the sights of there rifles. This
> can result in wild misses, by several feet or more.
>
> The last successful cavalry charge in the history of the British Empire,
> in 1917, by the Australian Light Horse, probably owned it's success to
> most of the Turkish infantry having their adjustable sights set to 1600
> meters, the maximum range, the range they opened fired at during the
> charge. 1600 meters is way to far, for non experts, and probably for
> experts, even with the sights adjusted correctly for this range, at moving
> targets. As the range closed, most forget to adjust the sights. So, at the
> decisive range, 100 meters or less, the Turkish bullets bore in right at
> chest height, 1500 meters behind the charging Australians, but missing the
> Australians themselves by several feet, over their heads.
>
Fairly accurate.
> Most decisive combat, by non expert shooters, takes place at 200 meters or
> less, often, at lot less. Using fixed sights set at 200 meters ensures a
> shooter's aim won't be off by more than about seven inches at any range
> for 0 to 230 meters. Had the Turks been provided with Carcano rifles, they
> likely would have caused the Charge of the Light Horsemen to fail.
>
> Now, what effect would the movement of the limousine have for a shot fired
> at frame 310? It would take about 0.13 seconds for the shot to arrive,
> about 2.5 Zapruder frames. During that time, the 9 mph limousine would
> move about 24 inches. However, since Oswald is firing not at right angles,
> but at 4 degrees horizontally (almost directly behind, but slightly to the
Where do you get your 4 degrees?
> right) and down at 13 degrees relative to the limousine, the target will
> move, from Oswald's point of view, sin(13) * 24 = 5 inches upward and
> about sin(4) * 24 = 1.5 inch to the left. And so, unfortunately, fixed
> iron sights should cause the rifle to miss high by 5 inches at 88 yards.
>
> So, the error caused by the movement of the target, 5 inches, is canceled
> out by the error cause by the fixed iron sights being set for 200 meters
> instead of 88 yards. This was very bad luck. Oswald's iron sights provided
> him with the perfect lead for the frame 312 shot, to make up for the
> movement of the target.
>
Which explains the close miss by the TSBD shooter.
> The fixed sights also provided a pretty good lead for the frame 222 shot,
> where one would expect a miss of 2 inches horizontally and two inches
> vertically. Of course, Oswald missed by 8 inches, probably because the
> still relatively high angular speed, 1.8 degrees per second, and only
> allow himself 0.8 seconds to aim at a totally unobstructed target.
>
> The fixed sights caused not nearly as good a solution for the frame 154
> shot, a horizontal miss of around 9 inches. Of course, his missing the
> limousine was not caused by this problem but by some other problem, most
> likely, the 5.6 degrees per second angular speed of the target.
>
> In conclusion, there was a lot of bad luck at Dealey Plaza. The bend in
> Elm Street allowed Oswald a perfect stretch of road to fire down, with the
> target moving directly away from him, without Oswald having to make an
> impossible lean out the window if Elm Street was straight, as so many
Kinda hard for the anyone to lean out of the window when it was open
only a few inches! But don't let facts get in your way.
> other streets are in Dallas. And the fixed irons sights providing him with
> a very good lead for the shot at frame 222 and particularly for frame 312.
> The Furies worked against us that day.
>
The CIA made mistakes, as usual.
Anthony Marsh
The bullet went high by about 6 inches. Nothing can explain how the
first shot can miss everything in Dealey Plaza.
So, show us what all three shots hit and show me the bullets.
>
> Andrew Mason
tomnln
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:HpWdnXGF2eguUrrV...@posted.sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
Yes, we can. Because you are stating something as a fact, claiming it is
evidence. When all you are doing is cherry picking your witnesses.
Dave Reitzes
Lacking an ax to grind, I've never counted, but this article of mine
quotes some of the people closest to the limousine:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
I don't think the eyewitnesses are anywhere near as important as the
photographic evidence, however, which is the main focus of my article.
Dave
claviger
Andrew,
You will notice several witnesses describe a firecracker sound, then two
shots. They refer to the "first shot" that wounded the President, meaning
the actual 2nd shot. In other words, they don't tell us the President was
wounded by the firecracker. Six credible witnesses saw the first shot
bounce off the street. Two other witnesses saw debris or fragments flying
out of the limousine on the first shot. Obviously the first shot, the
"firecracker", missed all passengers and smashed into the pavement
disintegrating into fragments that sprayed the Limousine and caused
superficial wounds to the President. Agent Kellerman claims he heard the
President exclaim "My God I'm hit!". Pathologists advise the President
would be unable to speak after the throat wound, so if JFK did verbalize
to being injured, it must be from shrapnel produced by the ricochet of the
first shot.
Andrew Mason
None.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
None.
This is a real problem for the SBT theorists who say that the first shot
occurred at z160 or so. It is difficult to understand why not one person
said that JFK and Jackied turned to the crowd on their right, smiled and
waved after the first shot. Not one person said this occurred.
So the SBT theorists maintain that 16 witnesses, including several trained
Secret Service agents who are supposed to be observing the President, who
said that JFK reacted immediately to the FIRST shot by moving left and
bringing his hands to his front were wrong and that he really turned,
smiled and waved after the first shot - but no one saw this. In fact
several were very clear that the turn, smile and wave was just before the
first "horrible ear-shattering noise" of the first shot (eg Mary
Woodward).
You can believe what you want. You can believe, without evidence, that
everyone saw the same event all the same wrong way for some inexplicable
reason. But it is quite apparent that the SBT does not fit the witness
evidence.
There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence. The first shot
hit JFK in the neck. The second shot at about z270 hit JBC in the back and
the third hit JFK in the head. This fits all the evidence and the shot
pattern that the vast majority of witnesses recalled: 1.......2....3
Andrew Mason
yeuhd
> For
> the frame 154 shot, the angular speed was around 5.6 degrees per second,
> at the 15 mph limousine. For the frame 222 shot, the angular speed was
> around 1.8 degrees per second, at the 12 mph limousine. For the frame 312
> shot, the angular speed was around 0.7 degrees per second, at the 9 mph
> limousine.
While I agree with you generally, that first limousine speed seems high.
In the 1.6 seconds between Towner frame T160 and Zapruder frame Z150, the
limousine moves at 14.14 feet per second, or 9.6 mph. In the 1.4 seconds
between frames Z150 and Z175, the limousine moves at 15.33 feet per
second, or 10.5 mph.
claviger
Shiz,
I think Oswald missed the first shot because he had the shakes caused by
"buck fever", a nervous reaction of rapid breathing, a pounding heartbeat,
and the inability to keep the sight on target. Buck fever goes away after
the first shot. It is similar to pre-game jitters experienced by athletes.
After the first few seconds it goes away.
You raise a good point. Most hunters I know prefer open sights under 100
yards because of the scope problem you describe. Many people wonder why
Oswald didn't fire at the approaching target which is thought to be the
easiest shot. One good reason not to take that shot is the body guards are
in a much better position to locate the shooter and return fire. By firing
from behind none of the bodyguards could locate the shooter, with the
possible exception of Agent Hickey.
The Carcano does produce a high arc of 6" to 10" which brings up the
question did Oswald know that and compensate for it? If not, where was he
aiming, because he might be pulling late and simply got lucky. That wound
make sense knowing the slope and curve of the street worked in the
shooter's favor. LHO could have been aiming at the back on the third shot,
which at that distance was closer to the top of the arc, explaining why
the bullet struck the President in the head instead of the back.
The theory Oswald was actually aiming at Governor Connally is a
fascinating question. A late trigger pull would cause the rear passenger
to move into the line of fire on both the 2nd and 3rd shots. What might
argue against that is the President was leaning so far to the left at the
final shot.
Jas
is real information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK
reacted to the first shot. I am just pointing it out."
Strangely, this is a watered-down version of what you posted the first
time.
The first time you said:
"16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left and
bringing his hands to his throat area. see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf None said he did
not react. The first shot did not miss, according to the evidence. So
there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have missed."
So, which is it? Kennedy reacting to the first shot by putting his hands
to his throat, or reacting by hearing a shot off to his right as Connally
did?
But, since you said originally "So there is no reason to speculate on how
Oswald could have missed," and this is obviously the point you were
making, I simply posted "disinformation" because your statement was, in
fact, disinformation because we know the first shot missed.
Now that we have that cleared up, here's all we need to remember:
1) A total of 3 shots were fired from the TSBD easternmost sixth floor
window,
2) One shot went through Kennedy and Connally,
3) One shot hit Kennedy in the head,
4) That leaves one shot. Since no other bullets or fragments were found, and
no other bullet hit their targets in the limo, that one shot must have
missed (unless Oswald decided to do some quick last minute bird hunting and
fired into the air.)
Conclusion: Since we know from careful study and analysis of the Zapruder
film where two shots found their targets -- the second at approximately Z
223, the third at Z 313 -- it stands to reason the first shot missed. This
shot has been determined to have been fired at approximately Z 160, e.g.,
the first shot.
So, contrary to what you originally posted, there is in fact reason to
speculate on how Oswald missed the first shot.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:HpWdnXGF2eguUrrV...@posted.sasktel...
howardp
And James Tague hurt himself shaving?
Howard
Andrew Mason
You have to distinguish betweein 1. a single witness who claims to have
observed an event and 2. multiple independent witnesses who independently
say they observed an event. A single witness can be wrong. But if their
recollection is shared by others independently (independence is the key),
the likelihood of error becomes vanishingly small.
With 16 witnesses independently saying something occurred it is virtually
impossible that they could be wrong (unless, of course their recollections
were not really independent). When you have no evidence that contradicts
it and no evidence to support that the alternate event occurred (ie. JFK
turning, smiling and waving after the first shot) it is difficult to
understand why the evidence should not be accepted.
Kellerman's claim to have heard JFK say "My God I'm hit", which is a
recollection that no one else had, is not reliable. That does not mean it
was wrong. It just means that it cannot be relied on.
The witnesses who described a "firecracker" noise and then heard shots
said there were three shots. They were simply saying that at the time they
did not recognize the first noise as a gunshot. Mary Woodward did not
recognize the "first horrible ear-shattering noise" as a shot either. Is
there any doubt that she did not think that she had heard a shot?
Your contention that 6 witnesses saw a shot hit the ground is not
supported by the evidence. None saw a bullet and no evidence of a bullet
striking outside the car exists. A few people, such as Virgie Rachley and
Royce Skelton thought they saw something hit the pavement but none said it
occurred early (VR put it with the limo well past the Stemmons sign). see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/EFSM.pdf
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew wrote: "Now you can argue that 16 witnesses got it all wrong the
> same way. But you can't accuse me, fairly, of spreading disinformation.
> It is real information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK
> reacted to the first shot. I am just pointing it out."
>
> Strangely, this is a watered-down version of what you posted the first
> time.
>
> The first time you said:
>
> "16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left
> and bringing his hands to his throat area. see:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf None said he
> did not react. The first shot did not miss, according to the evidence.
> So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have missed."
>
> So, which is it? Kennedy reacting to the first shot by putting his hands
> to his throat, or reacting by hearing a shot off to his right as
> Connally did?
>
> But, since you said originally "So there is no reason to speculate on
> how Oswald could have missed," and this is obviously the point you were
> making, I simply posted "disinformation" because your statement was, in
> fact, disinformation because we know the first shot missed.
