The first shot miss
bigdog
three possible scenarios offered by the WC for which of Oswald's shots
missed, the first seems to be almost a certainty, CTs have questioned
why Oswald would have missed with that one. They have argued that this
would have been his easiest shot since this was the shortest of the
three shots and he could fire when ready. I and others have argued
that while this shot was the shortest, it was the most difficult of
the three since the target was coming out of an abrubt turn, there was
a small window of time to fire before the target passed under the
tree, and the target was moving across the line of fire rather than
down it as it would be for the later shots. I've also believed that
firing almost straight down would be extremely awkward and the rifle
rest would be of little or no use.
I thought I had seen just about all the JFK assassination
documentaries that play on the various cable channels, but about a
week ago, the Military Channel aired an Unsolved History episode which
I had either never seen or at least not in its entirety. Expert
marksman Michael Yardley was asked to recreate the shots from the SN
and he seemed to confirm what I believe about the awkwardness of that
first shot. I can't remember his exact words but I believe he
mentioned how cramped a position that would have placed the shooter
in. The shots got progressively easier as the target moved away
because it would be moving more directly away from the shooter as it
got farther away. Since none of the shots was at a very long range,
the greater distance was a negligible factor.
Anthony Marsh
> Ever since a consensus has developed among WC defenders that of the
> three possible scenarios offered by the WC for which of Oswald's shots
> missed, the first seems to be almost a certainty, CTs have questioned
> why Oswald would have missed with that one. They have argued that this
> would have been his easiest shot since this was the shortest of the
> three shots and he could fire when ready. I and others have argued
> that while this shot was the shortest, it was the most difficult of
> the three since the target was coming out of an abrubt turn, there was
> a small window of time to fire before the target passed under the
> tree, and the target was moving across the line of fire rather than
> down it as it would be for the later shots. I've also believed that
> firing almost straight down would be extremely awkward and the rifle
> rest would be of little or no use.
>
Ok, then show me what the bullet hit and show me the bullet.
> I thought I had seen just about all the JFK assassination
> documentaries that play on the various cable channels, but about a
> week ago, the Military Channel aired an Unsolved History episode which
> I had either never seen or at least not in its entirety. Expert
That aired earlier on another channel.
> marksman Michael Yardley was asked to recreate the shots from the SN
> and he seemed to confirm what I believe about the awkwardness of that
> first shot. I can't remember his exact words but I believe he
> mentioned how cramped a position that would have placed the shooter
> in. The shots got progressively easier as the target moved away
> because it would be moving more directly away from the shooter as it
> got farther away. Since none of the shots was at a very long range,
> the greater distance was a negligible factor.
>
And he confirmed what we have been saying about the rifle being a piece
of junk and you could SEE for yourself that it jammed frequently.
claviger
BD,
The first shot angle was so awkward only an amateur would even take that
shot. A professional sniper would wait for a clear shot and put the first
one in the head: motto of the trained sniper "One shot, one kill."
One other big factor, it is questionable if Oswald ever fired on a live
target before. He may have gone bird hunting in Russia with a shotgun, but
no evidence he ever shot a game animal. He probably had "buck fever"
lining up both shots on a live target, General Walker and the President.
The nervous jitters of buck fever would explain a yanked shot. The other
two angles were easier than the severe angle of the first shot. He may
have also overcompensated to the right to avoid hitting the First Lady.
charles
You apparently are a LNer that believes Oswald fired 3 shots. You believe
he missed with the first shot, hit both JFK and JBC with the second shot
and hit JFK in the head with the final shot all from Oswald's rifle from
JFK's rear. Right?
No evidence of this missed first shot exists. Your second shot requires
an alignment through both men and broken bones in JBC with almost no
damage to the bullet CE 399. This is a feat that can not be duplicated.
Your last shot requires JFK's skull to shatter the bullet into many pieces
even though JFK's skull is a weaker bone than JBC's wrist bone which did
apparently no damage to CE 399 according to your theory. There are so
many evidentiary problems with your theory that it would take a book to
list them all.
Charles
pjsp...@aol.com
Bigdog, you may be interested to know that Yardley later admitted to a
British journalist that he doesn't think Oswald could have pulled off
the shots. (I tried to find this article on the net, but it looks like
it's no longer available.)
From patspeer.com. chapter 12b:
In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy
Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his
rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley
fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test
the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
akin to playing with a stacked deck. Later, Yardley was interviewed by
a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
Anthony Marsh
Nice going. Can you think up any more ridiculous excuses? How about
stage fright? How about the fact that he was left-handed. How about the
Sun was in his eyes or there was a distracting glare off the limousine.
You are not trying hard enough, slacker.
claviger
LHO was a human being about to pull the trigger on another human
being. You think he was cool, calm, and collected on that day? It is
entirely possible he was unsure of where to take the shot. LHO is
probably who the Rowlands saw on the other end of the building just
minutes before the motorcade arrived, and Bonnie Ray Williams
evidently didn't leave the 6th floor until around 12:15 pm. LHO had to
worry if anyone else might wander up to the 6th floor at just the
wrong time. He had a decision to make, go through with it or not. Part
of that decision is what does he have to lose? Marina has made a
decision to separate and was not interested in making up. In fact, the
night before they got in an argument about watching JFK on TV. Would
LHO have the nerve to go through with it and by so doing become as
famous as his victim? He had a lot to think about before pulling that
trigger.
bigdog
> No evidence of this missed first shot exists.
If you are talking about direct evidence of precisely when the first
shot was fired, no that doesn't exist. There is no definitive proof of
exactly when that shot was fired. However we can make a pretty good
stab at it based on Connally's testimony and his observable reactions
in the Z-film. JBC said he was looking left when he heard the shot
over his right shoulder and he immediately turned to his right. We see
him snap his head around at Z164. Given a normal reaction time, that
would place the shot no later than Z160 although some have made the
argument for that missed shot earlier in the Z150s. The reaction of
Rosemary Willis who was running alongside the limo and begins to come
to a gradual stop and look back toward the TSBD begins early in the
Z170s. We have a compelling argument for the early shot and neither
JFK or JBC begin reacting to being shot until Z226.
> Your second shot requires
> an alignment through both men...
An allignment which existed at or about Z222.
> and broken bones in JBC with almost no
> damage to the bullet CE 399.
Total bullshit. CE399 is flattened at the base and noticeably bent.
> This is a feat that can not be duplicated.
One of the biggest red herring arguments the CTs make, and one of
their favorite. No shooting in history has been PERFECTLY duplicated
because that is impossible. Every shooting is a unique event with so
many variables that cannot be duplicated in a single event.
Virtually every aspect of the SBT has been duplicated through a number
of recreations. A bullet has been fired through too animal carcasses,
struck a dense bone, and emerged bent like CE399.
> Your last shot requires JFK's skull to shatter the bullet into many pieces
> even though JFK's skull is a weaker bone than JBC's wrist bone which did
> apparently no damage to CE 399 according to your theory.
Again you repeat the ridiculous claim that CE399 was undamaged. I
won't get into an argument about whether the skull is weaker bone than
the wrist because that is above my pay grade, but the bullet that hit
JFK in the skull was a direct shot while the bullet that hit JBC in
the wrist had been slowed significantly after passing through the
torsos of both men and had begun two tumble as evidence by the base of
the bullet being flattened rather than the nose. You are making an
apples to oranges comparison.
> There are so
> many evidentiary problems with your theory that it would take a book to
> list them all.
>
Why don't you write one. We haven't had a new CT book for at least 10
minutes.
bigdog
> In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy
> Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
> shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
> riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
> by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
> times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
> scenario)...
Where did you guys get this crap that this was the WC's favored
scenario? You guys made this up because this was easier to attack than
the first shot miss which would have allowed 8 seconds or more. The WC
presented 3 possible scenarios, the pros and cons for each and did not
commit to any of them nor speculate on the relative probabilities.
> ...was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his
> rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
> at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
> accomplish a similar feat.
Oswald didn't accomplish a similar feat. He only hit the watermelon
once and it took him three tries to do that and he took longer to fire
the shots. But then, he wasn't as good a shooter as Yardley.
> While the program mentioned that Yardley
> fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
> successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
> failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
> suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
> seconds quoted in the program.
Right, it might have taken him 8-9 seconds.
? Even worse, when it came time to test
> the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
> hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
> light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
> laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
> rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
> akin to playing with a stacked deck.
So what. Oswald proved you could do it with an MC firing real bullets.
The two recovered bullets definitely came from his rifle.
> Later, Yardley was interviewed by
> a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
> that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
> course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
If he said this later, why would it have been in the program?
Anthony Marsh
>> Myths� attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
>> shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
>> riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
>> by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
>> times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
>> scenario)...
>
> Where did you guys get this crap that this was the WC's favored
Not the WC's favored. The one preferred by most WC defenders. The WC was
never conclusive about anything.
> scenario? You guys made this up because this was easier to attack than
> the first shot miss which would have allowed 8 seconds or more. The WC
You can have as many seconds as you want, but most witnesses will
disagree when you push it closer to 20 seconds.
> presented 3 possible scenarios, the pros and cons for each and did not
> commit to any of them nor speculate on the relative probabilities.
>
>> ...was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn�t fired his
>> rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
>> at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
>> accomplish a similar feat.
>
> Oswald didn't accomplish a similar feat. He only hit the watermelon
> once and it took him three tries to do that and he took longer to fire
> the shots. But then, he wasn't as good a shooter as Yardley.
>
>> While the program mentioned that Yardley
>> fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
>> successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
>> failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
>> suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
>> seconds quoted in the program.
>
> Right, it might have taken him 8-9 seconds.
>
> ? Even worse, when it came time to test
>> the accuracy of Yardley�s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
>> hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
>> light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
>> laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
>> rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
>> akin to playing with a stacked deck.
>
> So what. Oswald proved you could do it with an MC firing real bullets.
> The two recovered bullets definitely came from his rifle.
>
What two recovered bullets? We only have one found bullet, CE 399.
>> Later, Yardley was interviewed by
>> a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
>> that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
>> course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
>
> If he said this later, why would it have been in the program?
>
If he said it later, why would WC defenders want to put it in the
program? They'd want to cover it up.
Anthony Marsh
Or Z-224. Or Z-210 according to Bugliosi. Or Z-190 according to the
HSCA. Close enough for government propaganda.
>> and broken bones in JBC with almost no
>> damage to the bullet CE 399.
>
> Total bullshit. CE399 is flattened at the base and noticeably bent.
>
That's why the qualified "almost."
But the earliest photos of CE 399 do not match later photos of CE 399.
>> This is a feat that can not be duplicated.
>
> One of the biggest red herring arguments the CTs make, and one of
> their favorite. No shooting in history has been PERFECTLY duplicated
> because that is impossible. Every shooting is a unique event with so
> many variables that cannot be duplicated in a single event.
Not quite. See the Court TV special on Trey Cooley where they simulated
the flight of the bullet that killed Trey.
> Virtually every aspect of the SBT has been duplicated through a number
> of recreations. A bullet has been fired through too animal carcasses,
> struck a dense bone, and emerged bent like CE399.
>
Anyone can make a CE 399. As long as you don't require it to do
everything the WC defenders say it did.
The Australians got theirs by specifically not shooting it through a
wrist bone.
>> Your last shot requires JFK's skull to shatter the bullet into many pieces
>> even though JFK's skull is a weaker bone than JBC's wrist bone which did
>> apparently no damage to CE 399 according to your theory.
>
> Again you repeat the ridiculous claim that CE399 was undamaged. I
> won't get into an argument about whether the skull is weaker bone than
> the wrist because that is above my pay grade, but the bullet that hit
> JFK in the skull was a direct shot while the bullet that hit JBC in
Then why not read what forensic pathologists say? The radius is the
strongest bone in the body.
pjsp...@aol.com
If I recall, he said that shooting at moving targets from elevation was a
difficult skill to acquire, and that the M/C rifle was an inferior weapon,
and that he just couldn't believe Oswald would hit the shots with as
little practice as proposed.
>
> > In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy
> > Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
> > shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
> > riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
> > by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
> > times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
> > scenario)...
>
> Where did you guys get this crap that this was the WC's favored
> scenario? You guys made this up because this was easier to attack than
> the first shot miss which would have allowed 8 seconds or more. The WC
> presented 3 possible scenarios, the pros and cons for each and did not
> commit to any of them nor speculate on the relative probabilities.
We get it from the WCR itself and the newspaper accounts of the WCR and
CBS' reports on the WCR etc. NO ONE at the time seriously considered that
the first shot missed. NO ONE. Virtually every newspaper account said
Kennedy was hit by the first shot. Virtually every eyewitness account said
the first shot hit, or reported Kennedy's reaction to the first shot. NO
ONE said he continued smiling and waving as in the completely fraudulent
scenario pushed by Posner etc.
>
> > ...was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his
> > rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
> > at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
> > accomplish a similar feat.
>
> Oswald didn't accomplish a similar feat. He only hit the watermelon
> once and it took him three tries to do that and he took longer to fire
> the shots. But then, he wasn't as good a shooter as Yardley.
Wrong. In your scenario Oswald hit TWO shots closer to the center of his
target while rapid firing than ANY of the 14 shots rapid fired by the
Army's expert shooters while firing his rifle...even after shims had been
added to the rifle to make it fire more accurately. And he didn't have
more time...as the first shot miss you propose is a delusion.
>
> > While the program mentioned that Yardley
> > fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
> > successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
> > failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
> > suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
> > seconds quoted in the program.
>
> Right, it might have taken him 8-9 seconds.
Wrong. The first shot miss you propose is a delusion.
>
> ? Even worse, when it came time to test
>
> > the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
> > hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
> > light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
> > laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
> > rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
> > akin to playing with a stacked deck.
>
> So what. Oswald proved you could do it with an MC firing real bullets.
> The two recovered bullets definitely came from his rifle.
Even if one assumes it was Oswald's rifle, that doesn't mean he fired
it.
>
> > Later, Yardley was interviewed by
> > a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
> > that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
> > course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
>
> If he said this later, why would it have been in the program?
Uhhh...don't you think Yardley was asked after his simulation if he
thought Oswald could have made the shots? OF COURSE HE WAS. And OF COURSE
he said no and OF COURSE they failed to put this in the program. If not,
and if they'd failed to ask him such a question, someone should have been
fired.
bigdog
proves it was the weapon that put the bullets on the target. The
target was moving slowly and in almost a direct line away from Oswald
so the relative movement of the target to the firing line was minimal.
Oswald's ownnership of the murder weapon, his palm print on it, his
shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle, and an eyewitness all
indicate he was the one firing the weapon. This is not trumped by
Yardley's guess that Oswald was not capable of firing the shots.
>
>
> > > In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy
> > > Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
> > > shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
> > > riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
> > > by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
> > > times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
> > > scenario)...
>
> > Where did you guys get this crap that this was the WC's favored
> > scenario? You guys made this up because this was easier to attack than
> > the first shot miss which would have allowed 8 seconds or more. The WC
> > presented 3 possible scenarios, the pros and cons for each and did not
> > commit to any of them nor speculate on the relative probabilities.
>
> We get it from the WCR itself and the newspaper accounts of the WCR and
> CBS' reports on the WCR etc.
Quote me a single passage from the WCR itself that says the second
shot miss was their prefered scenario. CBS's opinions on that issue
are as irrelevant as yours.
> NO ONE at the time seriously considered that
> the first shot missed. NO ONE.
Pure bluster. Obviously the WC seriously considered it because the
refused to commit to any specific shot missing.
? Virtually every newspaper account said
> Kennedy was hit by the first shot.
Again, what do their misrepresentations have to do with what the WC
concluded.
> Virtually every eyewitness account said
> the first shot hit, or reported Kennedy's reaction to the first shot.
Bullshit. There are a number of witnesses who support a first shot
miss.
> NO
> ONE said he continued smiling and waving as in the completely fraudulent
> scenario pushed by Posner etc.
>
What is fraudulent about what Posner pushed.
Somehow, over the years, a myth was developed that the WC concluded
that the second shot missed and that all three shots were fired in
under 6 seconds. Popular misconceptions do not constitute fact. The
WCR speaks for itself on that issue and the summary of the chapter
that deals with that issue adamently refuses to commit to any
particular scenario. CTs have propogated the myth of the second shot
miss conclusion because it is easier to attack and makes the shooting
task the most difficult. Even if the WCR had leaned toward the second
shot miss, which it did not, and later anaylsis of the Z-film
indicates it a first shot miss, which it does, the intelligent thing
to do is move toward the more likely scenario, which is what the LN
community has done. Yet you and your cohorts continue to attack the
second shot miss scenario as if it was set in stone rather than deal
with the most likely scenario.
>
>
> > > ...was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his
> > > rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
> > > at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
> > > accomplish a similar feat.
>
> > Oswald didn't accomplish a similar feat. He only hit the watermelon
> > once and it took him three tries to do that and he took longer to fire
> > the shots. But then, he wasn't as good a shooter as Yardley.
>
> Wrong. In your scenario Oswald hit TWO shots closer to the center of his
> target while rapid firing than ANY of the 14 shots rapid fired by the
> Army's expert shooters while firing his rifle...even after shims had been
> added to the rifle to make it fire more accurately. And he didn't have
> more time...as the first shot miss you propose is a delusion.
>
We were comparing Oswald's shooting to Yardley's and now you want to
shift gears and compare it to the Army experts. Yardley hit the
watermelon on all three shots, the equivalent of three head shots.
Oswald only scored one head shot out of three. That means he
completely missed with one shot and had a near miss with the other.
The same would be true if he was targeting the torso. He hit the
target once and came close with another and completely missed with
another. Oswald's shooting was not nearly as good as Yardley's and he
took longer to fire them. About what you would expect with a less
skilled marksman.
>
>
> > > While the program mentioned that Yardley
> > > fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
> > > successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
> > > failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
> > > suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
> > > seconds quoted in the program.
>
> > Right, it might have taken him 8-9 seconds.
>
> Wrong. The first shot miss you propose is a delusion.
>
Keep clinging to your myth.
>
>
> > ? Even worse, when it came time to test
>
> > > the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
> > > hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
> > > light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
> > > laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
> > > rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
> > > akin to playing with a stacked deck.
>
> > So what. Oswald proved you could do it with an MC firing real bullets.
> > The two recovered bullets definitely came from his rifle.
>
> Even if one assumes it was Oswald's rifle, that doesn't mean he fired
> it.
>
Now you have completely gone off the rails. The ballistics tests prove
beyond any doubt that Oswald's rifle fired the shots that killed JFK.
And you call me delusional???!!!! There is ample evidence that
indicates it was Oswald who fired the murder weapon and no evidence
that anyone else did.
>
>
> > > Later, Yardley was interviewed by
> > > a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
> > > that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
> > > course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
>
> > If he said this later, why would it have been in the program?
>
> Uhhh...don't you think Yardley was asked after his simulation if he
> thought Oswald could have made the shots? OF COURSE HE WAS. And OF COURSE
> he said no and OF COURSE they failed to put this in the program. If not,
> and if they'd failed to ask him such a question, someone should have been
> fired.- Hide quoted text -
>
Pure speculation. Yardley was brought in because his skills would
demonstrate how doable the shooting was. He did that.
Anthony Marsh
The quality of the M-C IS an issue since that caused two shots to miss
and the rifle to jam.
> target was moving slowly and in almost a direct line away from Oswald
> so the relative movement of the target to the firing line was minimal.
> Oswald's ownnership of the murder weapon, his palm print on it, his
> shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle, and an eyewitness all
> indicate he was the one firing the weapon. This is not trumped by
> Yardley's guess that Oswald was not capable of firing the shots.
Your eyewitness is not reliable, just like Jean Hill.
pjsp...@aol.com
actually did some research, you'd see that the early eyewitness reports
quoted in the national media all reported Kennedy to have been hit by the
first shot, that Life Magazine, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the NPIC
all studied the Zapruder film under the belief the first shot hit and
concluded it hit, and that even the Warren commission studied the film
under the belief the first shot hit. The possibility it missed was only
added later, placed in the report as a cowardly measure so that the
commission could avoid committing to a scenario--three shots in 5.6
seconds--that they knew was questionable. To do this, they propped up the
statement of agent Glen Bennett as having some value, when they actually
considered his observations so irrelevant that they not only failed to
even call him as a witness, they failed to even have him interviewed by
the FBI. That they really considered his statements irrelevant is further
supported by the internal memos of Melvin Eisenberg, in which he urged the
commissioners to give the recollections of Secret Service agents little
weight. They had a whole boatload of agents claiming the first shot hit,
and ONE claiming he thought it missed--and he is the only one quoted in
the report, even thought they never called him to testify. Uhhh...there's
a reason for this....THEY WERE BLOWING SMOKE. They didn't want to conclude
outright that Governor Connally was wrong about not being hit by the first
shot, so they gave themselves some wiggle room.
The national press, in fact, considered the thought the first shot missed
so ridiculous, that they almost uniformly reported that the Warren
Commission concluded that the first shot hit both Kennedy and Connally,
that the second shot missed, and that the third shot hit Kennedy. That
this is not me making crud up, as you seem to want to believe, is proven
by the fact that, in 1966 and 1967, when Connally was interviewed, and
insisted he'd been hit by the second shot, his words were uniformly
presented as being in opposition to the findings of the Warren Commission.
As far as an actual breakdown on what the witnesses said, here's but a
snippet...a complete breakdown is available in chapters 5 thru 9 at
patspeer.com.
The motorcade witnesses:
Paul Landis (11-27-63 report, 18H758-759) “At this moment, I heard
what sounded like the report of a high powered rifle behind me. My
first glance was at the President, as my eyes were almost straight
ahead at that time. I did not realize that the President was hit at
that point. I saw him moving and thought he was turning in the
direction of the sound." (Only heard two shots, but saw Kennedy react
to the first sound.)
Glen Bennett (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "At this point I
heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I
immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, 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 shoot followed
immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head." (While
the precise meaning of Bennett's words are open to debate, they do on
first glance suggest that he felt the first shot missed. Since he did
not see Kennedy's reaction to the first shot, but only saw him at the
"exact time" he received the second shot, it seems possible the blood
seen by Bennett came from the first shot. But we'll call this one a
first shot miss.)
George Hickey (11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and
proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a
firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and
turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was
observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The
President was slumped to the left in the car."
David Powers (5-18-64 affidavit, 7H472-474) “the first shot went off
and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that
the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the
extreme right hand side where he had been sitting."
Clint Hill (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “The noise came from my right
rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing,
my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the
President hunch forward and then slump to his left." (Only heard two
shots, but saw the President react to the first one.)
Sam Kinney (11-22-63 report, 18H732) “The first shot was fired as we
were going into an underpass…it appeared that he (the President) had
been shot because he slumped to the left."
Emory Roberts (11-29-63 report, 18H733-738) “12:30 PM: First of three
shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs.
Kennedy."
B.J. Martin (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293)
“one of the agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to
my right (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I
heard the (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left
side of his face."
Bobby W. Hargis (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About
halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first
shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the
sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around
and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the
President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent
over to hear what the Governor had to say." (Only heard two shots, but
he saw the President respond to the first one.)
James Chaney (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “We
heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh
I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back
over his left shoulder." (By saying the President turned to his left
after the first shot-which only happens after Kennedy had obviously
been hit--Chaney suggests he was hit by the first shot.)