Circular reasoning. How do you "know" that?
What is the evidence that conflicts with the recollection of these
witnesses that JFK moved to his left and brought his hands to his neck
in response to the first shot? Where is the evidence that he and Jackie
turned to their right, smiled and waved after the first shot. How could
Mary Woodward and a dozen or so others get it wrong that the first
"horrible ear shattering noise" occurred after that wave and smile and
not, as you insist, before?
>
> Now that we have that cleared up, here's all we need to remember:
>
> 1) A total of 3 shots were fired from the TSBD easternmost sixth floor
> window,
Correct
> 2) One shot went through Kennedy and Connally,
One bullet went through Kennedy and one bullet went through Connally's
chest. A bullet also struck JBC's thigh. And a bullet struck JBC's
wrist. That is the evidence. The question is how many distinct bullets
it took to cause those wounds. The witnesses say 2.
> 3) One shot hit Kennedy in the head,
Correct.
> 4) That leaves one shot.
Or no shots. The Connallys said that JBC's back was not hit in the back
on the first shot and Nellie said JFK was hit with the first (along with
16 others plus 48 witnesses who put the second shot closer to the last
and, therefore, well after JFK begins showing signs of his neck wound).
So, again, the witnesses disagree with you.
> Since no other bullets or fragments were found,
> and no other bullet hit their targets in the limo, that one shot must
> have missed (unless Oswald decided to do some quick last minute bird
> hunting and fired into the air.)
>
> Conclusion: Since we know from careful study and analysis of the
> Zapruder film where two shots found their targets -- the second at
> approximately Z 223, the third at Z 313 -- it stands to reason the first
> shot missed. This shot has been determined to have been fired at
> approximately Z 160, e.g., the first shot.
The witnesses do not agree with you.
>
> So, contrary to what you originally posted, there is in fact reason to
> speculate on how Oswald missed the first shot.
Speculate all you want. I prefer evidence.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
The SBT is not needed to explain Tague's wound. Most LNers think it
occurred on the third shot. The evidence suggests it was the second. No
one gave evidence that Tague was hit on the first shot.
Tague said he thought it occurred on the second shot. Greer heard a
concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the windshield
damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the
windshield and a fragment going over the windshield to stike the curb
near Tague fits. If the second shot was CE399 you cannot explain Tague
or Greer's evidence.
Andrew Mason
>
> Howard
>
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. You are cherry picking witnesses. Selection bias.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 10, 11:50 pm, Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
>> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
>> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
>> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
>> such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
>> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
>> from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
>> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>
> Shiz,
>
> I think Oswald missed the first shot because he had the shakes caused by
> "buck fever", a nervous reaction of rapid breathing, a pounding heartbeat,
> and the inability to keep the sight on target. Buck fever goes away after
> the first shot. It is similar to pre-game jitters experienced by athletes.
> After the first few seconds it goes away.
>
Ridiculous.
> You raise a good point. Most hunters I know prefer open sights under 100
> yards because of the scope problem you describe. Many people wonder why
> Oswald didn't fire at the approaching target which is thought to be the
> easiest shot. One good reason not to take that shot is the body guards are
> in a much better position to locate the shooter and return fire. By firing
> from behind none of the bodyguards could locate the shooter, with the
> possible exception of Agent Hickey.
>
Why Hickey?
> The Carcano does produce a high arc of 6" to 10" which brings up the
> question did Oswald know that and compensate for it? If not, where was he
No, Oswald did not know that. He was used to the very flat trajectory of
the M-1.
John Canal
says...
[...]
>Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>windshield
>damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>windshield
Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from JFK's EOP
to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the principal exit
(a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
2) Do you maintain that the longitudinal laceration to JFK's brain just
coincidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned path?
3) Do you maintain that the trail of opacities (bone fragments from the beveled
out inner table bone around the entry) extending anteriorly from near the EOP
just concidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned (question
1) path?
4) Do you maintain that the dent in the windshield trim and the impact point in
the glass were caused by different bullets even though those points are pretty
much along the aforementioned (question 1) path.....and even though there was a
nose and a base portion of a bullet found in the front of the limo?
5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
John Canal
>Andrew Mason
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:b8cdf877-5317-41d2...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Would you be kind enough to point me to which volume/page that quote can be
found in?
tomnln
"THINKS"?
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52100653-ee51-4b11...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Jas
Granted, they didn't. However that issue has been resolved in the many
years since the assassination.
G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA, has referred to the
advancement in science and technology since 1964 that has helped to clear
up the sequence of events in Dealey. He is correct, and it becomes even
more pertinent as time moves on.
As usual, conspiracists tend to forget that the assassination and the
Warren Commission investigation happened almost 50 years ago, and that the
HSCA investigation was now 30 years ago. They forget that there has been
nearly a half-century of study and analysis in the intervening years since
the event by thousands of professionals and amateurs. Every nook and
cranny, every angle -- down to the smallest nth minutia -- has been
studied and scrutinized over and over, and absolutely nothing has been
uncovered that points in any way to a conspiracy.
The only thing that's been uncovered is the fertile imaginations of
conspiracists.
I can't remember who coined this "black cat" phrase, but it's so pertinent
to the Kennedy assassination, I made my own variation: "Conspiracists
trying to find a conspiracy in the death of Kennedy is like a blind man
wearing sunglasses trying to see a black cat in a room completely void of
light."
When are you guys gonna get it?
James
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FJ1Wj.17612$CE1....@newsfe23.lga...
Jas
their recollections were not really independent). When you have no
evidence that contradicts it and no evidence to support that the alternate
event occurred (ie. JFK turning, smiling and waving after the first shot)
it is difficult to understand why the evidence should not be accepted."
You mean, kind of like when dozens of people saw the "Phoenix lights" in
1997 and swore it was a UFO?
Hmmmmm.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:D5GdncKYzclGgrTV...@posted.sasktel...
yeuhd
>> While I agree with you generally, that first limousine speed seems high.
>> In the 1.6 seconds between Towner frame T160 and Zapruder frame Z150, the
>> limousine moves at 14.14 feet per second, or 9.6 mph. In the 1.4 seconds
>> between frames Z150 and Z175, the limousine moves at 15.33 feet per
>> second, or 10.5 mph.
>
> Would you be kind enough to point me to which volume/page that quote can be
> found in?
Those speeds can be calculated using the Zapruder and Towner films, a
surveyor's map of Dealey Plaza, a ruler, and a calculator. But don't
take my word on it -- measure it yourself.
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
> In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
> says...
>
> [...]
>
>> Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>> windshield
>> damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>> windshield
>
> Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>
> 1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from JFK's EOP
> to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the principal exit
> (a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
>
There is no exit on the coronal suture.
> 2) Do you maintain that the longitudinal laceration to JFK's brain just
> coincidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned path?
>
> 3) Do you maintain that the trail of opacities (bone fragments from the beveled
> out inner table bone around the entry) extending anteriorly from near the EOP
> just concidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned (question
> 1) path?
>
Show me this supposed trail of opacities.
> 4) Do you maintain that the dent in the windshield trim and the impact point in
> the glass were caused by different bullets even though those points are pretty
> much along the aforementioned (question 1) path.....and even though there was a
> nose and a base portion of a bullet found in the front of the limo?
>
They could be caused by different fragments of the same bullet which
broke up and deposited two large fragments in the front compartment.
> 5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
>
You mean like the acoustical evidence finding three and only three shots
from the sniper's nest all within 10 seconds on the Dictabelt?
> John Canal
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
Andrew Mason
> Andrew wrote: "With 16 witnesses independently saying something occurred
> it is virtually impossible that they could be wrong (unless, of course
> their recollections were not really independent). When you have no
> evidence that contradicts it and no evidence to support that the
> alternate event occurred (ie. JFK turning, smiling and waving after the
> first shot) it is difficult to understand why the evidence should not be
> accepted."
>
> You mean, kind of like when dozens of people saw the "Phoenix lights" in
> 1997 and swore it was a UFO?
No. There is a big difference between observation and interpretation. If
dozens of people independently report seeing lights then we know that some
kind of light phenomenon actually occurred. They all might be convinced
the lights had an extra-terrestrial source, but that is not their
evidence. That is opinion.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
> says...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>>windshield
>>damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>>windshield
>
>
> Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>
> 1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from JFK's EOP
> to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the principal exit
> (a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
Hardly a coincidence. A shot through JFK's head at the downward angle of
about 9 degrees at z313 and fragmenting in JFK's head will send a forward
spray of lead and copper in the general forward direction and will likely
strike the windshield.
There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
>
> 2) Do you maintain that the longitudinal laceration to JFK's brain just
> coincidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned path?
I am not sure that it does. It generally goes in the forward direction.
Why is that a coincidence? Where else is it going to go?
>
> 3) Do you maintain that the trail of opacities (bone fragments from the beveled
> out inner table bone around the entry) extending anteriorly from near the EOP
> just concidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned (question
> 1) path?
same answer.
>
> 4) Do you maintain that the dent in the windshield trim and the impact point in
> the glass were caused by different bullets even though those points are pretty
> much along the aforementioned (question 1) path.....and even though there was a
> nose and a base portion of a bullet found in the front of the limo?
Obviously two different fragments struck the windshield. Whether they were
from one or two bullets is not clear. The upper trim damage was
significant and indicates a sizeable fragment struck. It is likely that
another fragment went over the top to strike Tague. We have Greer's
evidence of a concussion sound on the second shot. We also have Tague's
evidence that he was struck on the second shot. Given that two fragments
struck the windshield, they did not exit the car so it is hardly
surprising that fragments would be found in the car.
>
> 5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
I do not think a scenario of second shot or the second and third shots
causing this damage is bizarre or a improbable.
Andrew Mason
tomnln
jas makes statements with NO Proof.
I REPEAT;
"Even the WCR did NOT know which shot missed."
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4829d8d1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Sir;
What I asked you for was Official Citations of your "Claim".
yeuhd
>> Those speeds can be calculated using the Zapruder and Towner films, a
>> surveyor's map of Dealey Plaza, a ruler, and a calculator. But don't
>> take my word on it -- measure it yourself.
>
> Sir;
>
> What I asked you for was Official Citations of your "Claim".
Tom Rossley, 2008.
John Canal
says...
>
>John Canal wrote:
>
>> In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
>> says...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>>>windshield
>>>damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>>>windshield
>>
>>
>> Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>
>>1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from JFK's EOP
>>to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the principal exit
>> (a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
>
>Hardly a coincidence. A shot through JFK's head at the downward angle of
>about 9 degrees at z313 and fragmenting in JFK's head will send a forward
>spray of lead and copper in the general forward direction and will likely
>strike the windshield.
Huh? A "spray" of lead and copper in the general forward directon? Based on the
size of the beveled out corner of the largest piece of skull that arrived late
to the autopsy, the FPP determined there was one "principal" exit...and it [that
exit] was just forward of the coronal suture. IOW, there was no "spray" of metal
that went forward. The two large fragments found in the front exited that one
point....and their impact points (the windshield trim & glass) line up with that
theorized trajectory. Translation: they [the two large frags in the front] came
from the 312 bullet that struck him in the BOH....which was the 3rd and last
round fired by LHO.
>There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
>possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
>between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
>locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
The point is that it's rather obvious that the frags from the head shot bullet
caused the windsheld trim & glass damage.