Roy Kellerman (12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.3-11) (11-22-63 FBI
interview) “he advised he heard a shot and immediately turned around,
looking past Governor Connally…to the President. He observed the
President slump forward."
First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally (Notes written on 12-2-63, as
reprinted in her book From Love Field, 2003) “then I heard a loud,
terrifying noise…I turned and looked toward the President just in time
to see him clutch his neck and see him sink down in his seat."
First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (11-29-63 interview with Theodore White,
notes released 5-26-95) “They were gunning the motorcycles; there were
these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it
was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying
no no nononono, with his fist beating—then Jack turned and I
turned." (Only heard two shots, but thought her husband responded to
the first one.)
As you can see, they all thought Kennedy reacted to the first shot. No
one thought he continued waving, etc, as pushed by fools like Posner
and Bugliosi.
As far as your assertion the fibers found on the rifle suggest Oswald's
guilt, you couldn't be more wrong. The fibers were almost certainly
planted. Not only did the fibers match a shirt Oswald was almost certainly
not wearing before the shooting, they were wrapped around the butt plate
ON TOP of the fingerprint powder added to the rifle by Lt. Day. This was
"explained" by the possibility that the fibers were just sitting on the
rifle and were wrapped around the butt plate by Lt. Day's brushing of the
fingerprint powder, but this is almost certainly nonsense. If a tuft of
fibers was just dangling there in plain view while Day was brushing the
rifle, wouldn't he have removed them, and placed them into evidence?
You can't have it both ways. Either Lt. Day was an incompetent, and the
crime scene was botched and we can't say for sure what evidence was
overlooked or lost, or Lt. Day was competent, and all these tales of his
incompetence (failing to photograph the paper bag, failing to photograph
the palm print on the rifle, failing to notice the tuft of fibers) suggest
a wider conspiracy to frame Oswald. Which is it?
bigdog
> bigdog, you really need to get your nose out of Posner, etc. If you
> actually did some research, you'd see that the early eyewitness reports
> quoted in the national media all reported Kennedy to have been hit by the
> first shot, that Life Magazine, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the NPIC
> all studied the Zapruder film under the belief the first shot hit and
> concluded it hit, and that even the Warren commission studied the film
> under the belief the first shot hit.
I am not here to defend the national media, Life magazine, the FBI,
the Secret Service, or the NPIC, and I don't care what misconceptions
they had about what happened. I am a staunch defender of the WC and
they never concluded that the first shot hit JFK. They may have
started with the misconception that the first shot hit JFK but after
they examined the evidence, they realized they could not positively
conclude which shot missed. Posner was hardly the one who came up with
the first shot miss. For years I had the misconception that the second
shot had missed. Although I had read the WC when it first came out, it
didn't all register with me during the first reading. I heard the
first shot miss presented by Walter Cronkite in a CBS presentation
some time in the 1980s which was also the first time I saw the Z-film.
It was several years later that I began rereading the WCR and came to
realize they had never concluded a second shot miss.
> The possibility it missed was only
> added later, placed in the report as a cowardly measure so that the
> commission could avoid committing to a scenario--three shots in 5.6
> seconds--that they knew was questionable.
Wrong!!! The put that in the report because a closer examination of
the entire body of evidence did not yield a definitive answer as to
which shot missed. Had they had more time, they might have picked up
on a couple clues that later researchers discovered, specifically
Connally's jacket bulge which was immediately followed by his arm flip
which was simultaneous to JFK's first reaction. They might well have
come to the same conclusion in 1964 that most LNs have now.
> To do this, they propped up the
> statement of agent Glen Bennett as having some value, when they actually
> considered his observations so irrelevant that they not only failed to
> even call him as a witness, they failed to even have him interviewed by
> the FBI.
If they considered him irrelevant, why would they have included his
highly significant statement about the sequence of the shots. They
gave great weight to his observations because he had written in his
notes on the flight back to Washington that he saw the second shot hit
JFK high on his back. Since the back wound was not discovered until
autopsy, the only way he could have known there was a back wound is if
he had seen the bullet hit.
> That they really considered his statements irrelevant is further
> supported by the internal memos of Melvin Eisenberg, in which he urged the
> commissioners to give the recollections of Secret Service agents little
> weight. They had a whole boatload of agents claiming the first shot hit,
> and ONE claiming he thought it missed--and he is the only one quoted in
> the report, even thought they never called him to testify. Uhhh...there's
> a reason for this....THEY WERE BLOWING SMOKE. They didn't want to conclude
> outright that Governor Connally was wrong about not being hit by the first
> shot, so they gave themselves some wiggle room.
>
They were smart not to conclude Connally was wrong because Connally
was not wrong. He was hit by the second shot, the same shot that first
hit JFK.
> The national press, in fact, considered the thought the first shot missed
> so ridiculous, that they almost uniformly reported that the Warren
> Commission concluded that the first shot hit both Kennedy and Connally,
> that the second shot missed, and that the third shot hit Kennedy.
What the press reported and what actually happened are not one and the
same. I am concerned with what happened, not what someone believed
happened.
> That
> this is not me making crud up, as you seem to want to believe, is proven
> by the fact that, in 1966 and 1967, when Connally was interviewed, and
> insisted he'd been hit by the second shot, his words were uniformly
> presented as being in opposition to the findings of the Warren Commission.
>
Again, Connally was absolutely right and he knew that he couldn't have
been hit by the same bullet that hit JFK IF JFK had been hit by the
first shot. Connally didn't believe the SBT because he had the same
misconception that the first shot had hit JFK and he knew that wasn't
the bullet that hit him. He never believed in the nonsense that he had
a delayed reaction.
All typical CT cherry picking. Ho-hum.
> As far as your assertion the fibers found on the rifle suggest Oswald's
> guilt, you couldn't be more wrong. The fibers were almost certainly
> planted.
It was only a matter of time before we got to the old "the evidence
was planted" ruse.
> Not only did the fibers match a shirt Oswald was almost certainly
> not wearing before the shooting, they were wrapped around the butt plate
> ON TOP of the fingerprint powder added to the rifle by Lt. Day. This was
> "explained" by the possibility that the fibers were just sitting on the
> rifle and were wrapped around the butt plate by Lt. Day's brushing of the
> fingerprint powder, but this is almost certainly nonsense. If a tuft of
> fibers was just dangling there in plain view while Day was brushing the
> rifle, wouldn't he have removed them, and placed them into evidence?
>
> You can't have it both ways. Either Lt. Day was an incompetent, and the
> crime scene was botched and we can't say for sure what evidence was
> overlooked or lost, or Lt. Day was competent, and all these tales of his
> incompetence (failing to photograph the paper bag, failing to photograph
> the palm print on the rifle, failing to notice the tuft of fibers) suggest
> a wider conspiracy to frame Oswald. Which is it?
>
Day wasn't looking for fibers and had no reason to believe there were
fibers there. He was the fingerprint guy and that is what he was
looking for. This doesn't change the fact that the fibers were there
or make your charge that the fibers were planted sound any less
silly.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
When you say absolutely you are saying the first shot was about Z160,
the second about Z222, and the last shot was Z312. That means there
was 62 Z frames between the first two shots and 90 Z frames (almost 5
seconds) between the last two shots. Did you know that a overwhelming
majority of witnesses said there was a shot then a pause then two more
shots close together. JFK's driver said the last two shots were one
right after the other. There are very good reasons for what witnesses
said they heard but you don't want to listen to the truth because it
would mean there was a conspiracy to murder JFK.
bigdog
Yes I know that but there were others who said the shots were evenly
spaced and others who said the first two came closer together. If
witnesses were reliable, there should be near unanamity on this point.
There most certainly was not. It isn't a question of whether groups of
people got it wrong but which groups got it wrong. The Z-film supports
those who said the first two shots were closer together and it doesn't
matter if that is the minority opinion from the witnesses. Truth is not
subject to what a majority believe.
> JFK's driver said the last two shots were one
> right after the other.
I guess we can put him in the group that got it wrong.
> There are very good reasons for what witnesses
> said they heard but you don't want to listen to the truth because it
> would mean there was a conspiracy to murder JFK.
What witnesses say and what the truth is are not necessarily one and the
same. I am interested in the truth and I don't assume because a majority
of witnesses said is the truth when their account doesn't square with what
the most reliable witness, Zapruder's camera, tells us. I'm sure those
people were telling us what they honestly believed but what they believed
was simply wrong.
pjsp...@aol.com
statements are irrelevant, then you should actually read his words.
Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car.
(notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then
a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the
crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately
reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed
firecracker, 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
shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.
I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat,
to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the
left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have
rendered this terrible tragedy."
So, Bennett felt the head shot came "immediately" after the bullet
impacted Kennedy 4 inches down from his right shoulder. By no means can 5
seconds later in this context be considered "immediately." Bennett is
therefore in line with the other agents in that he felt the last two shots
were bunched together. He also refers to the final shot as "a second
shot." Now this can be read two ways: either he means the second of two
rapidly fired shots at the end, or the second shot altogether. This latter
possibility is suggested by Bennett's claiming that after the first shot
"I saw a shot that hit the boss." Now, let's get real. He did not see the
shot, and you know it. And he isn't very articulate, claiming as he did
that "a second shoot followed immediately." So perhaps what he meant to
write was "I saw that a shot had hit the boss."
And there's the whole 4 inch thing. Do you really believe the bullet
impacted 4 inches below the shoulder? Because the vast majority of those
holding that Bennett was right about a first shot miss and the second shot
hitting Kennedy, COMPLETELY REJECT his approximation for this wound, in
addition to COMPLETELY REJECTING that the head shot followed "immediately"
after the second shot. They therefore completely distrust Bennett as a
witness but for one thing--and Bennett, who was not examined by the FBI or
WC so that his statements could properly be analyzed or vetted--may not
even have meant to say that thing.
The LNT reliance on Bennett, and propping up of a small confusing part of
Bennett's statement as somehow sacrosanct, while rejecting the rest of his
statement, is reflective of the overall lack of credibility of their
theory-come-lately that the first shot missed.
> All ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
Your spacing is not what determines whether there was a conspiracy or
not. If there was a very close spacing between the first two shots that
might indicate conspiracy IFF it means that Kennedy and Connally were
hit by two shots too close together to be shot by one rifle. But you
can't nitpick eyewitness testimony that way. Likewise two shots close
together at the end does not prove conspiracy. Never rely on eyewitness
statements.
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 11, 9:29 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> bigdog, you really need to get your nose out of Posner, etc. If you
>> actually did some research, you'd see that the early eyewitness reports
>> quoted in the national media all reported Kennedy to have been hit by the
>> first shot, that Life Magazine, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the NPIC
>> all studied the Zapruder film under the belief the first shot hit and
>> concluded it hit, and that even the Warren commission studied the film
>> under the belief the first shot hit.
>
> I am not here to defend the national media, Life magazine, the FBI,
> the Secret Service, or the NPIC, and I don't care what misconceptions
> they had about what happened. I am a staunch defender of the WC and
> they never concluded that the first shot hit JFK. They may have
If you want to be a WC defender, maybe you should start by reading it.
> started with the misconception that the first shot hit JFK but after
> they examined the evidence, they realized they could not positively
May? The report was going to read that the first shot hit Kennedy, the
second shot hit Connally and the last shot hit Kennedy. Then Specter had
a nightmare.
> conclude which shot missed. Posner was hardly the one who came up with
> the first shot miss. For years I had the misconception that the second
> shot had missed. Although I had read the WC when it first came out, it
> didn't all register with me during the first reading. I heard the
> first shot miss presented by Walter Cronkite in a CBS presentation
> some time in the 1980s which was also the first time I saw the Z-film.
He is entitled to his own opinion. Only it wasn't his, it was fed to him.
> It was several years later that I began rereading the WCR and came to
> realize they had never concluded a second shot miss.
>
They were never conclusive about anything, especially conspiracy.
>> The possibility it missed was only
>> added later, placed in the report as a cowardly measure so that the
>> commission could avoid committing to a scenario--three shots in 5.6
>> seconds--that they knew was questionable.
>
> Wrong!!! The put that in the report because a closer examination of
> the entire body of evidence did not yield a definitive answer as to
> which shot missed. Had they had more time, they might have picked up
The WC never figured out when Tague was hit and which shot caused it.
So, what's your solution?
> on a couple clues that later researchers discovered, specifically
> Connally's jacket bulge which was immediately followed by his arm flip
> which was simultaneous to JFK's first reaction. They might well have
> come to the same conclusion in 1964 that most LNs have now.
>
>> To do this, they propped up the
>> statement of agent Glen Bennett as having some value, when they actually
>> considered his observations so irrelevant that they not only failed to
>> even call him as a witness, they failed to even have him interviewed by
>> the FBI.
>
> If they considered him irrelevant, why would they have included his
> highly significant statement about the sequence of the shots. They
> gave great weight to his observations because he had written in his
> notes on the flight back to Washington that he saw the second shot hit
> JFK high on his back. Since the back wound was not discovered until
> autopsy, the only way he could have known there was a back wound is if
> he had seen the bullet hit.
>
One does not have to see the wound on the body to know where it was. One
can see the impact or see the hole in the jacket. For many years no one
saw the pool of blood on the back of Connally's jacket in the Zapruder
film.
>> That they really considered his statements irrelevant is further
>> supported by the internal memos of Melvin Eisenberg, in which he urged the
>> commissioners to give the recollections of Secret Service agents little
>> weight. They had a whole boatload of agents claiming the first shot hit,
>> and ONE claiming he thought it missed--and he is the only one quoted in
>> the report, even thought they never called him to testify. Uhhh...there's
>> a reason for this....THEY WERE BLOWING SMOKE. They didn't want to conclude
>> outright that Governor Connally was wrong about not being hit by the first
>> shot, so they gave themselves some wiggle room.
>>
> They were smart not to conclude Connally was wrong because Connally
> was not wrong. He was hit by the second shot, the same shot that first
> hit JFK.
>
Connally said he was not hit by the same bullet which hit Kennedy. You
need to ignore what he said and call him a liar. Otherwise you've got
conspiracy.
>> The national press, in fact, considered the thought the first shot missed
>> so ridiculous, that they almost uniformly reported that the Warren
>> Commission concluded that the first shot hit both Kennedy and Connally,
>> that the second shot missed, and that the third shot hit Kennedy.
>
> What the press reported and what actually happened are not one and the
> same. I am concerned with what happened, not what someone believed
> happened.
>
>> That
>> this is not me making crud up, as you seem to want to believe, is proven
>> by the fact that, in 1966 and 1967, when Connally was interviewed, and
>> insisted he'd been hit by the second shot, his words were uniformly
>> presented as being in opposition to the findings of the Warren Commission.
>>
> Again, Connally was absolutely right and he knew that he couldn't have
> been hit by the same bullet that hit JFK IF JFK had been hit by the
> first shot. Connally didn't believe the SBT because he had the same
> misconception that the first shot had hit JFK and he knew that wasn't
> the bullet that hit him. He never believed in the nonsense that he had
> a delayed reaction.
>
>> As far as an actual breakdown on what the witnesses said, here's but a
>> snippet...a complete breakdown is available in chapters 5 thru 9 at
>> patspeer.com.
>>
>> The motorcade witnesses:
>>
>> Paul Landis (11-27-63 report, 18H758-759) ?At this moment, I heard
>> what sounded like the report of a high powered rifle behind me. My
>> first glance was at the President, as my eyes were almost straight
>> ahead at that time. I did not realize that the President was hit at
>> that point. I saw him moving and thought he was turning in the
>> direction of the sound." (Only heard two shots, but saw Kennedy react
>> to the first sound.)
>>
>> Glen Bennett (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "At this point I
>> heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I
>> immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, 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 shoot followed
>> immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head." (While
>> the precise meaning of Bennett's words are open to debate, they do on
>> first glance suggest that he felt the first shot missed. Since he did
>> not see Kennedy's reaction to the first shot, but only saw him at the
>> "exact time" he received the second shot, it seems possible the blood
>> seen by Bennett came from the first shot. But we'll call this one a
>> first shot miss.)
>>
>> George Hickey (11-22-63 report, 18H765) ?As 100-X made the turn and
>> proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a
>> firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and
>> turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was
>> observed and I turned around and looked at the President?s car. The
>> President was slumped to the left in the car."
>>
>> David Powers (5-18-64 affidavit, 7H472-474) ?the first shot went off
>> and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that
>> the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the
>> extreme right hand side where he had been sitting."
>>
>> Clint Hill (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) ?The noise came from my right
>> rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing,
>> my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the
>> President hunch forward and then slump to his left." (Only heard two
>> shots, but saw the President react to the first one.)
>>
>> Sam Kinney (11-22-63 report, 18H732) ?The first shot was fired as we
>> were going into an underpass?it appeared that he (the President) had
>> been shot because he slumped to the left."
>>
>> Emory Roberts (11-29-63 report, 18H733-738) ?12:30 PM: First of three
>> shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs.
>> Kennedy."
>>
>> B.J. Martin (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293)
>> ?one of the agents got off of the car after the first shot?I looked to
>> my right (after the first shot)?I looked at the President after I
>> heard the (first) shot and he was leaning forward?I could see the left
>> side of his face."
>>
>> Bobby W. Hargis (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) ?About
>> halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first
>> shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the
>> sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around
>> and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the
>> President with a real surprised look on his face?The President bent
>> over to hear what the Governor had to say." (Only heard two shots, but
>> he saw the President respond to the first one.)
>>
>> James Chaney (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) ?We
>> heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh
>> I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back
>> over his left shoulder." (By saying the President turned to his left
>> after the first shot-which only happens after Kennedy had obviously
>> been hit--Chaney suggests he was hit by the first shot.)
>>
>> Roy Kellerman (12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.3-11) (11-22-63 FBI
>> interview) ?he advised he heard a shot and immediately turned around,
>> looking past Governor Connally?to the President. He observed the
>> President slump forward."
>>
>> First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally (Notes written on 12-2-63, as
>> reprinted in her book From Love Field, 2003) ?then I heard a loud,
>> terrifying noise?I turned and looked toward the President just in time
>> to see him clutch his neck and see him sink down in his seat."
>>
>> First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (11-29-63 interview with Theodore White,
>> notes released 5-26-95) ?They were gunning the motorcycles; there were
>> these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it
>> was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying
>> no no nononono, with his fist beating?then Jack turned and I
Anthony Marsh
As usual your thinking is linear and limited because you are a WC
defender. It is not a case of black or white, right or wrong, either/or.
It is a case of BOTH. BOTH groups were right. The first couple of shots
were bunched and the last couple of shots were bunched. The first two
shots were only 1.66 seconds apart and the last two shots were only 0.9
second apart.
> people got it wrong but which groups got it wrong. The Z-film supports
> those who said the first two shots were closer together and it doesn't
> matter if that is the minority opinion from the witnesses. Truth is not
> subject to what a majority believe.
>
>> JFK's driver said the last two shots were one
>> right after the other.
>
> I guess we can put him in the group that got it wrong.
>
Or he may have heard the impact of the bullet fragment hitting the chrome
topping and then the muzzle blast of the rifle.
bigdog
> If you think Bennett is so reliable that every other nearby witness'
> statements are irrelevant, then you should actually read his words.
>
> Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car.
> (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then
> a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the
> crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately
> reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed
> firecracker, 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
> shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.
> I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat,
> to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the
> left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have
> rendered this terrible tragedy."
>
> So, Bennett felt the head shot came "immediately" after the bullet
> impacted Kennedy 4 inches down from his right shoulder. By no means can 5
> seconds later in this context be considered "immediately."
Why not? Why do you suppose to know what Bennett meant by immediately?
Fortunately, we have the Z-film to tell us. Bennett saw the bullet
that hit JFK in the back and then saw the bullet that hit JFK in the
head. We know for fact that those two shots came about 5 seconds
apart, so we know what Bennett meant by immediately.
> Bennett is
> therefore in line with the other agents in that he felt the last two shots
> were bunched together.
Again, we have the Z-film to tell us how close those two shots were
spaced.
> He also refers to the final shot as "a second
> shot."
Nice job of pulling that phrase out of context. Bennett hears one
shot, then saw two shots strike JFK. The "second shot" was the second
shot that hit JFK.
> Now this can be read two ways: either he means the second of two
> rapidly fired shots at the end, or the second shot altogether. This latter
> possibility is suggested by Bennett's claiming that after the first shot
> "I saw a shot that hit the boss." Now, let's get real. He did not see the
> shot, and you know it.
That's ridiculous. Bennett would have had no way of knowing a bullet
had hit JFK's back unless he saw the shot strike him in the back.
> And he isn't very articulate, claiming as he did
> that "a second shoot followed immediately." So perhaps what he meant to
> write was "I saw that a shot had hit the boss."
>
So again you presume to know that Bennett meant to write something
different than he actually did. Are you clairvoyant?
> And there's the whole 4 inch thing. Do you really believe the bullet
> impacted 4 inches below the shoulder? Because the vast majority of those
> holding that Bennett was right about a first shot miss and the second shot
> hitting Kennedy, COMPLETELY REJECT his approximation for this wound, in
> addition to COMPLETELY REJECTING that the head shot followed "immediately"
> after the second shot.
That's why it is called an approximation. It is not intended to be an
exact measurement and shouldn't be interpreted that way.
> They therefore completely distrust Bennett as a
> witness but for one thing--and Bennett, who was not examined by the FBI or
> WC so that his statements could properly be analyzed or vetted--may not
> even have meant to say that thing.
>
More presumtions. More nonsense.
> The LNT reliance on Bennett, and propping up of a small confusing part of
> Bennett's statement...
There is nothing confusing about Bennett's statement. He said quite
clearly what he meant.
> ...as somehow sacrosanct, while rejecting the rest of his
> statement, is reflective of the overall lack of credibility of their
> theory-come-lately that the first shot missed.
>
I don't reject any part of Bennett's statement and it is perfectly
consistent with the findings of the WC. You have engaged in an
excercise in twisting his words to make it sound like Bennett meant
something he obviously didn't.
>
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here are some of the reasons for the discrepancies in what witnesses
heard. The first shot was from Oswald's rifle with the muzzle inside the
building. The guys on the fifth floor thought a canon went off, but many
in the plaza many didn't hear the 'pop' sound. Those in the JFK limo
heard it as a shot sound. The next two shots from Oswald's rifle were with
the muzzle outside the window and everyone heard them as loud shots. If
you would study the evidence you would know that the last two shots sounds
heard by everyone had to come from two different weapons because it takes
2.3 seconds to fire Oswald's rifle twice. The last two shots were less
than a second apart. SSA Hickey riding in the car behind said the next to
the last shot missed JFK because he saw JFK's hair fly up and then he was
hit. We know by watching the Zapruder film that it was the head shot with
the hair flying up. Hickey said the last two shots were so close together
that there seemed to be no time element between them. Some I'm sure
mistakenly thought the last two sounds were a shot and a loud echo. The
Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza knew there was a conspiracy just
from the gunfire sounds alone.
charles
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The WC says Bennett could have seen an existing hole in JFK's back
when looking at him during the last two shots.
WhiskyJoe
Just to back up what bigdog is saying:
**************************************************
First shot missed, because it was the most difficult shot for Oswald.
Third shot hit because it was the easiest.
First shot at Z152:
Oswald firing down at an angle of 30 degrees
Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 25 degrees
Oswald 35 degrees off the line of travel
Distance to target: 128 feet
Speed of limousine: 14 MPH
Second shot at Z222:
Oswald firing down at an angle of 20 degrees
Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 7 degrees
Oswald 18 degrees off the line of travel
Distance to target: 190 feet
Speed of limousine: 12 MPH
Third shot at Z312:
Oswald firing down at an angle of 16 degrees
Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 3 degrees
Oswald 13 degrees off the line of travel
Distance to target: 265 feet
Speed of limousine: 9 MPH
Note: For the "degrees off the line of travel",
one must take into account the 3 degree slope
of Elm Street. The shots get easier and easier.
First he is 35, then 18, then 18 degrees off
the line of travel. The closer he gets to being
on the line of travel, the easier the shot.
If he was zero degrees off the line of travel,
it would be like firing at a stationary target.
What this all amounts to, once one does
the math, is:
First shot at Z152:
Angular velocity of target: 5.4 degrees per second
Second shot at Z222:
Angular velocity of target: 1.7 degrees per second
Third shot at Z312:
Angular velocity of target: 0.7 degrees per second
Because Oswald had a much better angle at the target,
firing when the limousine was traveling almost
directly away from him, he had a much easier target
for the second and third shot, than he had for the
first. And the third shot was a good deal easier
than the second.
The range does not matter. All shots under
100 yards. The minimum practice distance in the
Marines is 100 yards. They practice at 100, 200
300 and 500 yards. The key is the angular speed
of the target. For a shot at Z152, Oswald would
have to continuously swing the barrel of the
rifle at over 5 degrees per second to keep the
iron sights lined up on JFK.
**************************************************
And yes, the steeper angle Oswald must shoot
down for the first shot is an additional
difficulty. But I suspect that the main difficulty
is continuously having to adjust the aim 5 degrees
per second.
And it should be noted, for his aiming during the
last three seconds, he would be aiming between
40 to 30 degrees. Certainly awkward.
**************************************************
I used to think it was real stupid for Oswald to
even attempt that first shot. A first shot miss
may cause JFK to duck out of sight or be pulled
down out of sight by his wife. But perhaps, while
it was clearly a mistake, Oswald may have had a
good reason for attempting it.
But put oneself in Oswald's position and imagine
what he would have seen. He would see JFK in his
limousine. And behind him was another limousine,
following close behind, with four agents standing
on the running boards.
Once JFK reaches the part of the street where
Oswald has a good angle, will the standing
secret service agents block that shot?
We know they won't. But for Oswald just
having less than a minute to eyeball it,
it would have been hard from him to tell.
It's possible he fired at Z152 because he may
have thought that a later shot might be blocked.
But, once he reloaded, he would have seen that
he still has a clear line of sight for Z222
and even Z312.
claviger
BD,
You forgot to mention these witnesses to a first shot miss:
Mrs. Donald Baker
Royce G Skelton
Harry D. Holmes
SA Warren W Taylor
Sherrif Bill Decker
DPD Stavis "Steve" Ellis
Witnesses to an early first shot:
Governor John B Connally
Victoria Elizabeth Adams
Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rachley)
Mrs. Jack Franzen
Mrs. Alvin Hopson
Patricia Ann Lawrence
Rosemary Willis
Jack Franzen
Emmett J Hudson
Arnold Louis Rowland
Tina Towner
Steven F Wilson
DPD MO R W Hargis
DPD MO B J Martin
DPD MO J M Chaney
DPD MO D L Jackson
Mary Woodward is adamant the first shot did not wound President
Kennedy:
"On November 21, 1993, a conference called "Reporters Remember: November
22, 1963" was held at Southern Methodist University. Many of the surviving
reporters and newsmen who were on the spot during the tragedy in Dallas
were on hand to give their recollections, do some glad-handing and express
mutual admiration for their fellow media cohorts."
"Woodward then briefly recalls that the first shot definitely did not hit
JFK ("I have never wavered on that") and how amazingly slow the reactions
of the Secret Service were."
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 12, 4:38 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> If you think Bennett is so reliable that every other nearby witness'
>> statements are irrelevant, then you should actually read his words.
>>
>> Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car.
>> (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then
>> a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the
>> crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately
>> reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed
>> firecracker, 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
>> shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.
>> I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat,
>> to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the
>> left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have
>> rendered this terrible tragedy."
>>
>> So, Bennett felt the head shot came "immediately" after the bullet
>> impacted Kennedy 4 inches down from his right shoulder. By no means can 5
>> seconds later in this context be considered "immediately."
>
> Why not? Why do you suppose to know what Bennett meant by immediately?
> Fortunately, we have the Z-film to tell us. Bennett saw the bullet
> that hit JFK in the back and then saw the bullet that hit JFK in the
> head. We know for fact that those two shots came about 5 seconds
> apart, so we know what Bennett meant by immediately.
>
How do you know it was 5 seconds? Only because I told you that is what
the acoustical evidence indicated?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is anybody's guess why there are so many discrepancies among the
witnesses and I'm sure there is more than one reason why people who
witnessed the same event could remember things so differently but we
know that they did and therefore know a lot of people go it wrong.
This is normal at a crime scene. What was different about this crime
is that there were far more witnesses to it than at most crimes so
naturally there would be more discrepancies. We need to look no
further than the reactions of the two victims to know that not
everyone reacted the same way to the same stimulus. JBC who was an
experienced hunter and had just recently been hunting instantly
recognized the first sound he heard as a high powered rifle and
snapped his head around to the right. While he was doing this, JFK who
was a trap shooter and more accustomed to the sound of shotguns,
apparently did not recognize that sound for what it was as he
continued to wave as Connally was looking around for the source of the
gunfire. Who knows what JFK was thinking but apparently he, like many
in DP who also continued to wave at the Prez, didn't realize that
first sound was a rifle shot. Perhaps as some witnesses said, JFK
thought it was a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. In any case, he
made no obvious reaction and so a lot of people there didn't realize
something was terribly wrong. It was when they heard the second shot
and JFK raised his arms to his throat that people began to realize
what was actually happening, but even then, there were people who
continued to waive after JFK had obviously been hit.
This inability to grasp what was actually going on by a good
percentage of the DP witnesses is the primary reason I don't put a lot
of faith in any witness testimony unless it can be corroborated
through other forms of evidence. We have one witness who had an
excellent vantage point and perfect recall, Zapruder's camera.
Unfortunately, that witness was deaf but it gave us a clear picture of
what happened. It gives us a good idea about when the first shot was
fired. It tells us within a frame or two when the second shot was
fired and tells us that JFK and JBC were hit at the by that second
shot as evidenced by their simultaneous reactions. It tells us exactly
when the headshot was fired. If that otherwise perfect witness had
been able to hear as well as see what was going on, there would be no
doubt at all about what happened, except in the minds of a few crazies
who would still insist the film had been tampered with.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Yes, like every other witness, Bennett could
be wrong and it should not be automatically assumed he was correct.
However, the fact he wrote his account before anyone else knew about
the back wound and the fact that his account is consistent with what
the Z-film shows gives his story added weight. Why would he have been
fooled by and bullet hole that was already there? If he could make out
the bullet hole in the back, he would also be able to see JFK already
reacting. In order to believe that Bennett was not looking at JFK when
the second shot struck we would have to believe, he heard the first
shot which struck JFK but Bennett did not see this because he was
looking away. Then Bennett looked to JFK but didn't notice JFK
reacting to his wound and then simultaneously with the second shot,
noticed the bullet hole and JFK's reaction. That all sounds more than
a little far fetched. His own recollection is much tidier.
bigdog
Good list. I knew there were many more witnesses to a first shot miss than
Bennett's but I didn't want to get into a game of matching witness
accounts. I chose Bennett because for me, the fact that he observed the
second shot strike JFK in the back makes his account especially compelling
because if he didn't see that, he would have had no way of knowing there
was a back wound when he wrote his notes on Air Force One. The back wound
was not discovered until autopsy.
I am especially interested in Mary Woodward's account. Around the time of
the 30th anniversay, I saw a television program covering an assassination
conference and there was a female reporter who got up to speak and she
said something to the effect that she was glad we we're getting around to
the belief that the first shot missed because that is how she remembered
it. I didn't catch her name when she was introduced, but I'm taking an
educated guess that it was Mary Woodward. She sounded very resolute in her
account.
I've often been puzzled how the misconception was created that the WC
concluded JFK was hit by the first shot and not the second, but in
thinking about it recently, it began to make sense. The WCR was not
published until September 1964. Prior to that, no one except those working
with the WC knew anything about the SBT. It was generally accepted that
there had been 3 shots, 2 hitting JFK and one hitting JBC with the
sequence being JFK-JBC-JFK. This belief would have been in place for
almost 10 months. When the WCR was finally published revealing that the WC
believed JFK and JBC had been hit by the same shot with one shot missing,
people who already were under the impression that JFK had been hit by that
first shot, gravitated toward that scenario without giving adequate
consideration to the WC's other two proposed scenarios, a second or a
third shot miss. People already had it ingrained in their heads that JFK
had been hit by the first shot, so that became the defacto conclusion in
the minds of most people, both LNs and CTs.
WhiskyJoe
In my original post, I said:
> The shots get easier and easier. First he is 35,
> then 18, then 18 degrees off the line of travel.
This should, of course, be:
> The shots get easier and easier. First he is 35,
> then 18, then 13 degrees off the line of travel.
Anthony Marsh
Ok, I'm with you so far. Connally said that he thought it was an automatic
rifle because the first two shots were close together, yet he had time to
react.
> snapped his head around to the right. While he was doing this, JFK who
> was a trap shooter and more accustomed to the sound of shotguns,
> apparently did not recognize that sound for what it was as he
So, you think they used shotguns on his PT boat?
> continued to wave as Connally was looking around for the source of the
> gunfire. Who knows what JFK was thinking but apparently he, like many
> in DP who also continued to wave at the Prez, didn't realize that
> first sound was a rifle shot. Perhaps as some witnesses said, JFK
The President of Taiwan was shot in the stomach and didn't realize it for
many minutes. Likewise the Taiwanese have their own sort of Zapruder film
which shows a cracked windshield and the blood on the front of his clothes
and no one reacting to shots.
> thought it was a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. In any case, he
I don't think JFK thought that a firecracker went through his throat.
> made no obvious reaction and so a lot of people there didn't realize
> something was terribly wrong. It was when they heard the second shot
> and JFK raised his arms to his throat that people began to realize
> what was actually happening, but even then, there were people who
> continued to waive after JFK had obviously been hit.
>
How long did it take Clint Hill to react? How long did it take Greer to
react? How long did it take Jerry Parr to react?
> This inability to grasp what was actually going on by a good
> percentage of the DP witnesses is the primary reason I don't put a lot
> of faith in any witness testimony unless it can be corroborated
> through other forms of evidence. We have one witness who had an
> excellent vantage point and perfect recall, Zapruder's camera.
> Unfortunately, that witness was deaf but it gave us a clear picture of
> what happened. It gives us a good idea about when the first shot was
Not that is makes a lot of difference in this case, but the angle of view
for his camera is much less than normal human vision. Luckily they
preserved the sprocket hole area.
> fired. It tells us within a frame or two when the second shot was
> fired and tells us that JFK and JBC were hit at the by that second
> shot as evidenced by their simultaneous reactions. It tells us exactly
No, it does. Their reactions were not simultaneous.
Connnally could identify when he was hit and he said Z-230.
> when the headshot was fired. If that otherwise perfect witness had
> been able to hear as well as see what was going on, there would be no
> doubt at all about what happened, except in the minds of a few crazies
> who would still insist the film had been tampered with.
>
Well, we do have a sountrack and it tells us the spacing of the shots.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Just to back up what bigdog is saying:
>
> **************************************************
>
> First shot missed, because it was the most difficult shot for Oswald.
> Third shot hit because it was the easiest.
>
> First shot at Z152:
> Oswald firing down at an angle of 30 degrees
> Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 25 degrees
> Oswald 35 degrees off the line of travel
> Distance to target: 128 feet
> Speed of limousine: 14 MPH
>
> Second shot at Z222:
> Oswald firing down at an angle of 20 degrees
> Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 7 degrees
> Oswald 18 degrees off the line of travel
> Distance to target: 190 feet
> Speed of limousine: 12 MPH
>
> Third shot at Z312:
> Oswald firing down at an angle of 16 degrees
> Oswald firing at a horizontal angle of 3 degrees
> Oswald 13 degrees off the line of travel
> Distance to target: 265 feet
> Speed of limousine: 9 MPH
>
Gee, that was fun. I don't suppose the correct numbers matter at all to
you, do they? What was I thinking? You're a WC defender. Close enough
for a WC defender.
> Note: For the "degrees off the line of travel",
> one must take into account the 3 degree slope
> of Elm Street. The shots get easier and easier.
> First he is 35, then 18, then 18 degrees off
> the line of travel. The closer he gets to being
> on the line of travel, the easier the shot.
> If he was zero degrees off the line of travel,
> it would be like firing at a stationary target.
>
Sorta. Ignore the fact that the height is constantly changing. That is
partially offset by the downward 3 degree slope of Elm.
> What this all amounts to, once one does
> the math, is:
>
But you clearly haven't done the math.
> First shot at Z152:
> Angular velocity of target: 5.4 degrees per second
>
> Second shot at Z222:
> Angular velocity of target: 1.7 degrees per second
>
> Third shot at Z312:
> Angular velocity of target: 0.7 degrees per second
>
> Because Oswald had a much better angle at the target,
> firing when the limousine was traveling almost
> directly away from him, he had a much easier target
> for the second and third shot, than he had for the
> first. And the third shot was a good deal easier
> than the second.
>
So your theory is that the farther away the target is the easier the
shot. Which explains why most shots are made at 20 miles? 0 degrees per
second. Perfect.
> The range does not matter. All shots under
> 100 yards. The minimum practice distance in the
His Mannlicher-Carcano is most inaccurate at 100 yards.
> Marines is 100 yards. They practice at 100, 200
Apples and oranges.
> 300 and 500 yards. The key is the angular speed
> of the target. For a shot at Z152, Oswald would
> have to continuously swing the barrel of the
> rifle at over 5 degrees per second to keep the
> iron sights lined up on JFK.
>
> **************************************************
>
> And yes, the steeper angle Oswald must shoot
> down for the first shot is an additional
> difficulty. But I suspect that the main difficulty
> is continuously having to adjust the aim 5 degrees
> per second.
>
An additional difficulty is having to reload a bolt action rifle so
quickly when it tends to jam.
> And it should be noted, for his aiming during the
> last three seconds, he would be aiming between
> 40 to 30 degrees. Certainly awkward.
>
> **************************************************
>
> I used to think it was real stupid for Oswald to
> even attempt that first shot. A first shot miss
> may cause JFK to duck out of sight or be pulled
> down out of sight by his wife. But perhaps, while
> it was clearly a mistake, Oswald may have had a
> good reason for attempting it.
>
The shooter has only 4 rounds and the limo is only going to be in range
for 16 seconds. You do the math.
> But put oneself in Oswald's position and imagine
> what he would have seen. He would see JFK in his
> limousine. And behind him was another limousine,
> following close behind, with four agents standing
> on the running boards.
>
> Once JFK reaches the part of the street where
> Oswald has a good angle, will the standing
> secret service agents block that shot?
> We know they won't. But for Oswald just
> having less than a minute to eyeball it,
> it would have been hard from him to tell.
>
> It's possible he fired at Z152 because he may
> have thought that a later shot might be blocked.
Could be because the shooter saw that the tree would block his shots so
he wanted to get one off before JFK disappeared beneath the tree.
> But, once he reloaded, he would have seen that
> he still has a clear line of sight for Z222
> and even Z312.
>
The WC said his next clear line of sight was at Z-210. Isn't it an
amazing coincidence that the acoustical evidence places a shot at Z-210?
Anthony Marsh
Fun speculation, but the muzzle was never outside the window. With the
boxes in front of the window and the window open only 13 inches the
rifle can not be put out the window.
> the muzzle outside the window and everyone heard them as loud shots. If
> you would study the evidence you would know that the last two shots sounds
> heard by everyone had to come from two different weapons because it takes
> 2.3 seconds to fire Oswald's rifle twice. The last two shots were less
It only takes 1.6 seconds to fire a Mannlicher-Carcano twice.
> than a second apart. SSA Hickey riding in the car behind said the next to
> the last shot missed JFK because he saw JFK's hair fly up and then he was
> hit. We know by watching the Zapruder film that it was the head shot with
> the hair flying up. Hickey said the last two shots were so close together
> that there seemed to be no time element between them. Some I'm sure
Hickey? I think there is some nut here who claims that it was Hickey who
fired the fatal head shot.
> mistakenly thought the last two sounds were a shot and a loud echo. The
> Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza knew there was a conspiracy just
> from the gunfire sounds alone.
>
Connally thought it was an automatic rifle.
tomnln
Staley, Hendricks & Miller.
NONE of them succeeded.
Volume III pages 446-447.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:c8cf8eb8-adcb-44fc...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Not quite true. The back wound was discovered when the nurses prepared
the body for shipping.
> I am especially interested in Mary Woodward's account. Around the time of
> the 30th anniversay, I saw a television program covering an assassination
> conference and there was a female reporter who got up to speak and she
> said something to the effect that she was glad we we're getting around to
> the belief that the first shot missed because that is how she remembered
> it. I didn't catch her name when she was introduced, but I'm taking an
> educated guess that it was Mary Woodward. She sounded very resolute in her
> account.
>
Could be the Journalists Remember symposium. Someone posted a Youtube link
to it recently.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/52528-1
Yes, she was a very good witness. She said the shot came from behind her
and to her right. Notice how she said she got into trouble for writing
that.
> I've often been puzzled how the misconception was created that the WC
> concluded JFK was hit by the first shot and not the second, but in
> thinking about it recently, it began to make sense. The WCR was not
> published until September 1964. Prior to that, no one except those working
> with the WC knew anything about the SBT. It was generally accepted that
Well, not quite. Some doctors had a SBT theory.
> there had been 3 shots, 2 hitting JFK and one hitting JBC with the
> sequence being JFK-JBC-JFK. This belief would have been in place for
Not 10 months. Late November to late April. In mid April the doctors
explained their SBT.
> almost 10 months. When the WCR was finally published revealing that the WC
> believed JFK and JBC had been hit by the same shot with one shot missing,
> people who already were under the impression that JFK had been hit by that
> first shot, gravitated toward that scenario without giving adequate
> consideration to the WC's other two proposed scenarios, a second or a
I don't want to name names, but some of the SBT leaked out before the
publication of the WCR.
> third shot miss. People already had it ingrained in their heads that JFK
> had been hit by the first shot, so that became the defacto conclusion in
> the minds of most people, both LNs and CTs.
>
I wonder who was the first conspiracy believer to propose a SBT.
pjsp...@aol.com
determined conclusions, and then claim we KNOW what he meant because they
fit your conclusions. Pretty wild. And true to LN form.
What you should be asking yourself is WHY, if Bennett actually saw a
bullet hit Kennedy circa frame 224, as claimed by you and your brethren,
he failed to describe what he did in the FIVE seconds--which must have
felt like a lifetime to a professional bodyguard watching his protectee be
slaughtered--between the impact of this bullet and the one striking
Kennedy on the head...and WHY Bennett admitted saying nothing until after
the fatal shot's impact.
Hmmm...could it be that...hmmm...he noticed a bloody spot on the back of
JFK's jacket, immediately after which he saw the fatal bullet impact on
the top of his skull?
Because that makes a lot more sense than what you're proposing...
bigdog
> Wow. You navigate Bennett's statement in ways that fit your pre-
> determined conclusions, and then claim we KNOW what he meant because they
> fit your conclusions. Pretty wild. And true to LN form.
>
You've got to be kidding. It is you who has tried to parse and twist
Bennett's words to make it sound like he didn't really mean what he wrote
in his notes and what he said. He described seeing JFK first struck in the
back and then in the head and described the head shot as coming
immediately after the back shot. Since we know from the Z-film that these
two events came about 5 seconds apart, it doesn't take a genius to figure
out what Bennett meant by immediately.
> What you should be asking yourself is WHY, if Bennett actually saw a
> bullet hit Kennedy circa frame 224, as claimed by you and your brethren,
> he failed to describe what he did in the FIVE seconds--which must have
> felt like a lifetime to a professional bodyguard watching his protectee be
> slaughtered--between the impact of this bullet and the one striking
> Kennedy on the head...and WHY Bennett admitted saying nothing until after
> the fatal shot's impact.
>
Now you are adding mind reading to twisting his words.
> Hmmm...could it be that...hmmm...he noticed a bloody spot on the back of
> JFK's jacket, immediately after which he saw the fatal bullet impact on
> the top of his skull?
>
That's not what he said. He said he saw JFK struck in the back. And you
had the nerve to accuse me of making Bennett's statement fit my
conclusions. Yes one of us is doing that, and it sure as hell isn't me.
> Because that makes a lot more sense than what you're proposing...
>
I'm proposing that Bennett said what he meant and he meant what he said.
Really tough to figure out. He desribed seeing two distinct events, the
back shot and the head shot, both of which he saw after hearing the
initial shot. We know these events occured five seconds apart. Bennett is
just one of numerous witnesses who were emphatic that the first shot did
not hit JFK and the Z-film bears them out. Is this the best you've got.
Clubking01
> On 3/8/2010 10:10 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > Ever since a consensus has developed among WC defenders that of the
> > three possible scenarios offered by the WC for which of Oswald's shots
> > missed, the first seems to be almost a certainty, CTs have questioned
> > why Oswald would have missed with that one. They have argued that this
> > would have been his easiest shot since this was the shortest of the
> > three shots and he could fire when ready. I and others have argued
> > that while this shot was the shortest, it was the most difficult of
> > the three since the target was coming out of an abrubt turn, there was
> > a small window of time to fire before the target passed under the
> > tree, and the target was moving across the line of fire rather than
> > down it as it would be for the later shots. I've also believed that
> > firing almost straight down would be extremely awkward and the rifle
> > rest would be of little or no use.
>
>
> > I thought I had seen just about all the JFK assassination
> > documentaries that play on the various cable channels, but about a
> > week ago, the Military Channel aired an Unsolved History episode which
> > I had either never seen or at least not in its entirety. Expert
>
>
> > marksman Michael Yardley was asked to recreate the shots from the SN
> > and he seemed to confirm what I believe about the awkwardness of that
> > first shot. I can't remember his exact words but I believe he
> > mentioned how cramped a position that would have placed the shooter
> > in. The shots got progressively easier as the target moved away
> > because it would be moving more directly away from the shooter as it
> > got farther away. Since none of the shots was at a very long range,
> > the greater distance was a negligible factor.
>
> of junk and you could SEE for yourself that it jammed frequently.
Needless to say, there was no mention of the mis-aligned scope either.
Clubking01
> On Mar 8, 7:10 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ever since a consensus has developed among WC defenders that of the
> > three possible scenarios offered by the WC for which of Oswald's shots
> > missed, the first seems to be almost a certainty, CTs have questioned
> > why Oswald would have missed with that one. They have argued that this
> > would have been his easiest shot since this was the shortest of the
> > three shots and he could fire when ready. I and others have argued
> > that while this shot was the shortest, it was the most difficult of
> > the three since the target was coming out of an abrubt turn, there was
> > a small window of time to fire before the target passed under the
> > tree, and the target was moving across the line of fire rather than
> > down it as it would be for the later shots. I've also believed that
> > firing almost straight down would be extremely awkward and the rifle
> > rest would be of little or no use.