>> 2) Do you maintain that the longitudinal laceration to JFK's brain just
>> coincidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned path?
>
>I am not sure that it does. It generally goes in the forward direction.
>Why is that a coincidence? Where else is it going to go?
It was a huge gutter type laceration....which is consistent in its size and
direction with the "principal" exit being just forward of the coronal suture
along a trajectory to the windshield trim & glass.
>>3) Do you maintain that the trail of opacities (bone fragments from the beveled
>> out inner table bone around the entry) extending anteriorly from near the EOP
>>just concidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned (question
>> 1) path?
>
>same answer.
That trail just adds more evidence to support the conclusion the main portion of
the bullet went towards the coronal suture exit and then continued to the
windshield glass & trim. The tiny pieces of metal represent metallic debris from
when the bullet ruptured. Again, the heaviest pieces [CEs 567 & 569] continued
along the aforementioned path...a couple of lighter ones were recovered from
above the frontal sinus...they did not have the weight and momentum to exit the
skull.
>>4) Do you maintain that the dent in the windshield trim and the impact point in
>>the glass were caused by different bullets even though those points are pretty
>>much along the aforementioned (question 1) path.....and even though there was a
>> nose and a base portion of a bullet found in the front of the limo?
>
>Obviously two different fragments struck the windshield. Whether they were
>from one or two bullets is not clear.
Huh? the impact point of both of them were on the same path...and one was a nose
fragment and one a base fragment....use your CS&L and it's pretty easy to arrive
at the conclusion they came from the same bullet...the one that hit him in the
BOH at 312.
>The upper trim damage was
>significant and indicates a sizeable fragment struck. It is likely that
>another fragment went over the top to strike Tague. We have Greer's
>evidence of a concussion sound on the second shot. We also have Tague's
>evidence that he was struck on the second shot. Given that two fragments
>struck the windshield, they did not exit the car so it is hardly
>surprising that fragments would be found in the car.
See above.
>> 5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
>
>I do not think a scenario of second shot or the second and third shots
>causing this damage is bizarre or a improbable.
Of course you don't....and there's no sense in me trying to convince you
otherwise. Happy trails.
:-(
John canal
>Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
WhiskyJoe wrote:
> On May 12, 12:27?am,
> WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> For the frame 154 shot,
>> the angular speed was
>> around 5.6 degrees per
>> second, at the 15 mph
>> limousine. For the frame
>> 222 shot, the angular
>> speed was around 1.8
>> degrees per second, at
>> the 12 mph limousine.
>> For the frame 312
>> shot, the angular speed
>> was around 0.7 degrees
>> per second, at the 9 mph
>> limousine.
yeuhd wrote:
> While I agree with you
> generally, that first
> limousine speed seems
> high. In the 1.6 seconds
> between Towner frame T160
> and Zapruder frame Z150,
> the limousine moves at
> 14.14 feet per second,
> or 9.6 mph. In the 1.4
> seconds between frames
> Z150 and Z175, the
> limousine moves at 15.33
> feet per second, or 10.5 mph.
My estimates are based on the following map provided by Don Roberdeau:
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
Where he notes the location of JFK at various Zapruder frames. To me
the map appears to be accurate and made with some care.
This map shows a rather large distance traveled between Z133 and Z169,
implying a speed of around 15 mph at frame 154.
The horizontal angle, relative to the limousine, was 24 degrees. The
vertical angle, relative to the limousine, was 27 degrees. The total
angle the sniper's nest was off of the axis of travel was 35 degrees
( the formula to get this is not the quadratic formula by a more
complicated formula involving trigonometry). The distance was 131
feet. So the limousine was traveling about 22 feet per second, or
22/131 = 0.16 radians per second. The angular speed of the limousine
would be 0.16 * sin (35) = 0.096 radians per second or roughly 5.6
degrees per second.
Jas
I REPEAT; "Even the WCR did NOT know which shot missed."
I make statements based on the truth. You don't read posts.
James
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6HsWj.17719$CE1....@newsfe23.lga...
Anthony Marsh
The FBI survey.
Anthony Marsh
> John Canal wrote:
>
>> In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew
>> Mason
>> says...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>>> windshield
>>> damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>>> windshield
>>
>>
>> Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>
>> 1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from
>> JFK's EOP
>> to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the
>> principal exit
>> (a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
>
> Hardly a coincidence. A shot through JFK's head at the downward angle of
> about 9 degrees at z313 and fragmenting in JFK's head will send a
> forward spray of lead and copper in the general forward direction and
> will likely strike the windshield.
>
Especially if it breaks up into several pieces. But where do you get
your 9 degree angle? Guessing again?
> There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
> struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
> possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
> between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
> locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
>
Hard to see the sun visor move and if it was hit wouldn't there be
damage visible?
>>
>> 2) Do you maintain that the longitudinal laceration to JFK's brain just
>> coincidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned path?
>
> I am not sure that it does. It generally goes in the forward direction.
> Why is that a coincidence? Where else is it going to go?
>
>
>>
>> 3) Do you maintain that the trail of opacities (bone fragments from
>> the beveled
>> out inner table bone around the entry) extending anteriorly from near
>> the EOP
>> just concidentally tracks in the same direction as the aforementioned
>> (question
>> 1) path?
>
> same answer.
>
>>
>> 4) Do you maintain that the dent in the windshield trim and the impact
>> point in
>> the glass were caused by different bullets even though those points
>> are pretty
>> much along the aforementioned (question 1) path.....and even though
>> there was a
>> nose and a base portion of a bullet found in the front of the limo?
>
> Obviously two different fragments struck the windshield. Whether they
> were from one or two bullets is not clear. The upper trim damage was
> significant and indicates a sizeable fragment struck. It is likely that
> another fragment went over the top to strike Tague. We have Greer's
> evidence of a concussion sound on the second shot. We also have Tague's
You mean the second shot of the second volley?
I.E. the last shot.
Anthony Marsh
> tomnln wrote: "Even the WCR did NOT know which shot missed."
>
> Granted, they didn't. However that issue has been resolved in the many
> years since the assassination.
>
> G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA, has referred to the
> advancement in science and technology since 1964 that has helped to
> clear up the sequence of events in Dealey. He is correct, and it becomes
> even more pertinent as time moves on.
>
Great, so now the WC defenders rely on the HSCA and the acoustical
evidence. It was ONLY the acoustical evidence which forced the idea of a
missed shot at Z-160.
> As usual, conspiracists tend to forget that the assassination and the
> Warren Commission investigation happened almost 50 years ago, and that
> the HSCA investigation was now 30 years ago. They forget that there has
> been nearly a half-century of study and analysis in the intervening
> years since the event by thousands of professionals and amateurs. Every
> nook and cranny, every angle -- down to the smallest nth minutia -- has
> been studied and scrutinized over and over, and absolutely nothing has
> been uncovered that points in any way to a conspiracy.
>
The HSCA which you just cited proved conspiracy. We won. You lost. Get
over it.
tomnln
Tom Rossley, 2008.
Atta boy yeuhd;
We knew you couldn't produce.
tomnln
> tomnln wrote: "AGAIN; jas makes statements with NO Proof.
> I REPEAT; "Even the WCR did NOT know which shot missed."
>
> I make statements based on the truth. You don't read posts.
>
> James
You STILL don't offer any Official Citations.
"Your truth" has NO Basis.
Please offer official citation to butress your "claim" below that "the
issue has been resolved".
HPW...@gmail.com
> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
> such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
> from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
He missed all of his shots, if he shot at all.
JFK reacted to a flechette from the umbrella man.
It hit him in the throat from the front.
HPW...@gmail.com
> > same way. But you can't accuse me, fairly, of spreading disinformation.
> > It is real information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK
> > reacted to the first shot. I am just pointing it out."
>
> > time.
>
> > The first time you said:
>
> > "16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left
> >http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdfNone said he
> > did not react. The first shot did not miss, according to the evidence.
> > So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have missed."
>
> > to his throat, or reacting by hearing a shot off to his right as
> > Connally did?
>
> > But, since you said originally "So there is no reason to speculate on
> > how Oswald could have missed," and this is obviously the point you were
> > making, I simply posted "disinformation" because your statement was, in
> > fact, disinformation because we know the first shot missed.
>
> Circular reasoning. How do you "know" that?
>
> What is the evidence that conflicts with the recollection of these
> witnesses that JFK moved to his left and brought his hands to his neck
> in response to the first shot? Where is the evidence that he and Jackie
> turned to their right, smiled and waved after the first shot. How could
> Mary Woodward and a dozen or so others get it wrong that the first
> "horrible ear shattering noise" occurred after that wave and smile and
> not, as you insist, before?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now that we have that cleared up, here's all we need to remember:
>
> > 1) A total of 3 shots were fired from the TSBD easternmost sixth floor
> > window,
> Correct
> > 2) One shot went through Kennedy and Connally,
>
> One bullet went through Kennedy and one bullet went through Connally's
> chest. A bullet also struck JBC's thigh. And a bullet struck JBC's
> wrist. That is the evidence. The question is how many distinct bullets
> it took to cause those wounds. The witnesses say 2.
>
> > 3) One shot hit Kennedy in the head,
>
> Correct.
>
> > 4) That leaves one shot.
>
> Or no shots. The Connallys said that JBC's back was not hit in the back
> on the first shot and Nellie said JFK was hit with the first (along with
> 16 others plus 48 witnesses who put the second shot closer to the last
> and, therefore, well after JFK begins showing signs of his neck wound).
> So, again, the witnesses disagree with you.
>
> > Since no other bullets or fragments were found,
> > and no other bullet hit their targets in the limo, that one shot must
> > have missed (unless Oswald decided to do some quick last minute bird
> > hunting and fired into the air.)
>
> > Conclusion: Since we know from careful study and analysis of the
> > Zapruder film where two shots found their targets -- the second at
> > approximately Z 223, the third at Z 313 -- it stands to reason the first
> > shot missed. This shot has been determined to have been fired at
> > approximately Z 160, e.g., the first shot.
>
> The witnesses do not agree with you.
>
>
>
> > So, contrary to what you originally posted, there is in fact reason to
> > speculate on how Oswald missed the first shot.
>
> Speculate all you want. I prefer evidence.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
>
>
> > James
>
> > "Andrew Mason" <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
> >news:HpWdnXGF2eguUrrV...@posted.sasktel...
>
> >> Jas wrote:
>
> >>> Andrew wrote: "The first shot did not miss, according to the
> >>> evidence. So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have
> >>> missed."
>
> >>> Disinformation, plain and simple.
>
> >> Now you can argue that 16 witnesses got it all wrong the same way. But
> >> you can't accuse me, fairly, of spreading disinformation. It is real
> >> information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK reacted
> >> to the first shot. I am just pointing it out.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lots of bullets....two hits.
Flechette hits JFK in throat.
Nellie pulls John backwards.
Bullet from Dal-Tex hits JFK on top of head, goes on to hit JBC
causing all of his wounds.
Bullets from TSBD were a distraction and necessary to frame Oswald.
yeuhd
> Great, so now the WC defenders rely on the HSCA and the acoustical
> evidence. It was ONLY the acoustical evidence which forced the idea of a
> missed shot at Z-160.