>
> > documentaries that play on the various cable channels, but about a
> > week ago, the Military Channel aired an Unsolved History episode which
> > I had either never seen or at least not in its entirety. Expert
> > and he seemed to confirm what I believe about the awkwardness of that
> > first shot. I can't remember his exact words but I believe he
> > mentioned how cramped a position that would have placed the shooter
> > in. The shots got progressively easier as the target moved away
> > because it would be moving more directly away from the shooter as it
> > got farther away. Since none of the shots was at a very long range,
> > the greater distance was a negligible factor.
>
> British journalist that he doesn't think Oswald could have pulled off
> the shots. (I tried to find this article on the net, but it looks like
> it's no longer available.)
> From patspeer.com. chapter 12b:
>
> In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy
> Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
> shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
> riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
> by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
> times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
> scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his
> rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
> at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
> accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley
> fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
> successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
> failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
> suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
> seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test
> the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
> hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
> light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
> laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
> rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
> akin to playing with a stacked deck. Later, Yardley was interviewed by
> a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
> that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
> course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
I believe this was also the same program where Gary Mack and another
individual timed whether or not Oswald could have walked the distance from
his Neely roominghouse to Tenth & Patton in time to shoot J.D. Tippett.
They made made it on the most direct route in just over 10 minutes. They
then exclaimed how this put to rest this consiracy myth. I had one big
problem. They assumed Oswald left the roominghouse NO LATER than 1:00 pm.
It is my understanding that he was seen outside at the bus stop around
1:04 or 1:05 pm. He would then have to reverse field and walk off the same
time distance and arrive no later than 1:15. Pretty tight timing to be
there on time to shoot Tippett.
pjsp...@aol.com
Sorry, Claviger, but this list is nonsense. In chapters 5 through 9 at
patspeer.com, I go through the statements of all the witnesses and show
how support for a first shot miss is next to non-existent. Let's take Mary
Woodward as an example. While it's true she said she thought the first
shot missed, she also insisted Kennedy waved at her before this
miss--which means the shot occurred around Z-190. She also claimed Kennedy
reacted to this shot--which can only be interpreted to be a reference to
his jerk to the left between 190 and 224. As a result, for one to call her
a witness for a first shot miss is at odds with common sense.
From patspeer.com: chapter 7:
Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes
Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "We decided
to cross Elm Street and wait there on the grassy slope just east of the
Triple Underpass…We had been waiting about half an hour when the first
motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The
President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get
to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs.
Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging
our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a
horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the
right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone
had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the
President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up,
the car came almost to a halt...I don't believe anyone was hit with the
first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as
if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then
after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President
start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot.
Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top
of her husband’s body….The cars behind stopped and several men--Secret
Service men,--I suppose-- got out and started rushing forward, obstructing
our view of the car…. About ten feet from where we were standing, a man
and a woman had thrown their small child to the ground and covered his
body with theirs. Apparently the bullets had whizzed directly over their
heads.” (12-23-63 FBI report, recounting a 12-5-63 discussion between
U.S. Attorney Barefoot Sanders and an FBi agent, CD205, p39) "a reporter
for the Dallas Morning News, name unrecalled, has advised him that four of
the women working in the Society Section of the Dallas Morning News were
reportedly standing next to Mr. Zapruda when the assassination shots were
fired. According to this reporter, these women, names unknown, stated that
the shots, according to their opinion, came from a direction other than
from the Texas School Book Depository Building." (12-7-63 FBI report,
24H520) “She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy
closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as
President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a
second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared
to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred
feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then
there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots,
and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and
started crawling over the back of the car. She stated that her first
reaction was that the shots had been fired from above her head and from
possibly behind her.” (3-24-64 testimony of Mark Lane before the Warren
Commission, 2H32-61) “on November 23, 1963, the Dallas Morning News ran
a story by Miss Woodward, and I have since that time spoken with Miss
Woodward by telephone, and she has confirmed portions--the entire portion
which I will quote from now--in her conversation with me. That is, that as
she and her three coworkers waited for the President to pass, on the
grassy slope just east of the triple overpass, she explained that the
President approached and acknowledged their cheers and the cheers of
others, "he faced forward again, and suddenly there was an ear- shattering
noise coming from behind us and a little to the right." Here we have a
statement, then, by an employee of the Dallas Morning News, evidently
speaking--she indicated to me that she was speaking on behalf of all four
employees, all of whom stated that the shots came from the direction of
the overpass, which was to their fight, and not at all from the Book
Depository Building, which was to their left."
(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988) “One thing I
am totally positive about in my own mind is how many shots were there
were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate.
It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly
the sound of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second and
third shot I did see the president being hit. I literally saw his head
explode. So, I felt that the shots had come, as I wrote in my article,
from behind me and from my right, which would have been the direction of
the grassy knoll, and the railroad overpass." (11-21-93 Reporters Remember
conference, as quoted in Reporting the Kennedy Assassination). "(We)
stationed ourselves just down from the School Book Depository building and
waited for the parade to come by.) And we were chatting, and as we were
talking, I looked up at the grassy knoll. And I said to my friends,
“That's a very dangerous-looking spot to me, it must be, there must be a
lot of security up there, because it looks a perfect spot, if somebody
wanted to do something. And then the motorcade came along and I couldn't
believe it: finally, I'm gonna see Jacqueline Kennedy, and she's looking
in the other direction. So I yelled and I said “Please look this way!”
And they looked right at us, waved, and at that moment, I heard a very
loud noise. And I wasn't sure what it was at that point, and I turned to
my friends and asked 'what was that; is some jerk shooting off
firecrackers?'’ And, uh, then I heard the second one, and this time I
knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the
third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one. And that
time, I saw his head blow open, and I very well knew what had happened by
that point…we waited for just a few minutes… and walked back to the
Dallas Morning News…I started writing my story, and I wrote it exactly
as I knew it…And to this day, I think I wrote it correctly…The only
thing that I guess I got myself in a little bit of controversy about, I
said that the shots appeared to have come from behind me and to my
right…I didn’t say they did come from that direction…I had spoken to
my friends just prior to the event, suggesting that the grassy knoll would
be the perfect spot for an assassin… when it happened, I naturally
expected it to have come from where I had predicted it would come from.
So in reality, I do believe they did come from the School Book Depository
Building. So I get a little bit upset when I get put into the other
column...I never spoke to Mark Lane in my life, except to say I couldn’t
speak to him.”
Analysis: while many witness’s recollections get wilder and wilder as
they get older, Ms. Woodward has in recent years been trying to bring hers
in line with the official story. In the 1993 conference quoted above, she
bent over backwards to let the good old boys in the journalism profession
know she was not a “conspiracist.” To no avail. Her assertion that
the last two shots were bunched together locks her forever in the
conspiracy camp. Her words are completely at odds with the LPM
scenario--she says the President was past her when the first shot rang
out, she says the limousine slowed down after the first shot, she said the
President slumped down in his seat after the first of two closely grouped
together shots. It was only in recent years that she started adding on
that this last shot was the head shot. While some LPM defenders might
choose to focus on Woodward’s repeated assertion that the first shot
missed, they will have to overlook that she says the President looked
around after this shot—and that it came after the wave of his hand
(which can be seen at frame 188 of the Zapruder film). First shot hit
190. Last two shots bunched together (with the last shot after the head
shot).
Mrs. Donald Baker is yet another example of a faux first shot miss witness
whose actual words and testimony suggest there was no first shot miss.
From patspeer.com, chapter 8:
Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rackley)(11-25-63 FBI report, CD5 p.66-67)
“She was standing across the street immediately in front of the
building…She observed President Kennedy’s car pass…and almost
immediately thereafter heard three explosions spaced at intervals
which she at first thought were firecrackers. It sounded as though
these sounds were coming from the direction of the Triple Underpass
and looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something
bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and
now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement.” (3-19-64
statement to the FBI, 22H635) “I recall that moments after the
Presidential car passed I heard three loud reports, which I first
thought to be a prankster throwing firecrackers.” (7-22-64 testimony
before the Warren Commission, 7H507-515) “well, after he passed us,
then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw
a shot or something hit the pavement…I thought there were some boys
standing down there where he was—where the President’s car was…close
to the underpass.” (When asked if she could see the Stemmons Freeway
Sign) “No, I couldn’t see the sign because it was angled—we were
stepping out into the street then and it was approximately along in
here, I presume, the first sign.” (When asked if it was near the first
sign) “As I can remember, it was…I thought it was a firecracker. It
looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought
it was a firecracker and I was thinking that somebody was fixing to
get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it
were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the
sign” (When asked if it would have been near the underpass or the
sign) “It was near the signs” (When asked how close to the opposite
curb it was) “It was approximately in the middle of the lane” (When
asked where it hit compared to the car) “I thought it was—well—behind
it.” (When asked how many shots she heard) “three” (When asked
where she believed they came from) “it sounded like it was coming from—
there was a railroad track…so I guess it would be by the underpass.”
Analysis: Mrs. Baker is another one of those witnesses that LPM
theorists and conspiracy theorists alike love to use to demonstrate
that there was a first shot miss. A close look at her statements
should lead one to question this, however. In the FBI report she
merely mentioned seeing something hit the street in front of the
limousine. When re-questioned in March, and given a statement to
sign, she doesn’t mention a bullet striking the street, only hearing
firecrackers. It isn’t until July—eight months after the shooting,
that she begins to state she saw sparks or something hit the street.
She remembered thinking there were firecrackers, perhaps seeing paper,
and then over time she remembered sparks in association with the
firecrackers. Still, even if she saw a first shot miss, her
statements do not support the LPM scenario. She placed the limo down
near the first sign—the Thornton Freeway sign--when the first shot
rang out. This is past Kennedy's location at frame 160. She also said
the bullet or whatever struck the middle of the lane beside the car,
behind the car, and that she thought the shots were coming from the
underpass. This would indicate that the sparks or whatever she saw
exploded along the asphalt in the opposite direction of a shot coming
from the sniper’s nest, right in front of Officers Martin and Hargis.
Well, why didn’t they or anyone else nearby see this? Clint Hill was
looking in this direction. Not coincidentally, Mrs. Baker was asked
during her testimony to put a mark on a photo of Dealey Plaza to
indicate where she saw these "sparks" hit the street. This is exhibit
354. Not surprisingly, her mark is a good 70 feet or so further down
the road than Kennedy at frame 160. First shot hit 190-224.
In chapter 9b, I go through the witnesses Vincent Bugliosi uses to
push the first shot miss myth, and prove that, by his own standards,
he was orchestrating a deliberate deception.. The discussion of Baker/
Rackley is as follows:
# Bugliosi then presents Virgie Rackley as a witness to the first
shot's impact. He uses her Warren Commission testimony (where she
testified under her newly acquired name of Mrs. Donald Baker) to
assert that a bullet missed Kennedy and hit the pavement of Elm Street
behind the limousine. But here, once again, Bugliosi's treatment of
his witness is...amiss. Bugliosi conceals from his readers that there
is reason to doubt Rackley saw the bullet hit behind the limousine, as
the earliest FBI report on Rackley, based on an interview conducted on
the Sunday after the shooting, reflects "after the first shot she saw
something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential
automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the
pavement.” (CD5, p66-67) Yes, the FBI claimed she originally said the
bullet bounced in front of the limousine, and not behind.
# This is an important difference. While Bugliosi concedes that Baker
thought the first sound she heard was "a firecracker thrown by some
boys who are fixing to get in a lot of trouble" he fails to tell his
readers that Baker's imaginary boys were standing "close to the
underpass" or "near the signs", and that this signifies that the
firecracker or "sparks" she saw on the street were not indicative of a
missed shot fired from behind, but from in front. He also conceals
that Mrs. Baker was standing in front of the sniper's nest in the
school book depository at the time of the shots and that she
nevertheless testified that the explosion she heard “sounded like it
was coming from—there was a railroad track…so I guess it would be by
the underpass.” (7H507-515) The underpass, was of course, in front of
the limousine at the time of the shooting, and in the same direction
from Baker as the "grassy knoll" believed by many to be the source of
at least one of the shots.
# Even if one should grant that the FBI report was incorrect about the
future Mrs. Baker's early impression of the presumed bullet impact,
and even if one should grant that she was confused by echoes and had
thereby misidentified the source of all the shots, there remains a
significant problem with Bugliosi's use of her testimony to sell that
the first shot missed circa frame 160 of the Zapruder film. He seems
to be aware of this problem. On page 471, while discussing the first
shot, Bugliosi asserts that Rackley told the FBI the first shot rang
out "immediately" after the car drove past her location in front of
the school book depository. But a close look at the FBI report cited
by Bugliosi (CD5 p.66-67) shows it actually reads "almost
immediately." Even worse, in Bugliosi's source notes for his narrative
of the shots, Bugliosi cites Warren Commission Exhibit CE 354 as
support for his use of Rackley. CE 354 is a photograph of Dealey
Plaza, the site of the shooting, with notations by various witnesses,
including Miss Rackley/ Mrs. Baker. Baker's circled numeral 2,
recording her testimony as to the location of the firecracker or
"sparks" she saw hit the street, is, clearly, 70 feet or more further
down the street than Kennedy at the time of Bugliosi's proposed first
shot. It is, in fact, almost exactly at the location of Kennedy at the
time of Bugliosi's proposed second shot. While one might muse that
Rackley/Baker was simply mistaken about this location, a close look at
CE 354 shows that her mark of a circled numeral 1, where she was
standing during the shots, is three times as far from her circled
numeral 2, signifying the location of the firecracker or sparks, than
from the location of the limousine at Bugliosi's proposed first shot.
It seems hard to believe Mrs. Baker would testify that these sparks
were over 100 feet away from her, if in fact they were no further than
35. (CE 354 can be viewed in Appendix Two of this essay). Bugliosi's
use of Baker to describe a missed shot around frame 160, without
telling his readers she thought the shot was fired from in front of
the limousine, and at a much later time, is undoubtedly SUSPICIOUS.
pjsp...@aol.com
of a first shot miss to Bennett. His statements when compared to the
photographic record suggest an entirely different scenario. Oh, BY THE
WAY, he told the HSCA that he did not see a bullet impact Kennedy, but
only assumed he'd been hit, based upon the nick he'd obseved in Kennedy's
jacket.
From patspeer.com, chapter 5b:
Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up
car. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn
and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade
and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that
immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing
the supposed firecracker, 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 shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear
high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent
Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver
and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to
see any one person that could have rendered this terrible
tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an
intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-
wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade
en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a
firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area
and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat
of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back
of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot
hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A
second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the
President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for
the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey
had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and
particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when
I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one
that could have fired the shoots.” (1-30-78 interview with HSCA
investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he
hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what
appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below
the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he
believes the first and second shots were close together and then a
longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents
reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in
particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw
the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.”
Analysis: due to Bennett's suggestion, in his 11-23 report, that the
President was hit in the back by the second shot, Bennett is a star
witness for LPM theorists. He is not deserving of this star status,
however. One problem is that he said the bullet struck Kennedy 4
inches below his shoulder—too low to support the single-bullet theory.
He also said the limo was heading down a grade when the first shot
rang out, and that the crowd was very sparse--a description far more
in line with a shot at 190-224 than at 160. He also said the third
shot immediately followed the second. While Bennett was later to tell
the HSCA that there was more space between the second and third than
between the first and second, there is reason to believe this was
simply his adjusting his memory to fit the single-assassin scenario.
After all, if he’d really witnessed the second bullet striking Kennedy
at Z-224 but didn’t yell “he’s hit!” until after the President was
shot in the head five seconds later, he would have to have been the
worst secret service agent in history. There’s also the problem that
the Willis photo at Z-202 shows Bennett just starting to turn to his
left. If there’d been a shot at Z-160 and had Bennett immediately
turned to his left, as stated, he should already be looking at Kennedy
in the Willis photo. This suggests instead that Bennett heard a shot
at 190, not 160. Another problem, as pointed out by researcher Robert
Harris, is that the Altgens photo shows Bennett to still be looking to
his right as late as Z-255. This might make one suspect he heard an
early shot, turned to face the President after Z-255, noticed the
blood on Kennedy’s jacket, and heard two more shots ring out,
associating the first shot with the back wound, and the second with
the head wound. There's another possibility, however. In Bennett's
original notes he does not say that he saw the second shot hit the
president, or that he heard a shot when he looked at the President and
noticed his back wound. He says he saw "a shot that hit the boss". He
then writes that "A second shoot followed immediately and hit the
right rear high of the boss's head". This suggests the possibility
that when Bennett looked at the President he saw "that a shot had hit
the boss" and that he then saw a second shot hit Kennedy in the head.
This would mean that he'd heard but two shots, which puts his words in
line with fellow Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis.
Should one doubt that Bennett would change his impressions overnight,
and go from hearing two shots to the by-then politically-correct three
shots, one should consider that in his original notes, Bennett
asserted that he'd yelled to Hickey to get the AR-15 rifle, and that
only a day later he reported that he tried to get the rifle himself,
but Hickey beat him to it. The notes written before Bennett knew the
official story also reflect that he turned to his left upon hearing
the shots, while the typed up report the next day leaves this out, and
says instead that he looked at "particularly the right side of the
area." These changes reflect either Bennett's confusion or his desire
to bring his story in alignment with what he'd been told. Maybe
someone typed-up Bennett's 11-23 report based on his notes, and made a
few changes. No matter what, we just can't be sure what he saw.
Possible LPM scenario. Possible first shot hit 190, with the last two
shots bunched together. Possibly heard but two shots.
Anthony Marsh
Why should Yardley have known about the misaligned scope? He's not a
researcher. Gary Mack would know, but he would cover that up.
tomnln
NOT to mention that Tippit was shot at 1:06 according to witness Helen
Markham.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"Clubking01" <trsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a7d084e-d198-4049...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled ?The JFK Conspiracy
> Myths? attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
> shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
> riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
> by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
> times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
> scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn?t fired his
> rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
> at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
> accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley
> fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
> successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
> failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
> suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
> seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test
> the accuracy of Yardley?s shooting, they provided him with a rifle
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
All estimates of Oswald's movements are based on assumptions because he
was not punching a clock at various check points to tell us exactly what
time he reached certain locations and what time he left those locations.
His housekeeper said he arrived at the rooming house about one o'clock.
When people don't know the exact time something happened, the tendency is
to round off, usually to the neareast half hour. If someone is unsure
about the time, they aren't going to say about 12:57. In fact, 12:57 is
about one o'clock. So is 12:53 and 1:04. We simply don't know what time
Oswald reached his rooming house and what time he left it so the best
anyone can do is guesstimate the time of his movements. One thing we do
know is that Tippit was killed with Oswald' revolver and that revolver was
in his position when he tried to kill another cop at the Texas Theater a
short time later. That fact and a number of eyewitnesses place him at 10th
and Patton at the time Tippit was murdered so all other timings must work
around that reference point.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Leave it to a CT to assume that any witness who doesn't tell a story that
meshes with their pet theory has deliberately altered it to support the
lone assassin theory. SOP for the CTs and just so much poppycock. This
long winded diatribe of yours is nothing but your attempt to put your spin
on Bennett's words. You have twisted and manipulated virtually every
statement Bennett has made to suit your purposes. We should put up a two
column comparison. Column 1 would be What Bennett Said. Column 2 would be
What Pat Spear Wants it to Mean.
pjsp...@aol.com
Bennett saw and meant. It is I who is quite properly pointing out that
his statements as you interpret them do not jive with the photographic
record, and that he may not have meant to say what you think he said
anyhow. I am not spinning; I am analyzing. You are spinning, and
pretending...
As far as your suggestion that I have twisted people's statements to
fit my "pet theory", I defy you to put substance behind your smoke. I
initially focused on the medical evidence. I had no dog in the hunt as
far as the shooting scenario went. I then decided to go through Tink
Thompson's witness list and read every eyewitness statement, and every
bit of testimony regarding the shooting itself. I was SHOCKED. It was
incredibly clear to me, as it was to most everyone in 1964, that the
first shot hit Kennedy. It was also pretty clear that the last two
shots were bunched together, and that the LAST shot missed. As far as
I'm concerned, this leaves open the possibility Oswald fired the
shots, and missed the last shot when firing as rapidly as possible. It
is not PROOF of conspiracy. It is proof, however, that those pushing
the LPM (Lattimer. Posner, Myers) of a first shot miss at 160, a
second shot SBT, and a third shot head shot, are completely full of
beans.
And so, to that end, I spent months creating a data base of witness
statements to prove this point, and challenged those still under the
delusion the first shot missed to create a similar data base. No one
has taken me up on this challenge. When Bugliosi's book came out, and
included a completely dishonest argument for a first shot miss,
moreover, I added another chapter in which I went through the
statements of HIS witnesses one by one, and proved not only that these
witnesses were in fact describing an entirely different scenario, but
that Bugliosi had engaged in outright deception to sell the first shot
miss myth. This chapter is 9b at patspeer.com.
Here is another excerpt from chapter 9b:
# Next up for Bugliosi is Secret Service agent Paul Landis. He uses
Landis' statements to suggest the first shot came from behind the
limousine. Later, on page 468, he uses Landis' statements to suggest
this shot rang out when the motorcade had just turned onto Elm, and
that this first shot missed. To this end Bugliosi quotes Landis as
follows: "the President's car and the Follow-up car had just completed
their turns and both were straightening out. At this moment I heard
what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me,
over my right shoulder." But let's read the next lines of Landis'
statement to see what else he has to say: "When I heard the sound
there was no question in my mind what it was. My first glance was at
the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway. I
saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the
direction of the sound. I did not realize that President Kennedy had
been shot at this point." (18H751-757) Landis could recall but two
shots, the first one just described that made the President move and
that he later concluded hit the President. This is not the first shot
described by Bugliosi, after which Kennedy waved happily to the crowd
at his right. The second shot heard by Landis exploded the President's
skull. Bugliosi fails to explain how Landis, once alerted to an
assassination attempt by what Bugliosi proposes was an early missed
shot, could have failed to notice that Kennedy continued waving after
this shot, and could have failed to notice one of the two subsequent
shots to strike his President. His using Landis to suggest the first
shot missed is therefore misleading and UNFAIR.
# Bugliosi then describes the actions of Secret Service Agent Rufus
Youngblood, Vice-President Johnson's bodyguard. He has Youngblood hear
the first shot, notice "unnatural movements" in the President's follow-
up car, and then move to protect Vice-President Johnson. There are
real problems with Bugliosi's using Youngblood's testimony to describe
a shot as early as frame 160, however. One problem with this is that
the Vice-President's car was just turning onto Elm at the moment of
Bugliosi's first shot, and that Youngblood, in the Warren Commission
testimony cited by Bugliosi, described the moment of the first shot as
follows: "Well, the crowd had begun to diminish; looking ahead and to
the right the crowd became spotty. I mean it wasn't continuous at all
like it had been. As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of
a sudden there was an explosive noise." This undoubtedly suggests the
shot came after they'd completed their turn and were heading down Elm.