There's also John Connally's head snap, from left to right, circa
Z160, which matches his testimony that he was looking to his left when
he heard the first shot, and turned to look over his right shoulder.
claviger
> Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
> > Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
> > first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
> > close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
> > such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
> > right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
> > from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
> > to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>
> bringing his hands to his throat area.
> see:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
> None said he did not react. The first shot did not miss, according to
> the evidence. So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could
> have missed.
>
Andrew,
There is much speculation on why Oswald missed. Some believe his first
shot grazed a tree limb, glanced off a light pole, or simply missed. All
three are entirely possible. A ballistics expert by the name of Howard
Donahue studied the assassination for several years and believes JFK was
wounded by all three shots. Donahue thinks JFK was injured by a fragment
from the first shot that hit the pavement, which he thinks the President
did physically and verbally react to. He believes both JFK and JBC were
wounded by the second shot, and the third shot struck the President in the
head. There are witnesses who saw objects bounce off the pavement and
"debris" flying out of the Limousine. These witnesses connect what they
saw to the first shot. Two of the witnesses were police officers.
There are other witnesses to a first shot prior to the throat wound. SS
Agent Glenn Bennett was very clear about what he saw and a photographer
that Gary Mack considers a credible witness put the first shot at Z133.
That would place the Limousine right under the TSBD at a steep angle from
the 6th floor window. Only a couple of witness thought they heard a shot
after the head shot. That is unlikely because the President collapsed
after this fatal shot. JFK and JBC were no longer upright targets after
the head shot.
claviger
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On May 11, 5:48 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
> >>16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left and
> >>bringing his hands to his throat area.
>
> > hands to his throat area after the first shot?
>
> None.
>
> This is a real problem for the SBT theorists who say that the first shot
> occurred at z160 or so. It is difficult to understand why not one person
> said that JFK and Jackied turned to the crowd on their right, smiled and
> waved after the first shot. Not one person said this occurred.
>
> So the SBT theorists maintain that 16 witnesses, including several trained
> Secret Service agents who are supposed to be observing the President, who
> said that JFK reacted immediately to the FIRST shot by moving left and
> bringing his hands to his front were wrong and that he really turned,
> smiled and waved after the first shot - but no one saw this. In fact
> several were very clear that the turn, smile and wave was just before the
> first "horrible ear-shattering noise" of the first shot (eg Mary
> Woodward).
>
> You can believe what you want. You can believe, without evidence, that
> everyone saw the same event all the same wrong way for some inexplicable
> reason. But it is quite apparent that the SBT does not fit the witness
> evidence.
>
> There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence. The first shot
> hit JFK in the neck. The second shot at about z270 hit JBC in the back and
> the third hit JFK in the head. This fits all the evidence and the shot
> pattern that the vast majority of witnesses recalled: 1.......2....3
>
> Andrew Mason
Andrew,
What makes you think there was a shot fired at z270?
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> On May 11, 12:50�am, Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
> > first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
> > close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
>
> I don't recall hearing anyone make this point.
The scope was low power. This would not be a problem.
>
> Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
>
> > right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
> > from the shooter. �
>
> This is indeed a point raised frequently by those who are experienced
> shooting firearms.
>
It will not account for the missed shot.
> Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
>
> > to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>
> It's not clear that Oswald hesitated after the first shot. The growing
> consensus among those
who use imaginary evidence
>who accept that Oswald fired all the shots is
> that approximately 3 1/2 seconds separated the first two shots
> (approximately at frames 155-160 and 223-224 of the Zapruder film),
> while about five seconds separated the second and third shots (at
> Z223-224 and Z312-213). (See Posner's CASE CLOSED, for example, or
> Dale Myers'www.jfkfiles.comwebsite.)
This has been debunked.
::Clark::
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> John Canal wrote:
>>
>>> In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew
>>> Mason
>>> says...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>>>> windshield
>>>> damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>>>> windshield
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>>
>>> 1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from
>>> JFK's EOP
>>> to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the
>>> principal exit
>>> (a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
>>
>>
>> Hardly a coincidence. A shot through JFK's head at the downward angle
>> of about 9 degrees at z313 and fragmenting in JFK's head will send a
>> forward spray of lead and copper in the general forward direction and
>> will likely strike the windshield.
>>
>
> Especially if it breaks up into several pieces. But where do you get
> your 9 degree angle? Guessing again?
No. Horizontal distance from SN to car: 275 feet. Vertical distance 60
feet. Incline 3 degrees down. Arctan 60/275 = 12 degrees. Subtract 3
degrees = 9 degress.
>
>> There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>> struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
>> possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
>> between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
>> locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different
>> shots.
>>
>
> Hard to see the sun visor move and if it was hit wouldn't there be
> damage visible?
It is pretty clear in those frames. No damage was reported but it may
not be more than a slight nick. I have been looking to see if there are
any photos of he back of the visor but I haven't found any.
No. The second shot. He said he was pretty sure there was a shot after
he was struck.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> In article <8LydnTsTYKiAp7fV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
> says...
>
>>John Canal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <oKSdnc6s1plC27TV...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
>>>says...
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Greer heard a concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the
>>>>windshield
>>>>damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the=20
>>>>windshield
>>>
>>>
>>>Sooooo, Andrew, a few yes or no questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>>
>>>1) Do you maintain that a straight line drawn on Z-312 extending from JFK's EOP
>>>to the windshield damage just "coincidentally" passes through the principal exit
>>>(a little forward of JFK's coronal suture)?
>>
>>Hardly a coincidence. A shot through JFK's head at the downward angle of
>>about 9 degrees at z313 and fragmenting in JFK's head will send a forward
>>spray of lead and copper in the general forward direction and will likely
>>strike the windshield.
>
>
> Huh? A "spray" of lead and copper in the general forward directon? Based on the
> size of the beveled out corner of the largest piece of skull that arrived late
> to the autopsy, the FPP determined there was one "principal" exit...and it [that
> exit] was just forward of the coronal suture. IOW, there was no "spray" of metal
> that went forward.
All I am saying is that the bullet broke into many fragments after
striking the back of the skull and before exiting. Are you suggesting
that the bullet fragmented after it exited?
All the fragments will move in a forward diverging direction. That is
what I meant by a spray of fragments.
The two large fragments found in the front exited that one
> point....and their impact points (the windshield trim & glass) line up with that
> theorized trajectory. Translation: they [the two large frags in the front] came
> from the 312 bullet that struck him in the BOH....which was the 3rd and last
> round fired by LHO.
It is possible. I am saying that it is also possible that the second
shot left those fragments.
>
>
>>There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>>struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
>>possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
>>between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
>>locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
>
>
> The point is that it's rather obvious that the frags from the head shot bullet
> caused the windsheld trim & glass damage.
Only if you think one shot missed. Obviously CE399 didn't cause the
windshield damage. If all shots struck, which is what the evidence says,
then it is not rather obvious that the damage was all from the third shot.
Or the one that struck his wrist.
>
>
>>The upper trim damage was
>>significant and indicates a sizeable fragment struck. It is likely that
>>another fragment went over the top to strike Tague. We have Greer's
>>evidence of a concussion sound on the second shot. We also have Tague's
>>evidence that he was struck on the second shot. Given that two fragments
>>struck the windshield, they did not exit the car so it is hardly
>>surprising that fragments would be found in the car.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>>5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
>>
>>I do not think a scenario of second shot or the second and third shots
>>causing this damage is bizarre or a improbable.
>
>
> Of course you don't....and there's no sense in me trying to convince you
> otherwise. Happy trails.
You won't consider the witness evidence, particularly the evidence that
the last two shots were closer together. You not only think it could be
all wrong but that in fact it is all wrong. I don't. That is where we
differ.
Andrew Mason
claviger
> howardp wrote:
>
> The SBT is not needed to explain Tague's wound. Most LNers think it
> occurred on the third shot. The evidence suggests it was the second. No
> one gave evidence that Tague was hit on the first shot.
>
> Tague said he thought it occurred on the second shot. Greer heard a
> concussive sound on the second shot (consistent with the windshield
> damage). A second shot fragmenting off JBC's wrist, striking the
> near Tague fits. If the second shot was CE399 you cannot explain Tague
> or Greer's evidence.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
> > Howard
Andrew,
Tague had no idea when he was injured. He didn't know he was bleeding
until the police officer asked him about it.
John Canal
I'm not sure why I'm replying to your post--you've obviously got your mind
made up. No, I don't think it did, nor does Sturdivan. Humes said it
fragmented inside the skull.
>All the fragments will move in a forward diverging direction. That is
>what I meant by a spray of fragments.
No, "ALL" the fragments DID NOT move forward. When the bullet fragmented,
which was after it traveled a couple of inches into his head, metallic
debris in the form of, perhaps several dozen tiny fragments came off the
bullet. The largest frags continued on virtually the same path, i.e. that
pretty much straight path from near the EOP, through the "principal"
(7HSCA, p. 128) exit which was just forward of the coronal suture (7HSCA,
p. 252), and onto to the windshied damage (note that the paths of the two
largest frags (CEs 567 & 569) diverged a little, perhaps about 3 degrees,
as they exited). Now, a couple of other frags were heavy enough to
continue forward but still light enough to curve a bit...these were
recovered above the frontal sinus.
Now, back to the tiny, very light, if not almost weightless, frags (yes,
that metallic debris from the bullet's break up). They were carried
upwards with the brain matter that exploded up. Many surely went out of
his head with the exploding brain tissue and pieces of skull. I think the
three tiny ones found on the floorboard near Nellie were included in this
metallic debris. In fact, that's how at least one tiny fragment ended up
on the left side of JFK's skull...it was carried up an out of his head by
brain tisue that also went out of his head.
The bottom line is that NO METALLIC SPRAY went forward...the tiny, light
frags went up and the heavier ones, with their much greater momentum, went
along the paths I described above. After I read Surdivan's HSCA
deposition, I contacted him with my explanation, and he had the class to
say he was wrong (in 1979) and I was undoubtedly correct.
> The two large fragments found in the front exited that one
>>point....and their impact points (the windshield trim & glass) line up with that
>>theorized trajectory. Translation: they [the two large frags in the front] came
>> from the 312 bullet that struck him in the BOH....which was the 3rd and last
>> round fired by LHO.
>
>It is possible. I am saying that it is also possible that the second
>shot left those fragments.
About as possible as an alien vistiting us tommorow....IMHO.
Your theory reminds me a little of the SBT nay-sayers. Most of them say
two bullets, fired pretty much along the same trajectory, hit the men
about the same time. With this "a frag from the second shot hit damaged
the trim (or was it glass)" theory, your saying, it's just a coincidence
that: 1) The path from his head to the windshield trim was virtually the
same as the path from his head to the glass impact point, 2) there was one
nose frag and one base frag, 3) the gutter type laceration that extended
through his brain on the same path was huge enough to be consistent with
having been caused by two large frags, and 4) the exit defect appeared (by
the FPP) to be too large (that beveled out corner of the late arriving
skull piece) to have been caused by just one of the large frags found in
the front.
>>
>>>There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>>>struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
>>>possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
>>>between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
>>>locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
>>
>>
>>The point is that it's rather obvious that the frags from the head shot bullet
>> caused the windsheld trim & glass damage.
>
>Only if you think one shot missed. Obviously CE399 didn't cause the
>windshield damage. If all shots struck, which is what the evidence says,
>then it is not rather obvious that the damage was all from the third shot.