(The location of Johnson's Lincoln at frame 160 can be observed in
Appendix Three of this essay). Even more telling, during Youngblood's
testimony, counsel Arlen Specter asked him to draw an "A" on Exhibit
354 to mark the location of the Vice-Presidential car at the moment of
the first shot. (2H144-155) This is the same exhibit cited by Bugliosi
in his discussion of Rackley. Not surprisingly, Youngblood's mark is
well down Elm street, possibly even further than the vice-president's
car at the time of Bugliosi's second shot. (CE 354 can be viewed in
Appendix Two of this essay).
# Youngblood's description of the first shot's aftermath is also a
problem for Bugliosi: "I quickly observed unnatural movement of
crowds, like ducking or scattering, and quick movements in the
Presidential follow-up car." The Zapruder film shows no "unnatural
movements" in the President's follow-up car for several seconds after
Bugliosi's proposed first shot. It is also problematic that the men
making these "unnatural movements" would almost universally conclude
that the first shot that got their attention had in fact struck the
President. Youngblood's testimony, therefore, is not only a clear
indication the first shot was fired after Bugliosi's proposed time for
this shot, but that the first shot struck Kennedy. Bugliosi's use of
Youngblood to describe a first shot miss at frame 160 of the Zapruder
film is therefore SUSPICIOUS.
# Bugliosi then describes the actions of Governor Connally, who has
come to be something of a star witness for the first shot miss with
Bugliosi's supporters, even though he never once proposed such a
thing. Bugliosi has Governor Connally hear the first shot and turn to
his right, realize what is happening, and blurt out "Oh, no, no, no!"
Now, this is just strange. Connally testified that he yelled out after
he was shot, and not before. On his endnotes Bugliosi acknowledges his
disregard for Connally's testimony and makes the argument that the
testimony of Mrs. Connally, who thought her husband yelled out before
he was shot, and Mrs. Kennedy, who said she turned to look at Connally
when she heard him yell out, and even the Zapruder film, which shows
Mrs. Kennedy turn to her right before Connally appears to have been
hit, confirm that Connally yelled out before he was shot, and not
before.
# Bugliosi disregards common sense in the process. A close look at the
Zapruder film, which Bugliosi uses to defend this strange conclusion,
will convince most anyone with a notion of how humans appear when
talking that Connally yells "Oh, no, no, no!" around frame Z-240,
after Bugliosi' s proposed second shot. While this is readily
apparent, in 1987 researcher Martin Shackleford contacted a deaf
couple to watch the film, and see what they could see. They reported
that Connally yells out "No, no, no, no!" between frames 242 and 250,
and that he immediately follows this with "My God, they're going to
kill us all!" As Shackleford's article on the deaf couple's
translation is featured on the website of Marquette University
professor John McAdams, Google's top-ranked assassination-related
website, and as this website is pretty much required reading for
single-assassin theorists, a la Bugliosi, it is hard to believe that
Bugliosi would be unaware of the deaf couple's comments.
# But this is not the only manner in which Bugliosi distorts
Connally's testimony. When describing Connally's first thoughts after
hearing this first shot, he writes: "Connally knows it isn't a
firecracker or a blowout or anything else. It's a rifle shot." The
source notes for this passage reflect that this assertion can be found
in Connally's testimony either before the Warren Commission, or in his
subsequent testimony before the House Select Committee on
Assassinations (the HSCA). Well, this is pretty slippery. Connally's
discussion of a rifle shot comes from his HSCA testimony. His original
testimony to the Warren Commission, which Bugliosi chose not to
reveal, however, was more specific. He testified: "the thought
immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three
people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an
automatic rifle." Bugliosi, apparently, has no interest in telling his
readers that Connally, a former Secretary of the Navy, thought the
first shot sounded like a burst of bullets from an automatic weapon.
While one can see how someone like Oliver Stone--a dramatist--would
cherry-pick parts from the various statements and testimony of a
witness to help him present his narrative, Bugliosi, through his
publicity blitz and writings, has promised us something far more
respectful of the historical record. And has failed to deliver.
# It is just not reasonable to argue that Connally's testimony
supports the first shot miss proposed by Bugliosi. On page 468 of
Reclaiming History, Bugliosi argues that Connally's testifying to have
heard a shot when the limo had "just made the turn" indicates the shot
was fired before frame 166 of the Zapruder film. This is unbelievably
deceptive. Here's what Connally actually said: "We had--we had gone, I
guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was,
heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to
the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds
had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going
to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned
on Elm Street. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I
thought was a shot." 150-200 feet down Elm is 35-85 feet further down
the street than the limousine was at frame 160 of the Zapruder film,
and is, in fact, more in line with the limo's location at frame 224,
the time of Bugliosi's second shot.
# Should Bugliosi have ignored this testimony because he believed
Connally was simply bad at judging distances, he should have looked
for other evidence provided by the Commission, which confirmed or
conflicted with Connally's appraisal of this distance. He wouldn't
have had to look far. On page 133 of Connally’s Warren Commission
testimony counsel Arlen Specter hands the Governor an overhead
photograph of Dealey Plaza and asks him to mark where he was “at the
time the shooting first started.” The Governor states “I would say it
would be about where this truck is here. It looks like a truck. I
would say about in that neighborhood.” He then marks the photo. This
marked photo was placed into evidence as Commission Exhibit 699.
(4H129-146) ) When one compares this photo to the surveyor’s plat of
Dealey Plaza, moreover, one can see that the area marked by Connally
is nowhere near where Bugliosi holds Connally was riding when he heard
the first shot, and that it is, in fact, almost exactly where Connally
was at the moment of Bugliosi's second shot. Bugliosi, who, we should
repeat, sub-titles the section of his book containing the re-enactment
and discussion of the shots "Matters of Fact--What Happened" fails to
tell his readers here that Connally not only believed the first shot
did not miss, but that it rang out seconds after the moment Bugliosi
claims it missed. (CE 699 can be seen in Appendix Four of this essay.)
Bugliosi's use of Connally's statements and testimony is therefore
SUSPICIOUS.
# It also quite revealing about his method of operation, and his
apparent disregard for consistency. For while Bugliosi uses
Connally's testimony at this point of his book to sell that there was
a first shot around frame 160, and that it missed, he later dismisses
the relevance of Connally's testimony altogether. On page 480, to
counter Connally's claim that he and Kennedy were not hit by the same
bullet, he writes that Connally would be "perhaps one of the least
likely persons in the world who would know things such as this," as he
was shot himself, and in a state of shock. This is to ignore that
Connally's impression they were hit by separate bullets came not from
his recollection of the shot which hit him, but from his immediate
impression that the first shot--which Bugliosi holds was fired 3.5
seconds earlier--struck Kennedy, coupled with his wife's recollection
of seeing Kennedy react to the first shot, coupled with his doctor's
impression that the shot striking him had not struck Kennedy. Bugliosi
then goes on to explain why Connally's statements on the shooting
should not be seriously considered. On page 481, Bugliosi concludes:
"The only thing that rings true to me about the governor's reflections
on what was happening around the time he was hit is not when he tries
to be precise, but when he said things like this in his 1978 testimony
before the HSCA: 'When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I
guess it was after I was hit...' All of his hesitation and confusion
is more in keeping with what I would expect from a witness who had
sustained the kind of injuries Connally did." Seeing as Connally's
testimony that he turned to the right as a response to the first shot
is the cornerstone upon which Bugliosi's case for a first shot miss
has been built, his subsequent attack on Connally's credibility, to
counter Connally's fervent belief that the first shot hit Kennedy, is
a bit bizarre. While Bugliosi might try to lawyer his way out of this
by claiming that Connally's confusion "around the time he was hit"
began just after the first shot miss, this seems rather arbitrary, and
avoids the uncomfortable fact that Connally, when asked to mark his
impression of the limo's location at the time of the first shot--an
impression created before he'd been hit--marked CE 699 at a point much
further down the road than the limo's location at the moment of
Bugliosi's missed shot.
# Bugliosi then moves on to the women of the limousine. He has First
Lady Jacqueline Kennedy turn to her right when she hears the Governor
yell "Oh, no, no, no!". As her testimony saying as much was cited by
Bugliosi as a reason to disregard Connally's testimony, her presence
here is no surprise. But one wonders why he has given her clearly
confused testimony so much weight, at the expense of the far-more
consistent Connally. Perhaps he realized that by having Mrs. Kennedy
turn to the Governor before he's shot, he could explain her behavior
in the Zapruder film, where she looks to her right, at both the
Governor and at the President, nearly two seconds before Bugliosi
proposes they were shot. The problem is that Mrs. Kennedy's testimony,
as disjointed as it is, is fairly clear on one point: Governor
Connally was already hit when she looked at him. She testified: "the
one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling...Governor
Connally screamed like a stuck pig…I heard Governor Connally yelling
and that made me turn around." (5H178-181, while the "stuck pig"
reference was removed from the transcript published by the Warren
Commission, it was found in the original transcript by researcher
Harold Weisberg, and is discussed in books purportedly read by
Bugliosi). Since Mrs. Kennedy recalled but two shots, one causing
Governor Connally to scream, and the fatal blow to her husband,
Bugliosi's using her to prop up a first shot miss long before Governor
Connally screamed is once again bizarre, and suggests he thinks she
somehow blocked a second shot--which he proposes struck both Kennedy
and Connally--completely out of her mind. This is an UNFAIR use of her
testimony
# Bugliosi then has Nellie Connally,"startled by the loud frightening
noise that emanates from somewhere to her right," turn to look in this
direction. He stops it right there, and in the process, leaves
something out. A big something. Her Warren Commission testimony, which
Bugliosi cites, reads: "I heard a noise…I turned over my right
shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands
at his neck" (4H146-149). In the subsequent years, Mrs. Connally would
repeatedly assert that Kennedy was hit by this first shot. Why, if
Bugliosi trusts her testimony that her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no,
no!" just before he was shot--when she wasn't even focusing on her
husband at the time--does he refuse to believe she saw Kennedy
reacting to a shot when she claimed to be looking right at him?
# On page 481, Bugliosi finally gets around to offering his reasons
for rejecting Nellie Connally's consistent claim that she saw Kennedy,
sitting but 3 feet away from her, react to the first shot. In one of
the most bizarre and deceptive arguments in a book filled with bizarre
and deceptive arguments, he asserts that we know Nellie Connally was
confused because "In her Warren Commission testimony, she testified
that immediately after hearing the first shot, she 'looked back and
saw the president as he had both hands at his neck.' We know from the
Zapruder film, of course, that Kennedy showed no visible reaction to
the first shot around Z160, so we know Mrs. Connally was wrong." Well,
I'll be. Talk of your circular reasoning. Bugliosi claims we know a
shot was fired at frame 160 of the Zapruder film, in large part
because Governor Connally testified to turning to his right just after
the first shot. As President Kennedy was clearly not hit at this time,
however, Bugliosi proposes that this first shot must have missed. This
makes Governor Connally and his fervent belief that the first shot hit
Kennedy an obstacle. No problem, says Bugliosi, Governor Connally was
a gunshot wound victim, and his recollections of the moments just
before and after he was shot are an understandable blur. Never mind
that this undercuts the value of Connally's testimony, the very
testimony upon which Bugliosi's first shot miss theory has been built.
Besides, says Bugliosi, "Governor Connally's conclusion that the
president was hit by the first shot is based solely, it seems, on the
recollection of his wife, Nellie." And why can't we trust Nellie's
recollection? Because her recollection conflicts with the first shot's
being fired at frame 160, a precise time divined by Bugliosi from her
"confused" husband's testimony! Apparently, we are to disregard the
statements and testimony of any witness whose statements and testimony
conflict with Bugliosi's proposed first shot miss, an event so far
unsupported by the full statements and testimony of every witness he's
provided.
# But if that wasn't bad enough, on page 481 Bugliosi offers us a
second reason to distrust Nellie Connally's assertion that the first
shot struck the President. His second reason is that "She also said
that after the first shot, she recalls her husband exclaiming, 'Oh,
no, no, no.' But he testified, 'When I was hit' (which he said was by
the second shot) is when 'I said 'Oh, no, no, no.'" Umm, wow. Did
Bugliosi really forget that he'd previously argued that she was right
when she said her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no, no!" after the first
shot, and that he'd used her statement, at that time, to discredit her
husband? He can't have it both ways. He can't say her husband is wrong
because she disagrees with him and then turn around and say we can't
trust her because he disagrees with her. Bugliosi ends his attack on
Mrs. Connally's credibility with a bit of unintentional irony: "All of
this is perfectly understandable confusion." Yes, I'm afraid it is.
Let's recall here the words of Bryan Burrough in the New York Times:
"It’s in the arguing that Bugliosi, as a former prosecutor, truly
shines." Bugliosi's treatment of Nellie Connally's testimony is
clearly SUSPICIOUS.
bigdog
What are you doing, a filibuster? Do you think the one who bombards this
forum with the most verbage wins the argument? Bennett heard the first
shot, then looked to JFK and saw him hit by the second and third shots.
That is what he said and any straight forward reading of his words yields
that conclusion. He said the head shot came immediately after the back
shot. Immediately is a very imprecise term but he is describing two events
which the Z-film clearly tells us came 5 seconds apart, so we know what
immediate meant to Bennett. Furthermore, Bennett said their was a longer
pause between the second and third shots than there had been between the
first and second. This meshes perfectly with a first shot miss at Z160 or
slightly before, followed by a back shot at Z222 and the head shot at Z313
which means roughly 3.5 seconds between the first two shots and 5 seconds
between the last two. It also yields further evidence of what Bennett
meant by immediately.
You can slice and dice Bennett's statements all you want, you can't change
the fact his account supports the first shot miss, meshes perfectly with
the Z-film, and is very compelling.
Clubking01
Was it proven ballistically that Oswald's gun killed Tippett? I believe
that the bullets removed from Tippett were so mangled that they were
impossible to trace. Am I wrong about this? Also, how do we explain that
while four shells (two Westerns and two Remingtons) were found, the
mangled bullets in Tippett were three Westerns and one was a Remington?
I agree though, that there is little doubt that Oswald tried to assault
Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater.
Anthony Marsh
> Wrong, bigdog. Look again. It is you who are saying YOU know what
Who is? He are?
The major problem here is that everyone wants to reinterpret each
witness statement to fit his own pet theory.
> Bennett saw and meant. It is I who is quite properly pointing out that
Who is? You am?
I think you are jiving me.
> his statements as you interpret them do not jive with the photographic
> record, and that he may not have meant to say what you think he said
I think you are trying to pull a Harris, by saying what YOU think jibes
with the Zapruder film. You simply can't microanalyze movements in the
Zapruder film like that. Anyone who claims to do that is a fraud. For
one thing because we can't see the two men when they are behind the
sign. Maybe a turn you are looking for happened when we can't see it.
> anyhow. I am not spinning; I am analyzing. You are spinning, and
> pretending...
>
> As far as your suggestion that I have twisted people's statements to
> fit my "pet theory", I defy you to put substance behind your smoke. I
> initially focused on the medical evidence. I had no dog in the hunt as
> far as the shooting scenario went. I then decided to go through Tink
> Thompson's witness list and read every eyewitness statement, and every
> bit of testimony regarding the shooting itself. I was SHOCKED. It was
> incredibly clear to me, as it was to most everyone in 1964, that the
> first shot hit Kennedy. It was also pretty clear that the last two
Is that what Tink said? Are you basing this all on his opinion? What if
he changed his opinion over the years and you didn't know about that?
I enjoy your attacks on Bugliosi immensely, but there is a principle in
logic which states that just because you proved someone else wrong does
not prove you right.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> Myths? attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the
>>>> shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons
>>>> riding in a remote-controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired
>>>> by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3
>>>> times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission's favored
>>>> rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting
>>>> at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to
>>>> accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley
>>>> fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved
>>>> successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they
>>>> failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to
>>>> suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87
>>>> seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test
>>>> hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of
>>>> light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a
>>>> laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, and as a laser
>>>> rifle offers no recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim, this was
>>>> akin to playing with a stacked deck. Later, Yardley was interviewed by
>>>> a British journalist about the program. He said he didn't believe
>>>> that Oswald was capable of pulling off the shots attributed to him. Of
>>>> course, this last bit of info was never mentioned on the program.
>>
>>> I believe this was also the same program where Gary Mack and another
>>> individual timed whether or not Oswald could have walked the distance from
I don't think the problem was mangling. I think the problem was the
looseness of the fit of the bullets down the barrel did not produce
enough marks.
TIPPIT MURDER
Evidence examined
(170) CE 143--One .38 special caliber Smith and Wesson revolver,
Victory model, serial No. V510210, seized from Oswald when he was
apprehended in the Texas theater. (See figs. 26A and 26B.)* The barrel is
rifled with five lands and five grooves, right twist. THe cylinder has a
six-cartridge capacity.
(172) The CE 143 revolver had been altered to accept .38 special
caliber ammunition and presumably to allow easier concealment, as follows:
1. the barrel had been shortened from the muzzle end to
it present length of 2 1/4 inches.
2. The muzzle end had been recrowned.
3. The cylinder had been rechambered from .38 S. & W.
caliber to accommodate .38 special caliber cartridges.
4. The front sight had been reset.
---------------------------------
*The panel found the revolver to be in good operating
condition. It can be fired single action or double action. The trigger
pull was measured at about 3 1/2 pounds single action and 10 1/4 pounds
double action.
374
5. The "U.S. Property" markings located on the left side of the
top strap had been partially obliterated.
6. The lanyard swivel and ring had been removed and the hole
filled with metal.
(173) CE 143 was test-fired four times by the panel into a
horizontal water recovery tank, using two Western Cartridge Co..38 special
caliber cartridges with 158-grain, copper-coated (Lubalov), lead,
round-nose bullets, and two Remington-Peters .38 special caliber
cartridges with 158-grain, plain lead, round-nose bullets.
(174) CE 518--Four cartridges found in the CE 143 revolver. Two
cartridges, designated Q78 and Q79 by the FBI, are Western Cartridge
Co..38 special caliber cartridges with copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead,
round-nose bullets. The other two, designated Q80 and Q81 by the FBI. are
Remington-Peters .38 special caliber cartridges with plain lead,
round-nose bullets.* (See fig. 27.)
(175) CE 587--One Western Cartridge Co..38 S. & W. caliber
cartridge with a copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead, roundnose bullet, acquired
by the FBI and used as a standard. (See hearings before the Warren
Commission, vol. 17, p. 264.)
(176) CE 588--One Western Cartridge Co. unfired .38 S. & W.
caliber cartridge case and one unfired .38 caliber copper-coated
(Lubaloy). lead, round-nose bullet, weighing 145.1 grains and measuring
0.635 inch long, acquired by the FBI. Both were used as standards. (See
hearings before the Warren Commission, vol. 17, p. 264.)
(178) CE 589--Assembled and disassembled cartridges--one
Remington-Peters .38 S. & W. caliber cartridge with a plain lead,
roundnose bullet. measuring 1.20 inches long overall; one Remington-Peters
unfired .38 S. & W. caliber cartridge case measuring 0.763 inch long and
one unfired .38 S. & W. caliber plain lead, round-nose bullet measuring
0.661 inch long. The FBI used these as standards. (See hearings before the
Warren Commission, vol. 17, p. 264.)
(179) CE 590--Assembled and disassembled cartridges--one Western
Cartridge Co..38 special caliber cartridge with a copper-coated (Lubaloy),
lead, round-nose bullet measuring 1.530 inches long; one unfired Western
Cartridge Co..38 special caliber cartridge case measuring 1.150 inches
long; and one .38 special caliber copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead,
round-nose bullet measuring 0.730 inch long. The cartridges and components
in this exhibit were used by the FBI as standards. (See hearings before
the Warren Commission, vol. 17, p. 264. )
(180) CE 591--Assembled and disassembled cartridges--one
Remington-Peters .38 special caliber cartridge with a plain lead,
roundnose bullet measuring 1.550 inches long overall; one unfired
Remington-Peters .38 special caliber cartridge case measuring 1,150 inches
long; and one .38 caliber plain lead, round-nose bullet measuring 0.730
inch long. The FBI used these as standards. (See hearings before the
Warren Commission, vol. 17, p. e64.)
(181) CE 592--Five Western Cartridge Co..38 special caliber
cartridges with copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead, round-nose bullets, found
--------------------------------------
*The panel's visual and microscopic examinations revealed no
markings that could be attributed to any attempt to discharge them in a
firearm.
375
in Oswald's trouser pocket, designated Qse through Q86 by the
FBI.*
(See fig. 28)
(183) CE 594--Four expended cartridge cases retrieved from the
scene of the Tippit murder, designated Q74 through Q77 by the FBI. Q75 and
Q76 are .38 special caliber of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture; Q74 and
Q77 are .38 special caliber of Remington-Peters manufacture. (See fig.
29.)
(184) CE 595.--Two cartridge cases test-fired by the FBI in the
CE 143 revolver--one Winchester Repeating Arms .38 special caliber
designated K3 by the FBI** and one Western Cartridge Co..38 special
caliber, designated K3 by the FBI. (See fig. 30.)
(185) CE 602.--One .38 special caliber copper-coated (Lubaloy),
lead, round-nose ballet. and one damaged, brass-colored button with the
lettering "city of Dallas." The bullet and button were removed from the
body of Officer Tippit. The bullet is consistent with Western Cartridge
Co. marefracture. The c]ass characteristics are five lands and five
grooves. right twist. The weight is 155.4 grains. (See fig. 31.)
(186) CE 603.--One .38 special caliber copper-coated (Lubalov)
lead, round-nose bullet removed from the body of Officer Tippit.
The bullet is consistent with Western Cartridge Co. manufacture. The class
characteristics are five lands and five grooves, right twist. The weight
is 155.1 grains. (See fig. 32.)
(187) CE 604.--One .38 special caliber lead, round-nose bullet.
removed from the body of Officer Tippit. The bullet is consistent with
Remington-Peters manufacture. The class characteristics are five lands and
five grooves, right twist. The weight is 154.7 grains. (See fig. 33.)
(188) CE 605.--One .38 special caliber copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead,
round-nose bullet removed from the body of Officer Tippit. The bullet is
consistent with Western Cartridge Co. manufacture. The class
characteristics are five lands and five grooves, right twist. The weight
is 152.8 grains. (See fig. 34.)
(189) CE 606.--Two bullets test-fired by the FBI in the CE 143
revolver, as follows: One .38 special caliber lead, round-nose bullet
consistent with Winchester Repeating Arms manufacture; and one .38 special
caliber copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead, round-nose bullet consistent with
Western Cartridge Co. manufacture. (See hearings before the Warren
Commission, vol. 17, p. 271.)
(191) Panel Tippit T 1 T 4.--and T-2: .38 special caliber
cartridges of Remington Cartridge Co. manufacture, with lead bullets (see
figs. 35A, 35B, and 35E); T-3 and T-4:.38 special caliber cartridges of
Western Cartridge Co. manufacture with copper-coated (Lubaloy), lead,
round-nose bullets (see figs. 35C, 35D, and 35E).
(192) All cartridges were test fired by the panel into a
horizontal water-recovery tank.
Findings and Conclusions
What are the dimensional diferences of a .38 S. & W. caliber car-
tridge and a .38 special caliber cartridge? Can a .38 special
caliber ------------------------------------------
*The panel's visual and microscopic examination revealed no
markings which could be attributed to any attempt to discharge them in a
firearm.
**The panel found a split in the side of the Winchester
Repeating Arms cariridge case. (See fig. 30.)