See above...that's my best shot..sigh...if it's not good enough for you
than we're done. If you still think myself, Sturdivan, et. al. are wrong
about this then (and I know you don't care) you've made my killfile (in
good company--Marsh is on it too). Now, whatever you do don't even concede
that Studivan and I could be right. Anyway, it'd be too embarassing for
you to update your website on this.
Amazing...truly amazing..it's been a real learning experience arguing with
those who deny the WC's conclusions.
>>>The upper trim damage was
>>>significant and indicates a sizeable fragment struck. It is likely that
>>>another fragment went over the top to strike Tague. We have Greer's
>>>evidence of a concussion sound on the second shot. We also have Tague's
>>>evidence that he was struck on the second shot. Given that two fragments
>>>struck the windshield, they did not exit the car so it is hardly
>>>surprising that fragments would be found in the car.
>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>
>>>>5) Do you like bizarre coincidences?
>>>
>>>I do not think a scenario of second shot or the second and third shots
>>>causing this damage is bizarre or a improbable.
>>
>>
>> Of course you don't....and there's no sense in me trying to convince you
>> otherwise. Happy trails.
>
>You won't consider the witness evidence, particularly the evidence that
>the last two shots were closer together.
No, I go by the much more reliable hard medical evidence.
>You not only think it could be
>all wrong but that in fact it is all wrong. I don't. That is where we
>differ.
Ya, we differ all right. Thank God, though, I've got some pretty sharp
peolple that I agree with or who agree with me....and I'm sure you've got
quite a fanclub yourself. Good for you.
John Canal
Andrew Mason
We seem to be arguing semantics. We both seem to be saying that multiple
fragments left JFK's head moving in the forward direction.
>
>
>> The two large fragments found in the front exited that one
>>
>>>point....and their impact points (the windshield trim & glass) line up with that
>>>theorized trajectory. Translation: they [the two large frags in the front] came
>>>from the 312 bullet that struck him in the BOH....which was the 3rd and last
>>>round fired by LHO.
>>
>>It is possible. I am saying that it is also possible that the second
>>shot left those fragments.
>
>
> About as possible as an alien vistiting us tommorow....IMHO.
Obviously we disagree. My explanation happens to fit several bodies of
consistent witness evidence that JFK was hit with the first shot, the
last two shots were closer together and the first shot was after z186.
Your explanation fits with none of this evidence.
My view is that the explanation that does not fit with the evidence is
not correct. You think that a plausible scientific explanation does not
have to fit the evidence. Fine. We are destined to diagree.
>
> Your theory reminds me a little of the SBT nay-sayers.
It is not my theory. It is what the witnesses say occcurred. They said
that three shots hit in the car.
> Most of them say
> two bullets, fired pretty much along the same trajectory, hit the men
> about the same time.
I don't say that at all. You don't seem to be listening to what I have
been saying. According to the vast majority of the witnesses, JFK was
hit in the neck on the first shot and this occurred after z186 and close
to z200; and the second shot was closer to the third - which means it
was after z260. There was a long pause of almost 4 seconds between the
two shots.
> With this "a frag from the second shot hit damaged
> the trim (or was it glass)" theory, your saying, it's just a coincidence
> that: 1) The path from his head to the windshield trim was virtually the
> same as the path from his head to the glass impact point, 2) there was one
> nose frag and one base frag, 3) the gutter type laceration that extended
> through his brain on the same path was huge enough to be consistent with
> having been caused by two large frags, and 4) the exit defect appeared (by
> the FPP) to be too large (that beveled out corner of the late arriving
> skull piece) to have been caused by just one of the large frags found in
> the front.
Again, you don't seem to be listening to what I said. I do not think
this is a coincidence at all. If two shots fragmented in the car it is
not surprising that the fragments from each would go in roughly the same
direction. This is not a coincidence.
>>>>There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>>>>struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is also
>>>>possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves noticeably
>>>>between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation between these
>>>>locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on two different shots.
>>>
>>>
>>>The point is that it's rather obvious that the frags from the head shot bullet
>>>caused the windsheld trim & glass damage.
>>
>>Only if you think one shot missed. Obviously CE399 didn't cause the
>>windshield damage. If all shots struck, which is what the evidence says,
>>then it is not rather obvious that the damage was all from the third shot.
>
>
> See above...that's my best shot..sigh...if it's not good enough for you
> than we're done. If you still think myself, Sturdivan, et. al. are wrong
> about this then (and I know you don't care) you've made my killfile (in
> good company--Marsh is on it too). Now, whatever you do don't even concede
> that Studivan and I could be right. Anyway, it'd be too embarassing for
> you to update your website on this.
Not at all. Any conclusion that is not inconsistent with the evidence
has to remain as a possible conclusion. It is possible that the damage
to the windshield was caused by fragments from the third bullet. I
merely point out that it is also possible that the evidence also fits
with fragments from the second shot causing the damage and, in fact,
there is evidence to support such a conclusion (Tague and Greer).
I guess we will have to disagree on that. Interpretation of the medical
evidence is a matter of opinion and even experts disagree. In my view,
the witnesses cannot possibly be wrong on the issue of JFK being hit
with the first shot, or the last two shots being closer together. It has
nothing to do with the quality of their observational skills. It has to
do with the fact that far too many had the same observation.
>
>>You not only think it could be
>>all wrong but that in fact it is all wrong. I don't. That is where we
>>differ.
>
>
> Ya, we differ all right. Thank God, though, I've got some pretty sharp
> peolple that I agree with or who agree with me....and I'm sure you've got
> quite a fanclub yourself. Good for you.
This kind of argument really has no place in a rational discussion about
the evidence.
Andrew Mason
>
> John Canal
Andrew Mason
That is not exactly what he said to the WC. He distinctly recalled
feeling something strike his face (7 H 555):
Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn’t associate, didn’t make
any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the
second or third shot, I couldn’t tell you definitely-I made no
connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall
this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and
then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, “You have blood there on
your cheek.” That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t
say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get
hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third
shot afterwards.
Andrew Mason
>
>
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:abb029bb-b429-447a...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Howard
Anthony Marsh
Wrong again. GIGO. Vertical distance at Z-313 is NOT 60 feet. The 60
feet is above the curb under the TSBD. The limo is lower while on Elm at
Z-313. The official WC downward angle at Z-313 is 15 degrees, 21
minutes. Subtract the slope of 3 degrees, 9 minutes and the correct
downward angle is 12 degrees, 12 minutes. And the distance is 265.3 feet.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ce902.jpg
This latest fiasco illustrates the ongoing problem with your research
method. You browse the internet and find some scientific information,
but you don't know the correct data to plug into the equations you find.
>
>>
>>> There were two places where the windshield was damaged. The glass was
>>> struck just below the mirror. And the top frame was struck. It is
>>> also possible that the driver's sunvisor was struck as it moves
>>> noticeably between z271 and z272. Since there is quite a separation
>>> between these locations, it is quite possible that they occurred on
>>> two different shots.
>>>
>>
>> Hard to see the sun visor move and if it was hit wouldn't there be
>> damage visible?
>
> It is pretty clear in those frames. No damage was reported but it may
> not be more than a slight nick. I have been looking to see if there are
> any photos of he back of the visor but I haven't found any.
>
Again, no damage seen or reported.
Anthony Marsh
There is a difference between the map and the notations. He made the
notations based on various sources, some of which are slightly
inaccurate. I was the one who made the original plat.
marki...@yahoo.com
> In article <m6SdnQlkYuNSBbbVnZ2dnUVZ_uidn...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason
> >All the fragments will move in a forward diverging direction. That is
> >what I meant by a spray of fragments.
>
> No, "ALL" the fragments DID NOT move forward. When the bullet fragmented,
> which was after it traveled a couple of inches into his head, metallic
> debris in the form of, perhaps several dozen tiny fragments came off the
> bullet. The largest frags continued on virtually the same path, i.e. that
> pretty much straight path from near the EOP, through the "principal"
> (7HSCA, p. 128) exit which was just forward of the coronal suture (7HSCA,
> p. 252), and onto to the windshied damage (note that the paths of the two
> largest frags (CEs 567 & 569) diverged a little, perhaps about 3 degrees,
> as they exited). Now, a couple of other frags were heavy enough to
> continue forward but still light enough to curve a bit...these were
> recovered above the frontal sinus.
What about the 6.5mm circular fragment that appears in the lateral & A/
P X-rays? How did it become lodged at that location?
~Mark
claviger
> There is a difference between the map and the notations. He made the
> notations based on various sources, some of which are slightly
> inaccurate. I was the one who made the original plat.
Anthony,
Why don't you post your original plat. I'd like to see it.
Andrew Mason
It was a rough estimate. It makes little difference to the point I was
making, which is that it was a very low angle so the shot exiting the
skull will go forward. 3 degrees over the distance from JFK to the
windshield makes a difference of about 3 inches, which is much greater
than the distance between the windshield damage and the frame damage.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Many reasons.
1. At least 16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving
left and/or bringing his hands to this neck. None said he turned to the
crowd, smiled and waved after the first shot.
2. The first shot did not occur before z186, according to the witnesses
(22 by my count). Not one witness said the first shot occurred before
z186.
3. The witnesses 48-6-9 (see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf) said that the last
two shots were closer together. If most of these witnesses had independent
recollections of this, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, it
is irrational to conclude they all had this same distinct recollection,
independently, and were wrong.
4. All of the above evidence fits together. It is all consistent. It is
wholly inconsistent with the second shot SBT. And, of course, the
Connallys and others, were adamant that JBC was hit in the back on the
second shot.
So, following on these observations, one should look for evidence of a
second shot after the midpoint between z186 an z313. That midpoint is
z250. It has to be some time after the midpoint in order to create a
widespread observation that the last two were closer together. If Oswald
was doing all the shooting, and the evidence all points to that, he could
not have gotten the last two shots in much less than 2 seconds or 36
frames and probably not less than 2.3 seconds or 42 frames. So we should
be looking for a shot between z260 and z275.
JBC said he immediately knew the first shot was a rifle shot and he turned
around to see JFK immediately afterward. He is not in any position to see
JFK until after z240.
JBC and Nellie said he recoiled from the impact. It is apparent that JBC
begins moving forward, uniformly at about z272 (look at his position
relative to the car and everyone in it).
The appearance of JBC's wrist changes suddenly between z271 and 272. (It
is not clear what is causing this and it may just be a sudden change in
light).
Greer said that he turned around immediately upon hearing the second shot.
He begins to turn at about z276 and is looking backward by about z281.
Greer said he sensed a concussion at the time of the second shot, which is
consistent with the bullet fragments striking in the car (the windshield
frame was struck). At z271-272 look at the driver's sunvisor. It flips up.
That sunvisor is a very short distance from the windshield damage.
Nellie said she reached out and pulled JBC down immediately on seeing him
get hit by the second shot. She does this beginning around z280.
All of this provides a remarkably consistent window of z265-275 for the
second shot. The specific evidence (particularly the sudden uniform motion
of JBC relative to the car and occupants) narrows it down to z271-272.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On May 11, 5:48 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
>>Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
>>>first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
>>>close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
>>>such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
>>>right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
>>>from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
>>>to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>>
>>16 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot by moveing left and
>>bringing his hands to his throat area.
>>see:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>>None said he did not react. The first shot did not miss, according to
>>the evidence. So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could
>>have missed.
>>
>>Andrew Mason
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> There is much speculation on why Oswald missed.
or that he missed.
> Some believe his first
> shot grazed a tree limb, glanced off a light pole, or simply missed. All
> three are entirely possible.
Disagree. There was no damage to the tree, road or light pole - and these
were examined closely. A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
can't deflect it. Besides, no witness said this occurred. They all said
that JFK appeared to be hit by it. None said he turned, waved and smiled
after the first shot. None.
> A ballistics expert by the name of Howard
> Donahue studied the assassination for several years and believes JFK was
> wounded by all three shots. Donahue thinks JFK was injured by a fragment
> from the first shot that hit the pavement, which he thinks the President
> did physically and verbally react to. He believes both JFK and JBC were
> wounded by the second shot, and the third shot struck the President in the
> head.
> There are witnesses who saw objects bounce off the pavement and
> "debris" flying out of the Limousine. These witnesses connect what they
> saw to the first shot. Two of the witnesses were police officers.
Disagree. See: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/EFSM.pdf
>
> There are other witnesses to a first shot prior to the throat wound. SS
> Agent Glenn Bennett was very clear about what he saw.
See his very first statement. He only described two shots (CE 2112):
( http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/Bennett_Notes_CE2112.pdf )
"At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a
firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked
at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about
4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately
and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."
This is a significantly different statement from the one he gave later in
which he claimed to recall three shots. He does not say that he shot this
shot hit, he says that he saw a "shot that hit". Unfortunately Bennett was
never called so we don't know what he really saw.
and a photographer
> that Gary Mack considers a credible witness put the first shot at Z133.
z133 fits with none of the evidence, eg Zapruder. In any event, we can
rule out a shot at z133 missing because of the shot pattern. We know that
JFK was hit by z224. It is not possible to have a second shot that early
and still have a 1.....2..3 pattern.
Andrew Mason
> That would place the Limousine right under the TSBD at a steep angle from
> the 6th floor window. Only a couple of witness thought they heard a shot
> after the head shot. That is unlikely because the President collapsed
> after this fatal shot. JFK and JBC were no longer upright targets after
> the head shot.
I agree that the head shot was the last.
>
>
John Canal
marki...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On May 15, 12:10=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <m6SdnQlkYuNSBbbVnZ2dnUVZ_uidn...@posted.sasktel>, Andrew Mason=
>
>
>> >All the fragments will move in a forward diverging direction. That is
>> >what I meant by a spray of fragments.
>>
>> No, "ALL" the fragments DID NOT move forward. When the bullet fragmented,
>> which was after it traveled a couple of inches into his head, metallic
>> debris in the form of, perhaps several dozen tiny fragments came off the
>> bullet. The largest frags continued on virtually the same path, i.e. that
>> pretty much straight path from near the EOP, through the "principal"
>> (7HSCA, p. 128) exit which was just forward of the coronal suture (7HSCA,
>> p. 252), and onto to the windshied damage (note that the paths of the two
>> largest frags (CEs 567 & 569) diverged a little, perhaps about 3 degrees,
>> as they exited). Now, a couple of other frags were heavy enough to
>> continue forward but still light enough to curve a bit...these were
>> recovered above the frontal sinus.
>
>What about the 6.5mm circular fragment that appears in the lateral & A/
>P X-rays? How did it become lodged at that location?
Mark,
You must be somewhat new to this group? That subject [the 6.5 mm opacity]
has been beat to death over the years. Do you have Assassination Science?
Yes, I know it's a CT book, but there's a lot of good information in it,
mainly in the form of articles by Dr. Mantik. He examined the originals in
the archives during six different visits...so his articles are filled with
useful information. Also he is a practicing onclogist, so he's especially
expert at reading x-rays. Anyway, he studied the 6.5 mm opacity and, I
believe was one of the first, of the first (let me see, Marsh will
probably claim he was the first) to explain how that opacity was
added--YES, THIS LN IS ADMITTING SOMEONE ALTERED THE AP FILM--about 30
days after the autopsy.
Mantik and I have struck up a pretty friendly relationship and he normally
answers all my questions about the x-rays thoroughly and promptly. Of
course, he's a CT and we disagree on a lot, but on things like optical
density readings from the films, he just reports what the readings were
and that's what I'm usually looking for.
So, Mark, the story behind the 6.5 mm opacity is fascinating....I think
you'll enjoy reading Mantik's article about it in AS, if you can come up
with a copy. You can Google up a lot of posts by me too.....I've studied
the issue quite a bit.
BTW, Chad Zimmerman and Manik had a private debate (hosted by me) on that
opacity (Chad inisted it was a real bullet fragment). I agree with Mantik
that it was added. The debate came to a screeching halt when Mantik pulled
out his notes from one of his visits and told Chad that he saw "grid
lines" on the opaity. Mark, that means it doesn't represent a piece of
metal....period.
One last note. Sturdivan agrees that it's an artifact....but, unlike
myself and Mantik, he thinks it ended up there accidently.
Judge that for yourself.
Oh, I lied...one more note...the 6.5 mm opacity is not on the lateral.
There's is, however, a bone fragment in the location that correponds with
the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP. Mantik's O.D. readings give that away.
Some researchers will tell you it's behind the right eye--not in the
cowlick--don't believe them...the damn thing is not metal.
Good question, BTW. Again, a fascinating subject.
John Canal
Jas
can't deflect it."
Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above? Stating
this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever blow out under 40
mph.
It simply is not true.
There is something wrong with your logic. You can't expect to make a solid
convincing argument when you make statements like this.
A bullet can, in fact, easily be deflected off a tree branch. How much
depends on the angle of the bullet trajectory, the density and width of the
branch, the type of tree and bark it has, the speed of the bullet, etc. etc.
Speaking of which, do you have access to any reports of the Texas Live oak
tree examination for deflection marks? If so, I'd like to see them if you
can post a link, or direct me to a book.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:HqydnfcgVsgoV7HVnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@sasktel...
marki...@yahoo.com
> In article <d5117a72-459a-4949-b7ef-d233cb5a1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> markina...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Mark,
> believe was one of the first, of the first (let me see, Marsh will
> probably claim he was the first) to explain how that opacity was
> added--YES, THIS LN IS ADMITTING SOMEONE ALTERED THE AP FILM--about 30
> days after the autopsy.
Thanks for the updates, John. Yes, I'm new to this discussion group,
but not new to the controversy regarding that artifact in the X-ray.
I've read Dr. Mantik's exhaustive work regarding it.
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
Just because something is an artifact instead of a real object does not
mean that some conspirators added it intentionally.
Anthony Marsh
I agree that there was no damage, but nothing was examined at all, much
less closely. The WC tried to ignore the damage to the curb near Tague.
> but it can't deflect it. Besides, no witness said this occurred. They
Do not rely on witnesses.
Anthony Marsh
Andrew Mason
The tree was photographed about 10 days after the ass. You can see all the
branches. There are no damaged branches. The light pole was photographed
and there is no visible damage. The FBI inspected the entire road surface
and the curbs on Elm and Main. The only indication they found of any
bullet strike was on the curb near Tague.
>
>> but it can't deflect it. Besides, no witness said this occurred. They
>
>
> Do not rely on witnesses.
Individual witnesses may not be reliable. But if several witnesses
independently agree, you cannot ignore that agreement. One does not rely
on an individual witness. One relies on the fact that their observations
are independently corroborated by others and it is this agreement that
must not be disregarded. 16 out of 16 witnesses cannot independently
recall observing a particular fact and be completely wrong. Impossible.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew said: "A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
> can't deflect it."
>
> Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above?
> Stating this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever blow
> out under 40 mph.
> It simply is not true.
So why don't you try it. The experts at American Rifleman tried it and
could not get any of the bullets to deflect. What they observed was a
destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer off course by as
much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change in direction.
see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
At 2000 fps, the wood cannot exert a pressure on the bullet that is
capable of materially changing the jacketed MC bullet's direction much
less deforming the bullet. The branch will give way. Always.
Andrew Mason
John Canal
marki...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On May 15, 7:45=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <d5117a72-459a-4949-b7ef-d233cb5a1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> markina...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>
>> Mark,
>> believe was one of the first, of the first (let me see, Marsh will
>> probably claim he was the first) to explain how that opacity was
>> added--YES, THIS LN IS ADMITTING SOMEONE ALTERED THE AP FILM--about 30
>> days after the autopsy.
>
>Thanks for the updates, John. Yes, I'm new to this discussion group,
>but not new to the controversy regarding that artifact in the X-ray.
>I've read Dr. Mantik's exhaustive work regarding it.
Ok, Mark, now you've got me curious...what's your take on the...er, ah,
well, you did call it an artifact? Did it get there by accident or was it
put there intentionally? Don't hestitate to say you're not sure, if that's
the case....most people aren't, IMO.
John Canal
Andrew Mason
> Andrew said: "A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
> can't deflect it."
Just to be clear, I am speaking about a jacketed rifle bullet ie. the
6.5 mm. MC jacketed bullet fired by Oswald from the SN.
>
> Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above?
> Stating this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever blow
> out under 40 mph.
> It simply is not true.
>
> There is something wrong with your logic. You can't expect to make a
> solid convincing argument when you make statements like this.
>
> A bullet can, in fact, easily be deflected off a tree branch. How much
> depends on the angle of the bullet trajectory, the density and width of
> the branch, the type of tree and bark it has, the speed of the bullet,
> etc. etc.
A stable, pristine 6.5 mm MC jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps cannot
deflect off a tree branch. Period.
It will penetrate the tree branch and will emerge unstable but travelling
in the same direction. It may veer off course after leaving the branch (a
small amount as the American Rifleman article shows - see my last post)
but as you can see from the test results this is not deflection by the
branch. It is due to the asymetrical forces applied by the air as it
tumbles through the air which cause it to spiral. The amount it will drift
off will depend on how much speed it loses. Again, however, the change in
direction is caused by instablility in the air, not the forces supplied by
the tree.
I would agree with you that whether a bullet deflects when hitting an
object depends on the density and strength of the material in the object
it hits. The point I was making is that no tree branch can provide
sufficent density or strength to deflect a rifle bullet.
Since an MC bullet will penetrate several feet of a wood target, it will
not lose a significant amount of speed in penetrating a tree branch - at
least the size of the tree branches in the oak tree in front of the TSBD.
The inability of wood to deflect a bullet is the reason wood is used as
the target in a ballistic pendulum. The bullet always penetrates the wood
block.
>
> Speaking of which, do you have access to any reports of the Texas Live
> oak tree examination for deflection marks? If so, I'd like to see them
> if you can post a link, or direct me to a book.
See the American Rifleman article in my immediately previous post. They
used 1/2 inch and 1 inch maple dowels.
Andrew Mason
yeuhd
> I agree that there was no damage, but nothing was examined at all, much
> less closely. The WC tried to ignore the damage to the curb near Tague.
Warren Commission Report, p. 117:
At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a
bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car
to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets
near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the
shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy
R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck
the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been
standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it
appeared a bullet had hit the cement. According to Tague, "There was a
mark quite obviously that was a bullet, and it was very fresh." In Tague's
opinion, it was the second shot which caused the mark, since he thinks he
heard the third shot after he was hit in the face. This incident appears
to have been recorded in the contemporaneous report of Dallas Patrolman L.