376
cartridge be inserted in a weapon chambered for a .38 S. & W.
caliber cartridge? Would this cause the side of the cartridge case to
split, as happened with the CE 595 cartridge case test fired by the FBI
,in Oswald's revolver?
(193) A .38 S. & W. caliber cartridge and the .38 special caliber
cartridge differ in the diameter of the neck, head and rim, and in length.
The standard dimensions are:(81)
[In inches]
.38 s &w Average .38 special Average
Diameter neck O.375 O.386 O.380 O.372-O.378 O.375
Diameter head .379-.386 .381 .372-.379 .376
Diameter rim .424-.441 .433 .424-.444 .434
Length .725-.794 .760 1.120-1.168 1.144
(194) The .38 S&W caliber cartridge is approximately 0.005 inch
larger in neck and head diameters, 0.001 inch smaller in rim diameter, and
0.384 inch shorter in case length. (82)
(195) Overall length of the .38 S&W caliber cartridge is
approximately 1.20 inches. Overall length of the .38 special caliber
cartridge is approximately 1.55 inches. (83)
(196) A revolver designed and manufactured to accept a .38 S&W
caliber cartridge cannot fire a .38 special caliber cartridge without
modification. One common method of modification is rechambering the
cylinder.
(197) The panel noted that one of the FBI test-fired cartridge
cases was split. on the side. The panel attributed this split to one or
more
the following factors: (1) The oversized chamber on the CE 143
revolver; (2) a weak cartridge case sidewall; or (3) excessive chamber
pressures. During the panel's test firing of the CE 143 revolver, one test
cartridge case split, in a similar manner, which it attributed to the same
possible causes.
Were the four cartridge cases (CE 594) recovered from. the
scene o.f the Tippit murder fired in the CE 143 revolver recovered from
Oswald when apprehended?
(198) The panel microscopically compared the four CE 594
cartridge cases with the two CE 606 cartridge cases testified by the FBI
and the four cartridge cases test fired by the panel in the CE 143
revolver. The panel found correspondence among the individual identifying
characteristics produced by the firing pin and breech face. The panel
concluded the four CE 494 cartridge cases were fired in revolver. (See
figs. 36 A, B, C, and D and 36E.)
Were the four bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body CE
602 through CE 605) fired from the CE 143 revolver recovered when
Oswald when apprehended?
(199) The panel conducted microscopical examinations and
comparisons of the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body (CE 602
through
CE 605). the two bullets test fired by the FBI (CE 606). and the
four
377
bullets (Tippit T-I through T-I) test. fired by the panel in the
CE 143 revolver.
(200) The panel found correspondence among the class
characteristics on all the fired bullets. Nevertheless, no significant.
correspondence was found among the individual identifying characteristics
of CE 602 through CE 605 and the test-fired bullets. Conversely, no gross
differences were found. The finding was inconclusive because of the
extensive damage to the bullets recovered from Tippit's body. The panel
attributed this to the effects of impact, penetration and wiping. Portions
of the bearing surfaces of the CE 602 through CE 605 bullets also showed
indications of gas erosion, which is caused by the hot gases produced by
the burning of the propellant powder. The panel attributed this to the
firing of either undersized bullets through the CE 143 barrel or the
barrel of the revolver having become oversized due to wear and
deterioration.
(201) The panel's two test-fired lead bullets could be identified
with each other, as could its two test-fired copper-coated (Lubaloy) lead
bullets. The lead and the copper-coated bullets could not, however, be
identified with one another. The panel attributed these differences to
variatious in the composition of bullet surface materials.
(202) Due to the inconsistent markings on the recovered bullets
and on all the test-fired bullets, the panel concluded that the CE 602
through CE 605 bullets could not be conclusively identified or eliminated
as having been fired from the CE 143 revolver. (See figs. 34, 35A, 35B,
35C, and 35D.)
Of the four expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the
Tippit murder, two were of Western Cartridge (70. manufacture, two of
Remington-Peters. The autopsy of Tippit, however, revealed three bullets
of Western Cartridge Co. Manufacture and one of Remington-Peters.
Can the panel formulate an opinion on each particular
cartridge case?
ble to determine which bullet came from each pa .
(203) The two expended .38 special caliber cartridge cases (CE
574-Q75 and Q76) of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture and three of the
recovered .38 special caliber copper-coated (Lubaloy) lead bullets (CE
602, CE 603, and CE 605) are components of Western Cartridge Co.
ammunition. The two expended Remington-Peters cartridge cases (CE 594--Q74
and Q77) and the recovered .38 special caliber lead bullet (CE 604) are
components of Remington-Peters Co. ammunition.
(204) The panel concluded that they were all components of
factory loaded ammunition. Visual and microscopical examination of the
recovered cartridge cases revealed no evidence of reloading. It is
logically assumed that cases and bullets of the same manufacture could
have originated from the recovered cartridge cases and bullets, but the
panel can render no opinion beyond this. There is no known scientific
procedure that can conclusively relate a fired bullet, to an expended
cartridge case.
(205) The panel offers two possible explanations for the
discrepancy:
1. One Western cartridge case was not recovered or is
missing, and one Remington-Peters lead bullet missed Officer Tippit and
also was not recovered.
One Western cartridge case was not recovered or is
missing, and one fired Reinington-Peters cartridge case was in the
revolver prior to the Tippit shooting.
378
(206) Inasmuch as the panel's examinations were related to physical
evidence only, a hypothesis to account for the discrepancy
regarding the recovered cartridge cases and bullets is speculation. (See
figs. 31, 32, 33, and 34.)
OSWALD MURDER
Evidence examined
(207) Jack Ruby Revolver.--A .38 special caliber Colt Cobra
revolver, serial No. 2744-LW, recovered from Jack Ruby at the time of his
arrest in the Dallas Police Department basement on November 24, 1963. (See
figs. 37A and 37B.)*
(209) Panel Ruby T-I through 7-6 .
--Ruby T-1 and T-2--Two .38 special caliber cartridges of
Remington-Peters manufacture, with 158-grain, plain lead, round-nose
bullets, test-fired in the Ruby revolver into a horizontal water recovery
tank. (See fig. 38A.) --Ruby T-3 and T-4--Two .38 special caliber
cartridges of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture, with 158-grain,
copper-coated (LubaIoy), lead, round-nose bullets, test-fired in the Ruby
revolver into a horizontal water recovery tank. (See fig. 38B.)
--Ruby T-5 and T-6--Two .38 special caliber cartridges .of
Remington Arms Co. manufacture, with 130-grain, full metal-jacketed,
round-nose bullets, test-fired in the Ruby revolver into a horizontal
water recovery tank. (See fig. 38C.)
Findings and conclusions
Are there any characteristics which are easily identifiable on
Jack Ruby's revolver? Does it have a "hair trigger"?
(210) There was nothing out of the ordinary about Jack Ruby's
revolver except that it had a hammer shroud, which is an attachment that
covers most of the hammer of a weapon. The purpose of a shroud is to
prevent the hammer from snagging on clothing. It was impossible to
determine if the shroud was installed at the factory.
(211) The trigger pull was found to be slightly above the maximum
weight specified by the factory; the revolver, therefore, cannot be said
to have a "hair trigger?
What can the panel determine from an examination of the Ruby
evidence?
(212) The panel members conducted a microscopical examination and
comparison of the cartridge case and bullet components of two of its
test-fired cartridges (Panel Ruby T-5 and T-6). Based on the
correspondence among the individual identifying characteristics produced
by the breech face and firing pin, the panel concluded that the cartridge
cases could be identified with each other. Regarding the bullet
components, they could also be identified with each other, based on the
correspondence of individual identifying characteristics.
-----------------------------------------
*The panel physically examined the revolver and found it to be
in good operating condition. It can be fired single action or double
action. The trigger pull was measured at approximately 5 pounds single
action and 10% pounds double action, slightly above the maximum weight
specified by the factory. The barrel is rifled with six lands and six
grooves, left twist. The cylinder has a six-cartridge capacity.
379
(213) Photomicrograph and microscopical comparisons of the
panel's test-fired cartridge cases and bullets with those connected with
Oswald's murder were not conducted. As noted earlier, the bullets that
killed Oswald and the expended cartridge case recovered from the Ruby
revolver were not located by the committee. This. evidence was presented
at Jack Ruby's trial, but its ultimate disposition was unknown. The panel
recommended that an appropriate examination be conducted on this evidence
if and when it is located.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(214) The CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano military rifle was
found by the panel to be operable. It was in generally poor condition
because of lack of proper cleaning, maintenance or lubrication. Although
the trigger pull was found to be light, the panel concluded it was not a
"hair trigger." The mounting of the telescopic sight on the left side of
the rifle was done as a matter of necessity because the bolt action is on
the right side.
(215) As to the misidentification of the rifle as a
German Mauser, many bolt-action military rifles are so similar in profile
that misidentification may occur.
(216) After examining the CE 141 cartridge found in the
chamber of the CE 139 rifle, the panel concluded that it had in fact been
worked through the action of that rifle from the magazine.
(217) The three expended cartridge cases found on the
sixth floor of the depository building were compared microscopically by
the panel with the FBI test-fired cartridge cases and those test-fired by
the panel in the CE 139 rifle. Based on a correspondence of individual
identifying characteristics produced by the firing pin and bolt face, the
panel concluded that all three were fired in the CE 139 rifle.
(218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth
of the CE 543 case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the
CE 139 rifle during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it
test-fired the rifle.
(219) The panel found no evidence of multiple extractor
or ejector marks on the cartridge cases which would indicate that they had
been chambered on more than one occasion.
(220) The panel compared microscopically the CE 399
stretcher bullet with the two bullets test-fired by the FBI (CE 572) in
the CE 139 rifle. Based on a correspondence of individual identifying
characteristics, the panel concluded that CE 399 was fired from the same
barrel as the FBI test-fired bullets.
(221) The panel then compared microscopically the bullets
it testfired in the CE 139 rifle with the FBI test-fired bullets and with
the CE 399 stretcher bullet. The panel was unable to identify its
testified bullets with those of the FBI or with the CE 399 bullet, not
could the panel's test-fired bullets be identified with each other. The
panel attributed the results to one or more of the following factors:
1. Repeated test-firing of the CE 139 rifle, which had
caused
extensive changes in the rifling characteristics within the barrel, or
2. Deterioration of rifling surfaces within the barrel
of the CE 139 rifle over an extended period of time because of a lack of
proper cleaning, maintenance, and protective lubrication.
380
(222) The panel compared the CE 567 bullet fragment (nose
portion) and the CE 569 bullet fragment (base portion), both found in the
limousine, with the two FBI test-fired bullets (CE 572). Based on a
correspondence of their individual identifying characteristics, the panel
concluded that CE 56(L )CE 569, and the two FBI testfired bullets were all
fired through the same barrel. Again, the panel was unable to identify
these bullets and fragments with its own testfired bullets. The panel was
unable to determine if CE 567 and CE 569 originated from the same bullet.
(223) The CE 573 Walker bullet was compared microscopically with
the FBI test-fired bullets. A correspondence of class characteristics was
found, but a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was
not. found. Conversely, no gross differences were noted. The panel
concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive
identification of the bullet with a particular firearm.
(224) Because of their minute size, microscopic examinations were
not performed on the following: CE 840--lead-like fragments found in the
limousine; CE 841--lead residue removed from the limousine's windshield;
CE 842--four lead-like fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist;
and CE 843--three lead-like fragments removed from President Kennedy's
brain during his autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
(225) The panel concluded from its examination of the bullet
fragment found near the depository building by Richard Lester in 1974 that
it was not fired through the same barrel as the FBI test-fired bullets and
that its physical characteristics were different from the CE 399 stretcher
bullet and the CE 567 and CE 569 bullet fragments found in the
Presidential limousine.
(226) The panel found the CE 143 Oswald revolver to be in good
operating condition. The trigger pull was not considered exceptionally
light and could not be considered a "hair trigger." The revolver had been
altered; changes included the shortening of the barrel and the
modification of the chamber to accommodate .38 special caliber cartridges.
(227) The panel compared microscopically the four expended
cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder (CE 594) with the
cartridge cases test-fired by the FBI and by the panel in the CE 143
revolver. Based on the correspondence of individual identifying
characteristics produced by the breech face and firing pin the panel
concluded that all four cartridge cases were fired in the CE 143 revolver.
The panel also examined the five cartridges found in Oswald's pocket after
his arrests (CE 592). No marks were found that could be attributed to an
attempt to discharge them in a firearm.
(228) The panel noted that one of the FBI test-fired cartridge
cases was split on the side. The panel attributed this split to either an
oversized chamber, a weak cartridge case sidewall, excessive chamber
pressure, or some combination of these factors. One of the panels
test-fired cartridge cases split in a similar manner during the
test-firing of the CE 143 revolver.
(229) The panel examined the four bullets removed from the body
of Officer Tippit during his autopsy. All four had sustained considerable
damage from impact, penetration, and wiping. CE 604 was found
381
to be consistent with Remington-Peters manufacture, while CE 602,
603, and 605 were found to be consistent with Western Cartridge Co.
manufacture. A correspondence was found among the number of lands and
grooves and direction of twist of all four bullets, but no significant
correspondence among individual identifying characteristics was found when
the Tippit bullets were compared with bullets test-fired by the FBI or the
panel in the CE 143 revolver. Consequently, the panel was unable to
conclude that the Tippit bullets were fired from the CE 143 revolver.
Conversely, the panel was unable to eliminate the bullets as having been
fired from the CE 143 revolver.
(230) The Tippit bullets, the FBI, and the panel test-fired
bullets all showed variations in their individual identifying
characteristics, which commonly result from firing under-sized bullets in
a barrel or the firing of normal-sized bullets m a firearm that has become
oversized due to wear and deterioration.
(231) The panel took note of a discrepancy between the brand of
the bullets removed from Tippit's body and the brand of the cartridge
cases found at the Tippit murder scene. Three of the recovered bullets
were of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture, the fourth of Remington-Peters
manufacture. Of the four recovered cartridge cases, however, two were of
Western Cartridge Co. manufacture and two were of Remington-Peters
manufacture. The panel gave two possible explanations. First, one Western
cartridge case was not recovered and one Remington-Peters bullet missed
Officer Tippit and also was not recovered. Second, one Western cartridge
case was not recovered, and one Remington-Peters cartridge case was in the
revolver prior to the Tippit shooting. The panel noted that its function
was to examine the physical evidence as presented by the select committee.
Hypotheses about the discrepancies in the physical evidence were beyond
its scope of responsibility.
(232) The Jack Ruby revolver, which was seized from him at the
time of his apprehension in the basement of the Dallas Police Department,
was examined by the panel and found to be in good operating condition. The
trigger pull was measured and found to be m the normal range; the revolver
did not have a "hair trigger."
(233) The barrel of the Ruby revolver is rifled with six lands
and six grooves, left twist. The only thing out of the ordinary is that
the revolver has a hammer shroud, which protects against snagging on
clothing. There was no way to determine if the shroud was put on the
revolver at the factory.
(234) The panel could not conduct a microscopical examination of
the fatal bullet or the cartridge case from which it originated because
the evidence has not been located. The panel suggested that such an
examination be conducted when and if the evidence is found.
pjsp...@aol.com
Read it again, Tony. I wrote that I went through Thompson's list in
SSID and read "every eyewitness statement." Thompson's book includes
summaries of eyewitness statements regarding how many shots were fired
and from where they thought they were fired. I went back and read
every statement for myself, and then expanded the scope to include
statements to the media up until today. So, no, my conclusions are not
based on anyone else's opinion. They are based upon hundreds of
eyewitness statements, which, when analyzed in tandem with the
photographic evidence, suggest a different scenario than normally
proposed. The first shot hit. Kennedy was hit in the head by the first
of the two near-simultaneous shots that followed.
> ...
>
> read more »
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The bullets recovered from Tippit's body could not be positively
matched to Oswald's gun because they were .38 Specials which is
slightly smaller in diameter than a true .38 caliber round for which
the gun was designed. The true caliber of a .39 Special is actual .357
which is why a .357 Magnum can fire .38 Special rounds. The cylinder
of Oswald's gun had been rechamber to hold a .38 Special cartridge but
the original barrel had been kept. As a result, the bullet passed
through the barrel too loosely to create consistent markings to allow
a positive ballistic match. Even consecutively test fired bullets
could not be positively matched to each other. While the recovered
bullets had the same characteristics as Oswald's gun, the incosistent
markings precluded the FBI from saying positively they positively came
from Oswald's gun. The Illinois crime lab rendered a second opinion on
the ballistic evidence and in their judgement, one of bullets from
Tippit's body could be positively matched.
In addition to the bullets in Tippit's body, shell casings were found
where Oswald had dumped them on the ground while reloading. These
could be positively matched to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all
other weapons in the world. Each firing pin makes a unique mark on the
casing which allows such a positive match. There is no doubt Oswald's
gun was used to kill Tippit.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f8e6b8b-8335-434f...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
No my theory, but I remember one guy who had a theory that there was a
second gunman and Oswald's bullets missed, but the other guy's bullets
hit. That still wouldn't exonerate Oswald.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Abraham Zapruder said that he heard a shot and saw JFK slump over
to his left.
Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot and turned to see JFK with his
hands at his throat.
Both indicate the first shot struck JFK.
If Yardley was trying to fire a shot at the equivalent of Z160ish, it
probably would have been awkward, which would have been reason for
Oswald not to have fired a shot then.
The limo cleared the tree as of Z210. From just beyond there forward,
would have been the optimal place to begin shooting on Elm Street.
There was no reason for Oswald to have attempted an awkward early
shot. A Secret Service car was behind the limo. Oswald would have
had to wait until he felt certain none of the agents would look up at
the Depository, catching him pointing a rifle out the window.
In the Altgens photo, circa Z255, three Secret Service agents are
facing the rear. In the Zapruder film, none of the agents appears to
be doing anything other than casually observing the crowd, until they
disappear behind the Stemmons sign, well after Z160.
I believe Abraham Zapruder's recollection of JFK slumping over to his
left after the first shot, to be correct.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> he missed with the first shot, hit both JFK and JBC with the second shot
> and hit JFK in the head with the final shot all from Oswald's rifle from
> JFK's rear. Right?
>
> an alignment through both men and broken bones in JBC with almost no
> damage to the bullet CE 399. This is a feat that can not be duplicated.
> Your last shot requires JFK's skull to shatter the bullet into many pieces
> even though JFK's skull is a weaker bone than JBC's wrist bone which did
> many evidentiary problems with your theory that it would take a book to
> list them all.
>
***The SB shot is a feat that has not been accurately duplicated, but in a
proper alignment of test subjects, could be virtually duplicated.
CE399 was flattened at the base. Connally's rib was struck. A bullet
striking Connally's rib would have dramatically slowed the bullet. Below a
certain speed an FMJ bullet is not going to be further damaged, even if it
is going fast enough to break a wrist bone.
Mythbusters had a show on this week in which they fired a hand gun to
ricochet three times and back to the shooter. The bullet slowed on each
ricochet. The last ricochet left the bullet moving too slow to inflict a
lethal wound. They also held one of the bullets to the camera and it did
not appear to me to have multiple dents.
CE399 was dented at the base, with it tapering off, the bullet which
struck JFK in the back of the skull, hit nose first, thus it is comparing
an apple to an orange, as to what the bullets should look like, whether or
not one bone was denser than another.
I have argued for some time, that the first shot struck Kennedy,
subsequently wounding Connally.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mar 12, 3:34 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:17 am, charles <charles112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 12:51 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No evidence of this missed first shot exists.
>
> > > > shot was fired, no that doesn't exist. There is no definitive proof of
> > > > exactly when that shot was fired. However we can make a pretty good
> > > > stab at it based on Connally's testimony and his observable reactions
> > > > in the Z-film. JBC said he was looking left when he heard the shot
> > > > over his right shoulder and he immediately turned to his right. We see
> > > > him snap his head around at Z164. Given a normal reaction time, that
> > > > would place the shot no later than Z160 although some have made the
> > > > argument for that missed shot earlier in the Z150s. The reaction of
> > > > Rosemary Willis who was running alongside the limo and begins to come
> > > > to a gradual stop and look back toward the TSBD begins early in the
> > > > Z170s. We have a compelling argument for the early shot and neither
> > > > JFK or JBC begin reacting to being shot until Z226.
>
> > > > > an alignment through both men...
>
> > > > An allignment which existed at or about Z222.
>
> > > > > damage to the bullet CE 399.
>
>
>
> > > > their favorite. No shooting in history has been PERFECTLY duplicated
> > > > because that is impossible. Every shooting is a unique event with so
> > > > many variables that cannot be duplicated in a single event.
> > > > Virtually every aspect of the SBT has been duplicated through a number
> > > > of recreations. A bullet has been fired through too animal carcasses,
> > > > struck a dense bone, and emerged bent like CE399.
>
> > > > > even though JFK's skull is a weaker bone than JBC's wrist bone which did
> > > > > apparently no damage to CE 399 according to your theory.
>
> > > > won't get into an argument about whether the skull is weaker bone than
> > > > the wrist because that is above my pay grade, but the bullet that hit
> > > > JFK in the skull was a direct shot while the bullet that hit JBC in
> > > > the wrist had been slowed significantly after passing through the
> > > > torsos of both men and had begun two tumble as evidence by the base of
> > > > the bullet being flattened rather than the nose. You are making an
> > > > apples to oranges comparison.
>
> > > > > many evidentiary problems with your theory that it would take a book to
> > > > > list them all.
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> heard. The first shot was from Oswald's rifle with the muzzle inside the
> building. The guys on the fifth floor thought a canon went off, but many
> in the plaza many didn't hear the 'pop' sound. Those in the JFK limo
> heard it as a shot sound.
***I was watching one of those forensic investigation shows on cable
this week, and a witness claimed they could not hear a gunshot from
inside a car from 45 feet away killing a victim in the car, because
the windows were closed.
A test was done, firing into a gelatin block with the car windows
closed. A microphone caused a reading a reading of 90 on a meter at
the claimed distance the person was from the car. The gunshot was
able to be heard from outside the car. The 6th floor corner window
was open.
***Ron Judge
WhiskyJoe
> If Yardley was trying to fire a shot at the
> equivalent of Z160ish, it probably would have
> been awkward, which would have been reason for
> Oswald not to have fired a shot then.
There are good reasons for Oswald to not fire
before the tree, around Z160, or, a better
estimate, Z152, judging from a Zapruder camera
jiggle around Z158 and the too fast reactions
of JFK and Connally to a shot at Z160.
First, there is the steep angle of the shot,
around 30 degrees below the horizon. But a
better reason is the fast angular speed of
the target. Over 5 degrees per second.
That's a lot of constant adjustment in aim
one would have to make for someone only
trained to fire at stationary targets.
If he waits just a few seconds, he would
have had an easier shot, with the road
leading almost directly away from him.
About 1.8 degrees per second by Z222.
0.7 degrees per second by Z312.
At 5 degrees per second, not only did Oswald
have difficulty keeping the iron sights lined
up on the head, he wasn't even about to keep
the iron sights lined up continuously on the
limousine.
> There was no reason for Oswald to have
> attempted an awkward early shot.
But, there is a possibly overriding reason for
Oswald to try a shot at Z152, despite the
difficulties. They closely trailing Secret
Service car with the standing agents.