L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: "I have one guy that was
possibly hit by a ricochet from the bullet off the concrete." Scientific
examination of the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts
disclosed metal smears which, "were spectrographically determined to be
essentially lead with a trace of antimony." The mark on the curb could
have originated from the lead core of a bullet but the absence of copper
precluded "the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made
by an unmutilated military full metal- jacketed bullet such as the bullet
from Governor Connally's stretcher."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0070b.htm
Testimony of James Tague:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0281a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0282a.htm
Testimony of Eddy Walthers:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0277b.htm
Commission Exhibt 1974, p. 166:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0473b.htm
Testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0355b.htm
Anthony Marsh
> Jas wrote:
>> Andrew said: "A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
>> can't deflect it."
>
> Just to be clear, I am speaking about a jacketed rifle bullet ie. the
> 6.5 mm. MC jacketed bullet fired by Oswald from the SN.
>
>>
>> Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above?
>> Stating this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever blow
>> out under 40 mph.
>> It simply is not true.
>>
>> There is something wrong with your logic. You can't expect to make a
>> solid convincing argument when you make statements like this.
>>
>> A bullet can, in fact, easily be deflected off a tree branch. How much
>> depends on the angle of the bullet trajectory, the density and width
>> of the branch, the type of tree and bark it has, the speed of the
>> bullet, etc. etc.
>
> A stable, pristine 6.5 mm MC jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps cannot
> deflect off a tree branch. Period.
>
Bullshit. You have no experience with firearms.
> It will penetrate the tree branch and will emerge unstable but
How can it penetrate if it only grazes the branch?
> travelling in the same direction. It may veer off course after leaving
> the branch (a small amount as the American Rifleman article shows - see
> my last post) but as you can see from the test results this is not
> deflection by the branch. It is due to the asymetrical forces applied by
> the air as it tumbles through the air which cause it to spiral. The
> amount it will drift off will depend on how much speed it loses. Again,
> however, the change in direction is caused by instablility in the air,
> not the forces supplied by the tree.
>
> I would agree with you that whether a bullet deflects when hitting an
> object depends on the density and strength of the material in the object
> it hits. The point I was making is that no tree branch can provide
> sufficent density or strength to deflect a rifle bullet.
>
Ridiculous.
>
> Since an MC bullet will penetrate several feet of a wood target, it will
> not lose a significant amount of speed in penetrating a tree branch - at
> least the size of the tree branches in the oak tree in front of the TSBD.
>
> The inability of wood to deflect a bullet is the reason wood is used as
> the target in a ballistic pendulum. The bullet always penetrates the
> wood block.
>
No, it doesn't. Not when it hits the edge or the side at a slight angle.
Anthony Marsh
> Jas wrote:
>
>> Andrew said: "A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
>> can't deflect it."
>>
>> Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above?
>> Stating this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever blow
>> out under 40 mph.
>> It simply is not true.
>
> So why don't you try it. The experts at American Rifleman tried it and
> could not get any of the bullets to deflect. What they observed was a
> destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer off course by
> as much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change in direction.
>
We don't know if and how much a bullet veered off course.
Anthony Marsh
Again, nothing was examined carefully. Someone can take a photograph and
not notice minute damage. As with the back of the rearview mirror. No
one else noticed that it was smashed in.
>>
>>> but it can't deflect it. Besides, no witness said this occurred. They
>>
>>
>> Do not rely on witnesses.
>
> Individual witnesses may not be reliable. But if several witnesses
> independently agree, you cannot ignore that agreement. One does not rely
I can and you should. Selection bias. You are cherry picking your
witnesses to fit your pet theory.
> on an individual witness. One relies on the fact that their observations
> are independently corroborated by others and it is this agreement that
> must not be disregarded. 16 out of 16 witnesses cannot independently
> recall observing a particular fact and be completely wrong. Impossible.
>
So if 16 people say they saw a flying saucer you use that as evidence of
its existence?
> Andrew Mason
Jas
observed was a destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer
off course by as much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change
in direction."
I acknowledge that a bullet may not veer off at major angles from a tree
branch, like say 80 degrees or so, but we don't know that it absolutely
*won't* do this, either. You don't need a major angle of defection for the
bullet to miss its target. In addition, there are way too many complex
variables in the firing of a bullet at a branch -- the angle at which it
hits the branch, the thickness of the branch, the density and type of
wood, the type of and speed of the bullet, the distance to the intended
target from the point of deflection, even the wetness of the wood, like
after a rain (which, by the way, happened the morning of the
assassination) -- to make any definitive conclusions.
This is what I am saying about your bold statement that a bullet won't
ever deflect off a branch, and then use this to argue that this proves the
first shot at Kennedy absolutely was not deflected off of the Texas Live
oak tree at all, therefore the first shot did not miss: You're simply
relying on, and adding up, way too much speculation to make a statement
like that, and all it does is build a shaky house of cards.
Truth is, we'll never know precisely what happened to that first shot, and
why it missed by such a long way.
I admit, it seems unlikely that Oswald would have missed that shot -- the
distance to the target was very close and in the mind's eye it doesn't
seem possible. But there are many factors that could be employed here we
simply will never be able to definitively prove: Oswald's possible
nervousness, the Texas Live oak tree (if not blocking the actual bullet,
then hindering his line-of-sight), the left to right movement of the limo
making the shot harder (a theory I don't happen to agree with), whether he
tried using the iron sights or the scope -- the list is long.
For all we know maybe a drop of sweat, or a gnat, got in his eye at the
last second. Anyone who's ever been sighting in a rifle and had this
happen will tell you, if you pull that trigger while even starting to wipe
your eye, you will probably miss your target, and possibly by a wide
margin. In that situation any rifleman will advise that the best thing to
do is to not squeeze the trigger.
Oswald, probably being nervous at taking at shot at the president of the
U.S. in such a public way, and realizing his actions are changing his life
-- and history -- forever, and knowing he only has seconds to accomplish
this brazen act, might have simply shot anyway.
But whether this happened is, obviously, only my speculation.
Using the simple process of elimination: We know 3 shots were fired, the
last 2 hit their targets as seen in the Zapruder film (as the way Dale
Myers' explains it) and as demonstrated by the evidence, therefore it's
the first shot that had to have missed within the time frame of the total
shot sequence.
Now, if you want to believe that 16 witnesses, who probably didn't know
what in heck was going on at all in the first moments of the
assassination, said they saw Kennedy reach for his throat at the moment of
the first shot, go ahead. I'll hitch my wagon to things that are more
substantive than unreliable eye witnesses, (16, 2, 9, 73, whatever the
number of witnesses) -- the Zapruder film and the sum of the evidence.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:htOdndN2janTA7DVnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@sasktel...
Andrew Mason
> Andrew wrote: "So why don't you try it. The experts at American Rifleman
> tried it and could not get any of the bullets to deflect. What they
> observed was a destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer
> off course by as much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change
> in direction."
>
> I acknowledge that a bullet may not veer off at major angles from a tree
> branch, like say 80 degrees or so, but we don't know that it absolutely
> *won't* do this, either.
You miss the point. We do know that it absolutely won't do this. It
won't deflect off a sponge either. To a 2000 fps jacketed 6.5 mm 10 gram
bullet a branch is like kleenex. That is the point.
>
You don't need a major angle of defection for
> the bullet to miss its target. In addition, there are way too many
> complex variables in the firing of a bullet at a branch -- the angle at
> which it hits the branch, the thickness of the branch, the density and
> type of wood, the type of and speed of the bullet, the distance to the
> intended target from the point of deflection, even the wetness of the
> wood, like after a rain (which, by the way, happened the morning of the
> assassination) -- to make any definitive conclusions.
>
> This is what I am saying about your bold statement that a bullet won't
> ever deflect off a branch, and then use this to argue that this proves
> the first shot at Kennedy absolutely was not deflected off of the Texas
> Live oak tree at all, therefore the first shot did not miss: You're
> simply relying on, and adding up, way too much speculation to make a
> statement like that, and all it does is build a shaky house of cards.
>
> Truth is, we'll never know precisely what happened to that first shot,
> and why it missed by such a long way.
I am not sure why you say we'll never know precisely what happened to
the first shot. The people who were there and saw the President react to
it would not only know precisely what happened but know that the first
shot did not miss.
>
> I admit, it seems unlikely that Oswald would have missed that shot --
> the distance to the target was very close and in the mind's eye it
> doesn't seem possible.
Not only does it not seem possible, the evidence of those who were there
is that it did not.
But there are many factors that could be employed
> here we simply will never be able to definitively prove: Oswald's
> possible nervousness, the Texas Live oak tree (if not blocking the
> actual bullet, then hindering his line-of-sight), the left to right
> movement of the limo making the shot harder (a theory I don't happen to
> agree with), whether he tried using the iron sights or the scope -- the
> list is long.
>
> For all we know maybe a drop of sweat, or a gnat, got in his eye at the
> last second. Anyone who's ever been sighting in a rifle and had this
> happen will tell you, if you pull that trigger while even starting to
> wipe your eye, you will probably miss your target, and possibly by a
> wide margin. In that situation any rifleman will advise that the best
> thing to do is to not squeeze the trigger.
This is speculation. We have evidence that it hit JFK. Lots of evidence.
Without evidence, you cannot determine facts. All conclusions must not
only be based on facts, they must not conflict with facts. One fact
destroys an elegant theory.
>
> Oswald, probably being nervous at taking at shot at the president of the
> U.S. in such a public way, and realizing his actions are changing his
> life -- and history -- forever, and knowing he only has seconds to
> accomplish this brazen act, might have simply shot anyway.
>
> But whether this happened is, obviously, only my speculation.
>
> Using the simple process of elimination: We know 3 shots were fired, the
> last 2 hit their targets as seen in the Zapruder film (as the way Dale
> Myers' explains it) and as demonstrated by the evidence, therefore it's
> the first shot that had to have missed within the time frame of the
> total shot sequence.
?? What is the matter with three shots hitting? That is what the
evidence is.
>
> Now, if you want to believe that 16 witnesses, who probably didn't know
> what in heck was going on at all in the first moments of the
> assassination, said they saw Kennedy reach for his throat at the moment
> of the first shot, go ahead. I'll hitch my wagon to things that are more
> substantive than unreliable eye witnesses, (16, 2, 9, 73, whatever the
> number of witnesses) -- the Zapruder film and the sum of the evidence.
What is the sum of 0 witnesses who said that JFK and Jackie turned to
the crowd, smiled and waved after the first shot and 16 witnesses who
said that he reacted to it by moving left and bringing his hands to hsi
neck?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
So are you suggesting that if a bullet grazes a branch at a slight angle
that it is going to deflect at a large angle?
The problem can only be understood by determining the lateral force
required to deflect the bullet through a particular angle, say 1 degree.
Keep in mind that in striking a branch at a slight angle it will be in
contact with the branch for about 1/50,000 of a second. An angle of 1
degree means a lateral displacement of .2 inches in the ensuing foot
(ie. 1/2000th of a second). This requires an enormous force which the
wood simply cannot exert.
Andrew Mason
Jas
based on the evidence, but instead based on your own personal
understanding of the evidence -- and the shaky testimonies of some eye
witnesses in Dealey -- and that simply won't work.