It would be difficult for Oswald to judge if the
standing agents would block his shot. We know
they wouldn't. But that would have been difficult
for Oswald to judge until after the tree.
And if he waits that long and finds they are in
the way, he's missed his best chance. He may have
figured that a shot before the tree was the only
one guaranteed to have the standing agents not
in the way.
Anthony Marsh
There is no documentation that their test duplicated the conditions
during the crime. FYI the 6th floor window was not open all the way. It
was only open 13 inches. And no one in Dealey Plaza had trouble hearing
shots. Find me one single witness who said there were no shots in Dealey
Plaza. Find someone in one of the press buses much farther back who
never heard anything and didn't even know there was a shooting going on.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Anthony Marsh
different shooter with a clear shot fired before Z-210?
> In the Altgens photo, circa Z255, three Secret Service agents are
> facing the rear. In the Zapruder film, none of the agents appears to
> be doing anything other than casually observing the crowd, until they
> disappear behind the Stemmons sign, well after Z160.
>
What reactions did the HSCA cite to support it's missed shot at Z-160?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we are to believe all witnesses, we would have to believe there are
a dozen or so parallel realities of what happened because there are
about that many versions. There were two shots. There were three
shots. There wre four shots. There were eight shots. The shots were
evenly spaced. The first two shots were bunched closer together. The
last two shots were bunched closer together. All the shots came from
the direction of the TSBD. All the shots came from the GK. We have
witnesses that have said all these things. Should we believe them all?
Can they all be correct? It isn't a question as to whether we are
going to dismiss some witness's accounts. It is a question of which
ones we will dismiss. There are two ways to proceed in deciding which
witnesses to accept and which ones to reject. You can decide what you
think happened and then cherry pick the witnesses who support your
version or you can compare what the witnesses have said to the body of
evidence and determine which witnesses tell a story that is compatable
with the other forms of evidence.
The one unimpeachable witness is the Zapruder film which is a much
better witness than Zapruder. The Z-film just recalled the event with
much better clarity than everyone else. We have evidence of the early
first shot miss in the reactions of Connally and Rosemary Willis.
Because the Z-film has no sound, there is no definitive evidence as to
exactly when this shot was fired but Z160 or shortly before seems to
be likely, given a normal reaction time by Connally. We have
definitive evidence of when the second shot struck in the bulging of
Connally's coat at Z224 and the simultaneous reactions by JFK and JBC
at Z226. Lastly, we have the definitive moment of the head shot
striking at Z313. There is a clear consensus among the witnesses, that
three and only three shots were fired. That view is supported by the
fact that three spent shells were found at the only location where an
EYEwitness saw shots being fired from.
As for your second guessing of Oswald's choice to fire the difficult
first shot, usually people only play Monday morning quarterback for
the losing team. Oswald succeeded at what he was trying to do so it
doesn't seem to make much sense to second guess him. He apparently saw
he would have a brief window of opportunity to fire that difficult
first shot just before the limo went under the tree and decided to
give himself an extra chance. If he missed, he would still have the
later shots to take. Whether taking that first shot was worth risking
alerting the intended target and his bodyguards, that was a judgement
call he had to make. Maybe someone else in the same circumstances
would have made a different choice. So what. He made his choice and
achieved what he set out to do.
Anthony Marsh
Wow! So what? You are blowing hot air. The Mannlicher-Carcano bullet can
also be fired through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine and come up looking
perfect? So what?
> CE399 was dented at the base, with it tapering off, the bullet which
> struck JFK in the back of the skull, hit nose first, thus it is comparing
> an apple to an orange, as to what the bullets should look like, whether or
> not one bone was denser than another.
>
So what? The bullet which hit Connally in the back also hit nose first
and smashed 5 cm of his fifth rib. And with very little loss of velocity
at impact. Henry Hurt's test bullet was also dented at the base like CE
399 and all it hit was water. The Mannlicher-Carcano jacket is unusually
thick.
> I have argued for some time, that the first shot struck Kennedy,
> subsequently wounding Connally.
>
That's nice. Run along and play in the nice weather.
> ***Ron Judge
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>> If Yardley was trying to fire a shot at the
>> equivalent of Z160ish, it probably would have
>> been awkward, which would have been reason for
>> Oswald not to have fired a shot then.
>
> There are good reasons for Oswald to not fire
> before the tree, around Z160, or, a better
> estimate, Z152, judging from a Zapruder camera
> jiggle around Z158 and the too fast reactions
> of JFK and Connally to a shot at Z160.
>
> First, there is the steep angle of the shot,
> around 30 degrees below the horizon. But a
Wow, 30 degrees! Sounds impossible the way you describe it. Likewise no
one would shoot at 21 degrees. Maybe he'd wait for a perfect zero
degrees. And wait for a stationary target. So that's why the shooter got
as high as he could and waited for the limo to speed by??
> better reason is the fast angular speed of
> the target. Over 5 degrees per second.
Your angular speed of the target is garbage.
> That's a lot of constant adjustment in aim
> one would have to make for someone only
> trained to fire at stationary targets.
You are assuming that you know who the shooter is.
The more difficult that you make it for Oswald, the more likely it
wasn't Oswald who did it.
> If he waits just a few seconds, he would
> have had an easier shot, with the road
> leading almost directly away from him.
> About 1.8 degrees per second by Z222.
> 0.7 degrees per second by Z312.
>
> At 5 degrees per second, not only did Oswald
> have difficulty keeping the iron sights lined
> up on the head, he wasn't even about to keep
> the iron sights lined up continuously on the
> limousine.
>
No one can keep the iron sights lined up on the limousine while
reloading. That is one of the defects of the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>> There was no reason for Oswald to have
>> attempted an awkward early shot.
>
> But, there is a possibly overriding reason for
> Oswald to try a shot at Z152, despite the
> difficulties. They closely trailing Secret
> Service car with the standing agents.
> It would be difficult for Oswald to judge if the
> standing agents would block his shot. We know
Yeah, so maybe no one would try to fire from behind because the shot
might be blocked by the SS agents. Maybe that's why they put an
insurance shooter in the front.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The Zapruder film was the best witness. None of the Secret Service
agents were seen doing anything other than simply observing the crowd,
prior to the time they disappeared behind the Stemmons sign. That
contradicts Connally's testimony of hearing a missed first shot. If there
had been an early shot by Oswald, there should have been activity by the
Secret Service agents, which reflected a response to that report.
Two of the three agents were facing the rear in the Altgens photo, said
they responded to the first report, by looking back up the street. That
action did not occur in the Zapruder film. It occured at some point after
they disappeared behind the sign.
Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump to his left. This is
the shot Hickey and Landis responded to, as seen in the Altgens photo.
Hickey, Landis, Zapruder, Nellie Connally would have to be wrong in their
recollection, in order for there to have been a missed early shot.
As for Monday morning second guessing Oswald firing an early shot, as i
mentioned before, Oswald would have virtually had to wait until the Secret
Service limo passed by the window. My guess is that the limo would have
been rather close to Z160 by that time, making such a shot rather
impractical. I believe the lack of reaction by the Secret Service agents
between Z160 and Z207, indicate that no shot was fired during that time.
Cherry picking witnesses. A car load of Secret Service agents not
responding at approximately Z160 to an alleged report, is equivalent to a
bowl full of cherries. Zapruder and other witnesses simply confirm why
the Secret Service agents were not yet reacting.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The witness statement was that which was being tested. The witness
stated that the windows were closed and thus he did not hear the gunshot
from 45 feet away. A meter reading of 90, which i assume was in decibels,
indicated the shot was well audible, with the windows closed.
***Ron Judge
WhiskyJoe
>> But a better reason is the fast angular
>> speed of the target. Over 5 degrees per
>> second.
> Your angular speed of the target is garbage.
Look at a Don Roberdeau map of Dealey Plaza:
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
Anyone can draw lines on it to see that at frame Z152,
the sniper's nest is about 25 degrees away from being
straight behind the limousine.
Keeping into account the sniper's nest is about
60 feet up, Elm Street as a 3 degree downward
slope and the sniper's nest really 66 feet above
the limousine, and the horizontal distance is
about 113 feet, the vertical angle to the horizon
must be about 30 degrees.
Being off the line of travel by 25 degrees to the
right, 27 degrees above, works out to being 35
degrees off the line of travel. The mathematics
is a little complicated but if one looks at a
globe and uses a string of figure the distance
between (3 N, 0 E) and (30 N, 25 E) one will
see the distance apart is about 35 degrees.
Now, the limousine was moving at around 14 MPH
or about 20.5 feet per second. Diagonal distance
through 3D space was about 130 feet. The speed
of the limousine in radians is 20.5/130 or 0.158
radians per second (RPS).
If the limousine was moving at right angles to
the sniper's nest, 0.158 RPS would be the angular
speed. But it was moving away at an angle of
35 degrees. Since the sin of 35 degrees is 0.573,
the true angular speed is 0.158 * 0.573 RPS or
0.090 RPS. Convert to degrees and one gets 5.2
degrees per second.
So 5 degrees per second is a reasonable estimate
of the angular speed of the target at Z152 from
Oswald's sniper's nest.
And similar calculations for Z222, for a
limousine at 12 MPH, traveling almost straight
away from Oswald, show the angular speed to be
1.8 degrees per second.
And similar calculations for Z312, for a
limousine at 9 MPH, traveling almost straight
away from Oswald, show the angular speed to be
0.7 degrees per second.
You can ask Herbert to see if he comes up with
a vastly different estimate. I'm confident
he won't. In any case, if he is inclined to,
he is a much better candidate to debate this
than you are since he does understand
trigonometry and I won't have to start up the
debate with him trying to explain what "sin"
is.
In any case, there are excellent theoretical
reasons involving the angular speed of the
target which explain Oswald might miss by over
5 feet with the first shot, miss by 8 inches
with the second and only miss by 2 inches for
the third shot.
> Yeah, so maybe no one would try to fire from
> behind because the shot might be blocked by
> the SS agents. Maybe that's why they put an
> insurance shooter in the front.
Not a very good reason. Unlike Oswald, experts
would know ahead of time there would be a
trailing Secret Service vehicle with standing
agents, could survey the site ahead of time
and see that from a high window, this will not
be a problem.
Certainly not a good enough reason to reject
a high well hidden spot, that fires down the
line of travel, that simulates best a shot from
behind because it is a shot from behind, in
favor of a shot where the cover is minimal,
a fence, the angle is difficult (firing from
the side). And for both the Grassy Knoll
and the window up high in the TSBD, as soon
as the limousine reaches the shade of the
overpass, getting a successful shot in then,
with eyes adjusted for bright sunshine,
would require a lot of luck. So the Grassy
Knoll doesn't even allow a later practical
shot and a high window spot in the TSBD.
bigdog
Again you miss the point. We know that some witnesses had to be wrong
about what they remembered because they cannot all be right. Nellie
Connally is probably one of the worst witnesses you could possibly cite
since her recollections bear only a slight resemblence to what we see
actually happened. John Connally on the other hand is one of the best
witnesses as his account can be verified by what we see in the Z- film. We
see him doing exactly what he said he did when he heard the first shot. He
looked over his right shoulder in response to what he knew immediately was
a rifle shot. He was rotating back to the left when the second shot struck
him. It is beyond belief that Connally would have heard that shot, had
time to react and look around if that had been the bullet that hit him.
The lack of an obvious response by the Secret Service is hardly a
compelling argument. Like everyone else, they were caught off guard by
that first shot. I'm sure some of them were not sure what it was they
heard. They were as human as anyone else and like many others were not
sure what they initially heard was a gunshot. If they heard a loud bang
and were unsure what it was, their first reaction could very well have
been what Bennett said he did. He looked to the boss to see if he was
showing any telltale signs of something having gone terribly wrong. If he
didn't show any signs of having been hit, they may well have thought what
they heard was not a gun shot. It was the second shot that obviously
struck JFK that told everyone what was happening. Amazingly, even after
that shot, only Agent Hill responded by rushing to JFK's aid, arriving too
late to prevent the fatal shot. It is obvious from their reactions that
none of the SS agents quickly recognized what was going on. They seemed to
be as confused as many of the spectators. The response of the SS detail
was painfully slow when compared to the rapid response by the SS in both
attempts on Ford's life and the attempted assassination of Reagan. Had the
SS grown complacent because there hadn't been a Presidential assassination
in over 60 years. Perhaps. It's easy to look back and say they should have
reacted more quickly, but their apparent confusion is somewhat
understandable.
WhiskyJoe
> Again you miss the point. We know that some
> witnesses had to be wrong about what they
> remembered because they cannot all be right.
> Nellie Connally is probably one of the worst
> witnesses you could possibly cite since her
> recollections bear only a slight resemblance
> to what we see actually happened.
Yes. Not to mention that during the Z220's, she
was not looking at neither JFK nor the Governor,
but instead looking ahead, so she is about the
worst witness to choose in determining if JFK
or the Governor, was wounded during the Z220's.
But, since she says what CTers want to hear,
that clearly JFK was wounded first, then her
husband, she is the one quoted most often by
CTers. Of course, they don't quote her when
she has consistently maintained, that it
sounded like all the shots came from the back.
> John Connally on the other hand is one of the
> best witnesses as his account can be verified
> by what we see in the Z- film.
Yes. His statements to the Warren Commission
about what happened and his actions correspond
very well with what we see in the Zapruder film.
His earliest statements, within a day or two of
the shooting, I think are inaccurate, mainly
because he was combining what he observed with
what Nellie told him happened. So he reported
JFK was wounded before him, when in reality,
there is no way he could have known that.
The Zapruder film shows he never turned far
enough back to look at JFK until a couple of
seconds after both he and JFK were wounded.
Anthony Marsh
Not with the music turned up really loud and with a broken muffler.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***John Connally sat passively after turning his head turned at
Z160ish. When he reappeared from behind the Stemmons sign he was
still sitting, passively viewing people on the sidewalk. The only
thing in the Zapruder film, which corresponded to Connally's
statement, was that his head turned.
Some people fell down on the ground after they saw JFK's head
explode. Connally showed no animation at all after he turned his head
at Z160ish.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> But a better reason is the fast angular
>>> speed of the target. Over 5 degrees per
>>> second.
>
>> Your angular speed of the target is garbage.
>
> Look at a Don Roberdeau map of Dealey Plaza:
>
> http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
>
> Anyone can draw lines on it to see that at frame Z152,
> the sniper's nest is about 25 degrees away from being
> straight behind the limousine.
>
I assume you mean 25 degrees to the right of the limousine midline. So
what?
> Keeping into account the sniper's nest is about
> 60 feet up, Elm Street as a 3 degree downward
> slope and the sniper's nest really 66 feet above
> the limousine, and the horizontal distance is
> about 113 feet, the vertical angle to the horizon
> must be about 30 degrees.
Close enough for a WC defender. I granted you your 30 degrees arguendo.
So what?
>
> Being off the line of travel by 25 degrees to the
> right, 27 degrees above, works out to being 35
> degrees off the line of travel. The mathematics
> is a little complicated but if one looks at a
> globe and uses a string of figure the distance
> between (3 N, 0 E) and (30 N, 25 E) one will
> see the distance apart is about 35 degrees.
>
Wow, that's really interesting. So what?
> Now, the limousine was moving at around 14 MPH
> or about 20.5 feet per second. Diagonal distance
> through 3D space was about 130 feet. The speed
> of the limousine in radians is 20.5/130 or 0.158
> radians per second (RPS).
>
I'm not impressed. It is meaningless.
> If the limousine was moving at right angles to
> the sniper's nest, 0.158 RPS would be the angular
> speed. But it was moving away at an angle of
> 35 degrees. Since the sin of 35 degrees is 0.573,
> the true angular speed is 0.158 * 0.573 RPS or
> 0.090 RPS. Convert to degrees and one gets 5.2
> degrees per second.
>
So what?
> So 5 degrees per second is a reasonable estimate
> of the angular speed of the target at Z152 from
> Oswald's sniper's nest.
>
That's fun. So what?
> And similar calculations for Z222, for a
> limousine at 12 MPH, traveling almost straight
> away from Oswald, show the angular speed to be
> 1.8 degrees per second.
>
> And similar calculations for Z312, for a
> limousine at 9 MPH, traveling almost straight
> away from Oswald, show the angular speed to be
> 0.7 degrees per second.
>
Wow, that's interesting. So what?
> You can ask Herbert to see if he comes up with
> a vastly different estimate. I'm confident
I don't need "vastly." I am not impressed.
> he won't. In any case, if he is inclined to,
> he is a much better candidate to debate this
> than you are since he does understand
> trigonometry and I won't have to start up the
I had trigonometry while you were still learning to tie your shoelaces.
> debate with him trying to explain what "sin"
> is.
>
> In any case, there are excellent theoretical
> reasons involving the angular speed of the
> target which explain Oswald might miss by over
> 5 feet with the first shot, miss by 8 inches
> with the second and only miss by 2 inches for
> the third shot.
>
No, there aren't.
There are real practical reasons why that rifle misses at close ranges
and you ignore them. And you refuse to read what the FBI firearms expert
Robert Frazier said about their shooting tests of the Oswald rifle. High
and to the right. High and to the right. HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT.
>> Yeah, so maybe no one would try to fire from
>> behind because the shot might be blocked by
>> the SS agents. Maybe that's why they put an
>> insurance shooter in the front.
>
> Not a very good reason. Unlike Oswald, experts
> would know ahead of time there would be a
> trailing Secret Service vehicle with standing
> agents, could survey the site ahead of time
> and see that from a high window, this will not
> be a problem.
>
> Certainly not a good enough reason to reject
> a high well hidden spot, that fires down the
Certainly not a good enough reason to ignore the best hidden spot where
NO SPECTATOR saw the shooter, on the grassy knoll, where the reporter
said it was the best location for a hidden shooter.
> line of travel, that simulates best a shot from
> behind because it is a shot from behind, in
> favor of a shot where the cover is minimal,
> a fence, the angle is difficult (firing from
A fence? So what? It's only 5 feet tall and the shooter is taller than
the fence. Why don't you bring up the sun being in his eyes?
Oh, you forgot that he was hidden in the shade of the bushes.
And you also forgot about the traffic light support bar blocking a shot
at Z-155. Didn't you read Max Holland's article? Don't be afraid to read
that, he is also a WC defender.
> the side). And for both the Grassy Knoll
> and the window up high in the TSBD, as soon
> as the limousine reaches the shade of the
> overpass, getting a successful shot in then,
> with eyes adjusted for bright sunshine,
> would require a lot of luck. So the Grassy
> Knoll doesn't even allow a later practical
> shot and a high window spot in the TSBD.
>
I'm not going to get into a stupid argument about who had the better
late shot, the man behind the fence of the TSBD shooter. It just didn't
happen and there was no need or plan to shoot then.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Beginning a few frames after Z160, we see JBC do exactly what he said
he did after hearing the first shot and before being struck by the
second. He looked over his right shoulder in the direction he believed
the shot came from. Unable to see anything, he began rotating back to
his left. He believed he had reached a forward facing position when
the bullet hit him but the Z-film indicates that he had not quite
reached that position when he was struck although he reached that
position less than a half second after being hit.
WhiskyJoe
>> Now, the limousine was moving at around 14 MPH
>> or about 20.5 feet per second. Diagonal distance
>> through 3D space was about 130 feet. The speed
>> of the limousine in radians is 20.5/130 or 0.158
>> radians per second (RPS).
> I'm not impressed. It is meaningless.
Of course it's meaningless to you. You don't
understand trigonometry. Check with Herbert
Blenner or Ken Rahn if you want someone to
check my math.
> I had trigonometry while you were still learning
> to tie your shoelaces.
Not everyone who has trigonometry learns it.
And if you ever did learn it, it didn't stick.
If I asked you to calculate the angle of the sun
to the horizon if a 100 foot tall flagpole casts
a 200 foot long shadow, you would not be able to
calculate the answer, would you?
> No, there aren't. There are real practical
> reasons why that rifle misses at close ranges
> and you ignore them. And you refuse to read
> what the FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier
> said about their shooting tests of the Oswald
> rifle. High and to the right. High and to the
> right. HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT.
But only with using the scope. Using the iron
sights, the sights work very well for the second
and especially the third shot. And the relatively
fast shooting, the second shot only 0.8 seconds
after clearly the tree, strongly implies the
iron sights were used, not the scope.
> Certainly not a good enough reason to ignore
> the best hidden spot where NO SPECTATOR saw
> the shooter, on the grassy knoll, where the
> reporter said it was the best location for
> a hidden shooter.
The Grassy Knoll is a terrible "hidden" spot.
Even a photographer like Moorman or Altgens
could and did photograph the Grassy Knoll
during the shooting just as a natural result
of photographing the limousine. In contrast,
no photograph of the limousine during the
shooting shows the sixth floor window.
> And you also forgot about the traffic light
> support bar blocking a shot at Z-155.
> Didn't you read Max Holland's article?
> Don't be afraid to read that, he is also
> a WC defender.
Nonsense. Holland was talking about a shot before
Z-155, before Z-152, before Z-133. The support
bar does not block a shot at Z-155, nor Z-152.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***What i see is Connally turning his head to the right and no Secret
Service agents doing the same.
What i see is Connally turning his head to the right and
expressionlessly continuing to look at the crowd until he disappears
behind the Stemmons sign. Reappearing from behind the Stemmons sign,
what i see is Connally still expressionless, looking at the thinning
crowd to his right. Three seconds have passed since Z160.
Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump over to his left.
Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot and turned to see JFK with his
hands at his throat.
The Secret Service agents did not respond to a Z160ish report, as the
Zapruder film and Zapruder's recollection indicate the first report
was immediately before Z225, when a shocked expression can be seen on
JFK's face.
In the Altgens photo, three agents can be seen looking to the rear,
two of which said they responded as such after hearing the first
report. Altgens said that he clicked his Z255ish photo after the
first report.
***Ron Judge
bigdog
Is he supposed to have a "WOW, that was a gun shot" face?
> Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump over to his left.
> Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot and turned to see JFK with his
> hands at his throat.
>
Why do you assume these witnesses are correct and the other witnesses
are wrong?
> The Secret Service agents did not respond to a Z160ish report, as the
> Zapruder film and Zapruder's recollection indicate the first report
> was immediately before Z225, when a shocked expression can be seen on
> JFK's face.
>
Bennett reacted. He just didn't react as you would expect him to.
> In the Altgens photo, three agents can be seen looking to the rear,
> two of which said they responded as such after hearing the first
> report. Altgens said that he clicked his Z255ish photo after the
> first report.
>
And Bennett said he reacted by looking forward to JFK. Again, all you do
is present witnesses who support one point of view which conflicts with
another group of witnesses who described something completely different.
It shouldn't be assumed either group of witnesses is correct without
validating what they have said through other forms of evidence.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Now, the limousine was moving at around 14 MPH
>>> or about 20.5 feet per second. Diagonal distance
>>> through 3D space was about 130 feet. The speed
>>> of the limousine in radians is 20.5/130 or 0.158
>>> radians per second (RPS).
>
>> I'm not impressed. It is meaningless.
>
> Of course it's meaningless to you. You don't
> understand trigonometry. Check with Herbert
> Blenner or Ken Rahn if you want someone to
> check my math.
>
I don't care about your math. Your concept is silly.
>> I had trigonometry while you were still learning
>> to tie your shoelaces.
>
> Not everyone who has trigonometry learns it.