If you were a lawyer arguing a case for the defense, you would lose
miserably.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:qKqdneRTs_v0ebLVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@sasktel...
Andrew Mason
> Andrew wrote: "So why don't you try it. The experts at American Rifleman
> tried it and could not get any of the bullets to deflect. What they
> observed was a destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer
> off course by as much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change
> in direction."
>
> I acknowledge that a bullet may not veer off at major angles from a tree
> branch, like say 80 degrees or so, but we don't know that it absolutely
> *won't* do this, either. You don't need a major angle of defection for
> the bullet to miss its target. In addition, there are way too many
> complex variables in the firing of a bullet at a branch -- the angle at
> which it hits the branch, the thickness of the branch, the density and
> type of wood, the type of and speed of the bullet, the distance to the
> intended target from the point of deflection, even the wetness of the
> wood, like after a rain (which, by the way, happened the morning of the
> assassination) -- to make any definitive conclusions.
>
> This is what I am saying about your bold statement that a bullet won't
> ever deflect off a branch, and then use this to argue that this proves
> the first shot at Kennedy absolutely was not deflected off of the Texas
> Live oak tree at all, therefore the first shot did not miss: You're
> simply relying on, and adding up, way too much speculation to make a
> statement like that, and all it does is build a shaky house of cards.
Do you think a 6.5 mm. jacketed MC bullet at 2000 fps can deflect off a
person's skull? In the history of human warfare how many skulls have
deflected a rifle bullet 80 degrees? Saying a bullet can bounce off wood
is like saying it can bounce off a skull. And a skull, being bone, is much
harder and denser than any wood.
Put it this way. 16 witnesses who said that the first shot did not miss
(as well as 22 witnesses who said it was after z186, which means it could
not have missed) and 48 witnesses who said that last two shots were closer
together, which means only one shot before z224 which means that JFK was
hit by it) are at least as good as Virgie Baker/Rachley who thought that
something hit the road, she thought on the first shot, when the limo was
past the Stemmons sign.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew, I don't understand your logic. You make statements that are not
> based on the evidence, but instead based on your own personal
> understanding of the evidence -- and the shaky testimonies of some eye
> witnesses in Dealey -- and that simply won't work.
>
> If you were a lawyer arguing a case for the defense, you would lose
> miserably.
And, exactly what evidence do you have that a tree branch can deflect a
bullet 80 degrees?
Ultimately, this case has to be decided on evidence. Your opinion or my
opinion is largely immaterial.
There is absolutely no evidence that a shot missed. If there was, I
think the WC might have found some of it. They had no idea which shot
missed and pointed out all sorts of evidence why none of the three shots
could have missed.
I have pointed out three bodies of witness evidence consisting of 16, 22
and 48 witnesses respectively whose evidence can not possibly be
reconciled with a first shot missing, let alone a shot at z160. You can
argue that this is shaky testimony. I don't know why you would prefer
Virgie Baker over these witnesses. At least you should explain how it is
that they all agree in eliminating the possibility of a first shot miss.
There is a very easy way to prove whether the SBT occurred. It is not by
using cartoons drawn on a computer. It is by placing the exact vehicle
or replica in the exact positions seen in the Zapruder film with exact
models or dummys in the exact positions seen in the Zfilm and seeing
where a line from the SN to the wounds goes. I will bet you a Texas
steak dinner for two that this will not only show that the SBT could not
have occurred but will show exactly where the bullets went and when they
must have been fired. It will show that Oswald did all the shooting and
that the shots were exactly as the witnesses observed.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew, I don't understand your logic. You make statements that are not
> based on the evidence, but instead based on your own personal
> understanding of the evidence -- and the shaky testimonies of some eye
> witnesses in Dealey -- and that simply won't work.
>
> If you were a lawyer arguing a case for the defense, you would lose
> miserably.
And why would I be arguing a case for the defence? I am not arguing that
Oswald didn't do it. I am arguing that he did.
In my view, the SBT is the single biggest problem with a jury's
acceptance of Oswald's guilt. It is a huge problem because it does not
fit the evidence. Juries often make decisions based on the evidence.
I am arguing that the SBT is inconsistent with the evidence of the vast
preponderance of witnesses, a fact that you seem to acknowledge but
dismiss as immaterial. I would not be so sure that a jury would do the same.
pierr...@ifrance.com
> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
> such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
> from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
I agree that the scope magnification was more a handicap than an asset. At
such close range Oswald did not need to use it. I can accept that he could
have missed the President for whatever reason. However, it is hard to
imagine that he missed the entire limousine, even if we assumed that he
did a poor aim.
So, the good question is: did the first shot was the missed shot? With
regard the 2 other shots I do believe that he did not us e the scope what
made him possible to fire two shots in a rapid succession.
Jas
exact vehicle or replica in the exact positions seen in the Zapruder film
with exact models or dummys in the exact positions seen in the Zfilm and
seeing where a line from the SN to the wounds goes. I will bet you a Texas
steak dinner for two that this will not only show that the SBT could not
have occurred but will show exactly where the bullets went and when they
must have been fired. It will show that Oswald did all the shooting and
that the shots were exactly as the witnesses observed."
Andrew, thank you for remaining calm and civil in your posts. It's really
appreciated.
I wish I could get in on that steak dinner bet but I fear we are at an
impasse : >) and no matter what the outcome, we will disagree.
Let's call it a draw.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:gaqdnXhCOP1ktazV...@posted.sasktel...
claviger
Pierre,
Blakey and Cornwell share your opinion.
claviger
> Jas wrote:
> > Andrew, I don't understand your logic. You make statements that are not
> > based on the evidence, but instead based on your own personal
> > understanding of the evidence -- and the shaky testimonies of some eye
> > witnesses in Dealey -- and that simply won't work.
>
> > If you were a lawyer arguing a case for the defense, you would lose
> > miserably.
>
> And why would I be arguing a case for the defence? I am not arguing that
> Oswald didn't do it. I am arguing that he did.
>
> In my view, the SBT is the single biggest problem with a jury's
> acceptance of Oswald's guilt. It is a huge problem because it does not
> fit the evidence. Juries often make decisions based on the evidence.
>
> I am arguing that the SBT is inconsistent with the evidence of the vast
> preponderance of witnesses, a fact that you seem to acknowledge but
> dismiss as immaterial. I would not be so sure that a jury would do the same.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
> > James
>
> >>>news:htOdndN2janTA7DVnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@sasktel...
>
> >>>> Jas wrote:
>
> >>>>> Andrew said: "A tree branch will destabilize the bullet, but it
> >>>>> can't deflect it."
>
> >>>>> Why do you think you can get away with statements like the above?
> >>>>> Stating this as a fact is like saying that a car tire won't ever
> >>>>> blow out under 40 mph.
> >>>>> It simply is not true.
>
> >>>> So why don't you try it. The experts at American Rifleman tried it
> >>>> and could not get any of the bullets to deflect. What they observed
> >>>> was a destabilising effect on the bullet that caused it to veer off
> >>>> course by as much as a foot over 100 yards but never a sudden change
> >>>> in direction.
>
> >>>> see:
> >>>>http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
>
> >>>> At 2000 fps, the wood cannot exert a pressure on the bullet that is
> >>>> capable of materially changing the jacketed MC bullet's direction
> >>>> much less deforming the bullet. The branch will give way. Always.
>
> >>>> Andrew Mason
Andrew,
First you claim a FMJ military bullet has such penetration power not even
an oak tree can stop it or even deflect it, but then you don't believe in
the SBT because this same unstoppable bullet could not possibly penetrate
all the way through a human being. You seem to believe oak trees are made
of sawdust. If someone was shooting at you with FMJ bullets and given a
choice, would you jump for cover behind an oak tree or another human
being?
Andrew Mason
I am not sure where you are getting this impression. I never said a fmj
bullet cannot pass through a human being. This obviously occurred with
both JFK and JBC. It is precisely because the bullet will easily
penetrate flesh and wood that flesh and wood cannot deflect it. A
deflection occurs because the bullet cannot penetrate.
I don't believe the SBT occurred because there is no evidence that it
occurred and abundant evidence that it did not. The overwhelming
preponderence of evidence is that JFK was hit by the first shot. I have
pointed out three sets of witnesses consisting of 16, 22 and 48 witneses
who provide evidence that is inconsistent with the first shot missing.
As far as your question is concerned, I am not sure why you think it is
pertinent. Neither a tree nor a person will deflect a bullet. So I would
hide behind the object that a) was large enough to shield me and b) had
the greatest stopping power. I would not hide behind some leaves and
branches of an oak tree. There is zero chance that such branches will
either deflect or absorb the bullet.
Andrew Mason
>
>
>
>
>
Andrew Mason
Pierre,
If the last two shots were in rapid succession, (as the vast majority of
witnesses who commented on shot spacing recalled - 48 witnesses by my
count: see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf ) the
first shot could not have missed. JFK is seen reacting 5 seconds before
the last shot.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 mai, 05:50, Shiz...@aol.com wrote:
>> Has anyone considered that the reason Oswald apparently missed on his
>> first shot attempt was because of the rifle scope's magnification and too
>> close range which would have presented Oswald with a very unstable view at
>> such close range. Too, shooting at a left-to-right moving target for a
>> right handed shooter is more difficult than a target moving straight away
>> from the shooter. Oswald's hesitation after the first shot was probably
>> to allow more distance that would present a easier target.
>
> I agree that the scope magnification was more a handicap than an asset. At
> such close range Oswald did not need to use it. I can accept that he could
> have missed the President for whatever reason. However, it is hard to
> imagine that he missed the entire limousine, even if we assumed that he
> did a poor aim.
>
How could anyone miss hitting everything in Dealey Plaza. Where did that
shot go? Show me that bullet.
Anthony Marsh
> Andrew said: "There is a very easy way to prove whether the SBT
> occurred. It is not by using cartoons drawn on a computer. It is by
> placing the exact vehicle or replica in the exact positions seen in the
> Zapruder film with exact models or dummys in the exact positions seen in
> the Zfilm and seeing where a line from the SN to the wounds goes. I will
> bet you a Texas steak dinner for two that this will not only show that
> the SBT could not have occurred but will show exactly where the bullets
> went and when they must have been fired. It will show that Oswald did
> all the shooting and that the shots were exactly as the witnesses
> observed."
>
Someone tried that already and they made a mess of it. GIGO.
Anthony Marsh
> Jas wrote:
>> Andrew, I don't understand your logic. You make statements that are
>> not based on the evidence, but instead based on your own personal
>> understanding of the evidence -- and the shaky testimonies of some eye
>> witnesses in Dealey -- and that simply won't work.
>>
>> If you were a lawyer arguing a case for the defense, you would lose
>> miserably.
>
> And, exactly what evidence do you have that a tree branch can deflect a
> bullet 80 degrees?
>
> Ultimately, this case has to be decided on evidence. Your opinion or my
> opinion is largely immaterial.
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that a shot missed. If there was, I
> think the WC might have found some of it. They had no idea which shot
> missed and pointed out all sorts of evidence why none of the three shots
> could have missed.
>
No. The WC did not want to find the curb struck by a fragment. The WC
did not want to know that the chrome topping was dented during the
assassination.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, if it hits at a very shallow angle.
> deflected a rifle bullet 80 degrees? Saying a bullet can bounce off wood
What is your 80 degrees?