> And if you ever did learn it, it didn't stick.
> If I asked you to calculate the angle of the sun
> to the horizon if a 100 foot tall flagpole casts
> a 200 foot long shadow, you would not be able to
> calculate the answer, would you?
>
Silly.
>> No, there aren't. There are real practical
>> reasons why that rifle misses at close ranges
>> and you ignore them. And you refuse to read
>> what the FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier
>> said about their shooting tests of the Oswald
>> rifle. High and to the right. High and to the
>> right. HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT.
>
> But only with using the scope. Using the iron
Wrong. Exactly the same problem exists for the iron sights.
The iron sights are preset for 200 meters, the scope for 200 yards and
neither could be adjusted.
> sights, the sights work very well for the second
> and especially the third shot. And the relatively
> fast shooting, the second shot only 0.8 seconds
> after clearly the tree, strongly implies the
> iron sights were used, not the scope.
>
I happen to believe the shooter used the iron sights. Maybe the shooter
started by using the scope and when the first two shots missed he
changed to the iron sights. Either way he is going to shoot HIGH AND TO
THE RIGHT.
>> Certainly not a good enough reason to ignore
>> the best hidden spot where NO SPECTATOR saw
>> the shooter, on the grassy knoll, where the
>> reporter said it was the best location for
>> a hidden shooter.
>
> The Grassy Knoll is a terrible "hidden" spot.
It was such a good hidden spot that no one saw the man standing there.
And Mary Woodwards said it was the perfect hidden spot.
> Even a photographer like Moorman or Altgens
> could and did photograph the Grassy Knoll
> during the shooting just as a natural result
> of photographing the limousine. In contrast,
That's right and that is why the Moorman photo is the only one we have
now which shows the man behind the fence.
> no photograph of the limousine during the
> shooting shows the sixth floor window.
>
None are known.
>> And you also forgot about the traffic light
>> support bar blocking a shot at Z-155.
>> Didn't you read Max Holland's article?
>> Don't be afraid to read that, he is also
>> a WC defender.
>
> Nonsense. Holland was talking about a shot before
> Z-155, before Z-152, before Z-133. The support
> bar does not block a shot at Z-155, nor Z-152.
>
Diagram this.
Don't you remember this photo?
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce875h.jpg
claviger
> >> And you also forgot about the traffic light
> >> support bar blocking a shot at Z-155.
> >> Didn't you read Max Holland's article?
> >> Don't be afraid to read that, he is also
> >> a WC defender.
> > Nonsense. Holland was talking about a shot before
> > Z-155, before Z-152, before Z-133. The support
> > bar does not block a shot at Z-155, nor Z-152.
Holland's theory places the first shot at or prior to z133.
> Diagram this.
> Don't you remember this photo?
> http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce875h.jpg
This photo shows the approximate position where Emmett J Hudson said the
first shot took place.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***What did Connally say? He said he knew it was a gunshot.
Expressionless would not be the expected facial response to hearing a
gunshot, while sitting in front of the person who might be the target of
that gunshot.
> > Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump over to his left.
> > Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot and turned to see JFK with his
> > hands at his throat.
>
> Why do you assume these witnesses are correct and the other witnesses
> are wrong?
>
***The Zapruder film. How many agents were in the follow car? How many
of them turned their head at the same time Connally did? None. These men
were protecting the President. Connally would turn his head in response
to a report and the Secret Service agents wouldn't?
> > The Secret Service agents did not respond to a Z160ish report, as the
> > Zapruder film and Zapruder's recollection indicate the first report
> > was immediately before Z225, when a shocked expression can be seen on
> > JFK's face.
>
> Bennett reacted. He just didn't react as you would expect him to.
>
> > In the Altgens photo, three agents can be seen looking to the rear,
> > two of which said they responded as such after hearing the first
> > report. Altgens said that he clicked his Z255ish photo after the
> > first report.
>
> And Bennett said he reacted by looking forward to JFK. Again, all you do
> is present witnesses who support one point of view which conflicts with
> another group of witnesses who described something completely different.
> It shouldn't be assumed either group of witnesses is correct without
> validating what they have said through other forms of evidence.
>
***All i am doing is noting how Connally had no expression for the three
seconds from Z160 to Z223, which belie his having heard a gunshot, coupled
with an absence of any reaction by the Secret Service agents at the time
Connally turned his head. Weight of the evidence is that no shot
occurred.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
I don't think you can twist his testimony enough to get that.
There are very few witnesses who place a shot that early.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are making your judgement based on how you think the Secret Service
agents would have reacted while I am basing my judgement on how Connally
said he did react. He said he did just what we see him doing in the
Z-film. In addition to that he said he heard a shot and was not hit by it.
He had time to turn around, look over his right shoulder, and then start
to rotate back to his left, all before he reacts to the shot that did hit
him. That reaction began at Z226 when he flips his injured right arm into
the air. It is beyond comprehension that Connally could have heard the
first and later felt the shot that hit him if both were the result of the
same shot. I realize people don't always realize when they have been shot,
but Connally felt the bullet hit him. He said it felt as if he had been
punched in the back with a fist. For added confirmation, we have the
independent reaction of Rosemary Willis who stops running and then turns
back toward the TSBD, well before either JFK or JBC reacted. There is no
question JBC was hit by the second shot. If JFK was hit by the first shot,
they were hit by two seperate shooters which means conspiracy. However,
since there is no question in my mind that they were hit by the same shot
and that it was the second shot that hit them, I am not forced into
believing a two shooter scenario.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I am basing my judgement on the actions in the Zapruder film, or the
lack there of. Three agents were turned to the rear in the Altgens photo.
I don't need to judge how they might have reacted, the photo demonstrates
how they did react, along with the Zapruder film. Landis and Hickey said
they reacted to the first report. Altgens said he took his photo in
response to the first report. The Zapruder film did not show Landis and
Hickey turned or turning to the rear. The Altgens photo did.
Connally did not react in the Zapruder film as he said he did. Connally
never turned to the left to look over his left shoulder between Z160 and
Z223. At Z224 his torso suddenly, violently rotated to the left, to where
he was sitting straight forward. When Connally came out from behind the
Stemmons sign he was passively sitting, passively viewing the umbrella man
and the man with his right hand in the air, with no expression on his
face. The bullet knocked him out of the position he was sitting in, thus
him feeling like he had been punched in the back.
If JFK was hit by the first shot, so was Connally. JFK's arms sprang up
at the same time JBC's right arm sprang up. Both actions were reflexive.
The SB was simply the first shot, not the second.
Hughes said he stopped filming before the first shot. At Z160 he was
still filming. Officer Baker said he was at the sheriff department
driveway when he heard the first report. The Hughes film showed him to
not be there yet, at Z160. A Secret Service agent in the Johnson follow
car said they had just made the turn onto Elm when he heard the first
report. The Zapruder film showed the car was still on Houston, just
entering the intersection at Z160. Jean Hill said that when the shots
first rang out, JFK was looking at dog on the seat. The only time JFK was
looking down was after JFK began to slump over after being shot. Bill
Newman said JFK stood up in the seat. Add in Zapruder and Nellie and i
have numerous confirmations that there was not a missed first shot, circa
Z160.
***Ron Judge
bigdog
Once again, you make an assumption based on how you think the SS agents
would have or should have reacted. SS agents are as human as anyone. Many
in the crowd said their first thought when hearing the first shot was it
was a firecracker or a backfire. Why do you assume the SS agents, caught
off guard, would not have had the same initial thought. If they were
unsure it was gunfire or not, their first reaction may well have been what
Bennett said he did. He looked to the boss to see his reaction.
> Connally did not react in the Zapruder film as he said he did. Connally
> never turned to the left to look over his left shoulder between Z160 and
> Z223. At Z224 his torso suddenly, violently rotated to the left, to where
> he was sitting straight forward. When Connally came out from behind the
> Stemmons sign he was passively sitting, passively viewing the umbrella man
> and the man with his right hand in the air, with no expression on his
> face. The bullet knocked him out of the position he was sitting in, thus
> him feeling like he had been punched in the back.
>
Connally said he was looking to his left when he heard the first shot. He
is seen looking to his left through frame Z-163. At Z-164 is when he
begins to rotate to his right and look over his right shoulder. Given a
normal reaction time by JBC would put the sound of the shot at Z160. If on
the other hand, he didn't, as he claimed, immediately recognize but had a
momentary hesitation before he began to turn to his right, WhiskyJoe's
belief in a shot at or about Z152 is certainly feasible. I have no firm
belief in exactly which frame the first missed shot occurred, but I
believe Z160 is the latest it could have happened.
> If JFK was hit by the first shot, so was Connally. JFK's arms sprang up
> at the same time JBC's right arm sprang up. Both actions were reflexive.
> The SB was simply the first shot, not the second.
>
If that is so, we have to believe that at the moment he heard the shot, he
did not also feel the bullet strike him in the back. We would have to
believe he felt the shot hit him in the back several seconds after he
heard that shot. If Connally had said something to the effect of "I never
felt the shot that hit me, I suddenly found myself bent over and covered
with blood", this argument might have merit. But Connally had two seperate
sensations coming several seconds apart. The first was the sound of
gunfire. The second was the sensation of being struck in the back by a
bullet. Nobody could ever make Connally believe that the first shot he
heard was the one that struck him. No one could ever make me believe that
either.
> Hughes said he stopped filming before the first shot. At Z160 he was
> still filming. Officer Baker said he was at the sheriff department
> driveway when he heard the first report. The Hughes film showed him to
> not be there yet, at Z160. A Secret Service agent in the Johnson follow
> car said they had just made the turn onto Elm when he heard the first
> report. The Zapruder film showed the car was still on Houston, just
> entering the intersection at Z160. Jean Hill said that when the shots
> first rang out, JFK was looking at dog on the seat. The only time JFK was
> looking down was after JFK began to slump over after being shot. Bill
> Newman said JFK stood up in the seat. Add in Zapruder and Nellie and i
> have numerous confirmations that there was not a missed first shot, circa
> Z160.
>
I have said this numerous times before and I will say it again. I don't
automatically believe what any witness says and I evaluate what they say
in light of other known and more reliable forms of evidence than human
memory. I think most if not all of the witnesses testified to what they
saw and heard to the best of their ability. I just don't have a lot of
faith that these witnesses accurately remembered exactly what they saw and
heard and in exactly what sequence they saw and heard it. The human brain
is not equipped with a DVR. If what a witness tells us is corroborated
through other forms of evidence, that testimony should be afforded added
weight. If on the other hand the testimony is at odds with other
knowables, such testimony should be viewed with a healthy dose of
skepticism.
Anthony Marsh
The first report they HEARD. Not necessarily the first shot fired.
> Connally did not react in the Zapruder film as he said he did. Connally
> never turned to the left to look over his left shoulder between Z160 and
> Z223. At Z224 his torso suddenly, violently rotated to the left, to where
You can see Connally when he is behind the sign?
> he was sitting straight forward. When Connally came out from behind the
> Stemmons sign he was passively sitting, passively viewing the umbrella man
> and the man with his right hand in the air, with no expression on his
> face. The bullet knocked him out of the position he was sitting in, thus
> him feeling like he had been punched in the back.
>
> If JFK was hit by the first shot, so was Connally. JFK's arms sprang up
> at the same time JBC's right arm sprang up. Both actions were reflexive.
> The SB was simply the first shot, not the second.
>
No, JFK was already reacting before they came out from behind the sign.
Connally reacted after they came out from behind the sign.
> Hughes said he stopped filming before the first shot. At Z160 he was
> still filming. Officer Baker said he was at the sheriff department
> driveway when he heard the first report. The Hughes film showed him to
I would not try to finetune the timing based on the Hughes film.
Anthony Marsh
You don't know exactly when those SS agents turned to look back. All you
know is that by Z-255 they HAD already reacted to an earlier shot.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I am not making any assumption, i am noting what is in the Zapruder
film and the Altgens photo. Hickey and Landis said they turned to the
rear after the first shot. That is what they said they did, not what i
assume they should have done. The Altgens photo showed them turrned to
the rear, the Zapruder film did not.
It did not matter whether the first shot sounded like a firecracker,
Landis said he did look at JFK first in response, then turned to the rear,
from where he thought the report had come. Landis could not assume it was
a firecracker, it was his job to protect the President. If Landis had
heard a report just before Connally turned his head to the right, we would
have seen both actions by Landis, in the Zapruder film. Hickey would have
been seen turning to the rear. However, that did not occur in the Zapruder
film.
It had occurred in the Altgens photo.
Altgens said he took his photo in response to the first report.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mar 24, 11:50 pm, r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > Connally did not react in the Zapruder film as he said he did. Connally
> > never turned to the left to look over his left shoulder between Z160 and
> > Z223. At Z224 his torso suddenly, violently rotated to the left, to where
> > he was sitting straight forward. When Connally came out from behind the
> > Stemmons sign he was passively sitting, passively viewing the umbrella man
> > and the man with his right hand in the air, with no expression on his
> > face. The bullet knocked him out of the position he was sitting in, thus
> > him feeling like he had been punched in the back.
>
> Connally said he was looking to his left when he heard the first shot. He
> is seen looking to his left through frame Z-163. At Z-164 is when he
> begins to rotate to his right and look over his right shoulder. Given a
> normal reaction time by JBC would put the sound of the shot at Z160. If on
> the other hand, he didn't, as he claimed, immediately recognize but had a
> momentary hesitation before he began to turn to his right, WhiskyJoe's
> belief in a shot at or about Z152 is certainly feasible. I have no firm
> belief in exactly which frame the first missed shot occurred, but I
> believe Z160 is the latest it could have happened.
***Given a normal reaction time, Hickey should have been seen turning
around to his right to determine where the report was coming from and what
caused it. If Connally heard it, Hickey heard it.
Connally may have turned his head to the right at Z164, but once he did he
continued to look at the crowd to the right side of the limo, as the
vehicle moved further down the street, the Stemmons sign blocking him from
view for a few moments. When he came back into view he was still
passively viewing the bystanders, not attempting to look over his left
shoulder. Turning his head to the right does not persuade me that he was
responding to a gunshot, when his subsequent lack of reaction after that
indicates to me that he was simply viewing the crowd, until the violent
movement of his body at Z224-29, indicated he had been shot.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
Did they say they turned to the rear IMMEDIATELY? No. They never specified
how quickly they reacted. So don't try to use them to time events.
>
> It did not matter whether the first shot sounded like a firecracker,
> Landis said he did look at JFK first in response, then turned to the rear,
> from where he thought the report had come. Landis could not assume it was
> a firecracker, it was his job to protect the President. If Landis had
> heard a report just before Connally turned his head to the right, we would
> have seen both actions by Landis, in the Zapruder film. Hickey would have
> been seen turning to the rear. However, that did not occur in the Zapruder
> film.
>
> It had occurred in the Altgens photo.
>
> Altgens said he took his photo in response to the first report.
>
That's nice. He didn't say he took it at the exact instant of the first
shot, so don't try to use him to time events.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
>
>
>
>
bigdog
>
Why do you presume to know how a person should react upon hearing a
gunshot? Do you really believe that Connally did not hear a gunshot first
and did not react as he said he did to it by turning hard to his right and
back to his left before being struck. Do you really believe that Connally
heard that first shot and then several seconds later felt it hit him in
the back as if he had been punched?
bigdog
So by what you believe Landis is telling us, he heard a shot at about
Z223, reacted by looking at JFK who instantly made a dramatic reaction of
his own which Landis certainly would have seen, and immediately looked
back toward the TSBD which is the position he is seen in the Altgens photo
at Z255. All this in a span of less than two seconds. I find it hard to
believe that Landis would have seen JFK's obvious reaction and immediately
turned his attention away from that. I find it far more likely that he
looked to JFK immediately upon hearing the first shot, saw he was
apparently unharmed, and then turned toward the sound of the gunfire, not
seeing JFK react to the second shot which came about 3.5 seconds following
the first. For what it's worth the history-matters website lists Landis as
only hearing two shots. So the sound of that second shot might not have
registered in his memory bank as he was assessing what was going on. The
roar of the motorcylcles might have had something to do with that as well.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Yet you automatically believe what Connally said, despite a number of
witnesses which contradict him. Even the Zapruder film contradicts him.
Your only counter to Connally sitting passively, expressionlessly, from
Z164-223, is to ask how should someone who has heard a gunshot be expected
to react? What should his expression be?
Zapruder and Sitzman said JFK was struck by the first shot. Altgens said
he clicked his Z255ish photo after hearing the first shot. Agents Hickey
and Landis said they turned to the rear after hearing the first shot and
are seen having done so in the Altgens photo. Even Connally's wife said
she saw JFK with his hands at his throat after she heard the first shot.
That is a body of recollection that is consistent with each other.
You state that you don't have faith that witnesses recollected well,
exactly what they saw, yet you quote any comment by Connally as if it were
gospel. Connally was traumatized by being shot. What does trauma do to
memory?
Connally said he was shot while turning to look over his left shoulder.
He then picked a frame of the Zapruder film after Z230, as being the one
in which he was shot. After Z230, Connally was turning to his right, not
his left.
***Ron Judge
bigdog
Nonsense. The Z-film shows Connally did exactly what he said he did. The
only minor discrepancy is that Connally thought he had turned to a forward
facing position when struck when the Z-film shows he was just short of
that position, but this is a difference of a fraction of a second. Hardly
significant.
> Your only counter to Connally sitting passively, expressionlessly, from
> Z164-223, is to ask how should someone who has heard a gunshot be expected
> to react? What should his expression be?
>
And a question you haven't answered. First of all, the Z-film hardly has
enough resolution to determine facial expressions, even in enhanced, blow
ups of the frames. But even if we accept that we can see the Connally
remains expressionless in the post-Z160 frames, why do you find that odd?
Why do you assume he would change expression? What look do you assume he
should exhibit?
> Zapruder and Sitzman said JFK was struck by the first shot. Altgens said
> he clicked his Z255ish photo after hearing the first shot. Agents Hickey
> and Landis said they turned to the rear after hearing the first shot and
> are seen having done so in the Altgens photo.
With a first shot at Z160 or before, their statement fits. Did they say
they turned to the rear immediately upon hearing the first shot? No. Z255
is about 5 seconds after a Z160 shot, and we don't know exactly when the
had turned to the rear. We just know that Altgens too the photo at about
Z255. They could have been turned to the rear before Altgens took that
picture.
> Even Connally's wife said
> she saw JFK with his hands at his throat after she heard the first shot.
> That is a body of recollection that is consistent with each other.
>
Enough with what Nellie said. JFK's hands never went to his throat. Any
resemblence to what she described and what actually happened is purely
coincidental. She and Jackie might be the worst of all the DP witnesses.
Under the circumstances, that is understandable.
> You state that you don't have faith that witnesses recollected well,
> exactly what they saw, yet you quote any comment by Connally as if it were
> gospel. Connally was traumatized by being shot. What does trauma do to
> memory?
>
I accept witness statements that are corroborated by other testimony.
That applies to Connally's recollections with just minor
discrepancies.
> Connally said he was shot while turning to look over his left shoulder.
> He then picked a frame of the Zapruder film after Z230, as being the one
> in which he was shot. After Z230, Connally was turning to his right, not
> his left.
>
Connally said he was turning back to the left when hit, not that he was
already looking to his left. Again, Connally thought he had reached a
forward facing position when struck and he reached that position at Z230.
The bulge in JBC's jacket at Z224 and the flip of his right arm beginning
at Z226 shows that he was hit about a half second before Z230. So he was
off by about a half second. BFD. Those are clues that were overlooked by
researchers for years after the Z- film was made public. I don't know when
it was they were first discovered but I first became aware of them in the
early 1990s. I think if someone had pointed those things out to him, he
might have changed his opinion as to when he was first hit. If JBC was hit
at Z230 as he originally believed, it means he was hit by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK because JFK had obviously been hit before
Z225. That would mean two shooters and a conspiracy. I consider the
difference between when JBC was hit and when he thought he was hit to be a
minor discrepancy.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The Zflim did not show Connally doing exactly what he said he was
doing. Connally turned his head to the right and continued to passively
and expressionlessly view the crowd and was clearly doing so at Z223, the
instant before he was shot. He was not in the process of moving to look
over his left shoulder, he was simply observing the few bystanders near
the Stemmons sign.
Sitting passively and expressionlessly, was not an indication that someone
had heard a gunshot and responded to it.
If Connally heard a shot over his right shoulder, even if it was fired by
someone even with the limo, rather than behind it, as Oswald would have
been at that time, the limo was moving forward, thus that person would
have fallen behind Connally's position by the time Connally turned his
head to the right. To look for that person, Connally would have had to
turn his head farther than perpendicular with the side of the limo.
Connally never turned to look behind the limo or even behind his position
in the limo.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Read what Landis said. He did respond immediately. He checked the
President and turned to the rear. He remarked of hearing the agent in
front of him and responding to him. Landis gave a detailed report of what
he did between the first and second shots. Landis and Hickey would not
have waited until they passed out of view of the Zapruder film, to respond
to a report at Z160.
The agents were turned to the rear before Algens took his Z255ish photo.
Two of the agents and Altgens said they responded to the first shot,
Altgen's response being his Z55ish photo. Zapruder also said JFK slumped
over to his left after the first shot was fired. The Altgens photo was
taken as JFK was in the process of slumping over.
> > Even Connally's wife said > > she saw JFK with his hands at his throat
after she heard the first shot . > > That is a body of recollection that
is consistent with each other. > > Enough with what Nellie said. JFK's
hands never went to his throat. Any > resemblence to what she described
and what actually happened is purely > coincidental. She and Jackie might
be the worst of all the DP witnesses. > Under the circumstances, that is
understandable.
***It does not really matter whether technically, JFK's hands went to his
throat, Nellie said she heard a report and turned to see JFK as he was,
when Nellie was seen looking at him in the Zapruder film. JFK had been
shot at that time and Nellie recalled no other shots prior to the one she
responded to. Neither did Zapruder, Altgens, Landis, Hickey, Sitzman.
>
> > You state that you don't have faith that witnesses recollected well,
> > exactly what they saw, yet you quote any comment by Connally as if it were
> > gospel. Connally was traumatized by being shot. What does trauma do to
> > memory?
>
> I accept witness statements that are corroborated by other testimony.
> That applies to Connally's recollections with just minor
> discrepancies.
***Sitting passively and expressionless after allegedly hearing what he
said he knew was a gunshot, was a major discrepancy between what the
Zapruder film recorded and his stated recollection.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Where in the Zapruder film was Landis looking at JFK to determine he
was OK? Not during the interval between Z160 and after Z200 when he
disappeared from the Zapruder film.
Landis heard a report from behind him. Thus it was incumbent upon him to
determine where the sound was coming from, as he was on the back of the
right running board and the sound had come from the right rear. Thus he
glanced at JFK a moment and turned his attention to the source of the
sound. How long does a glance take?
Page 20, The Killing of a President. A still photo corresponding to frame
Z202. Landis and Hickey can be seen, along with the agent in front of
Landis, who was also turned to the rear in the Altgens photo. All three
appear to be casually observing the bystanders on the sidewalk.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Connally was sitting passively, expressionlessly, as he went behind the
sign, and was doing the same when he reappeared from behind the sign.
>
> > he was sitting straight forward. When Connally came out from behind the
> > Stemmons sign he was passively sitting, passively viewing the umbrella man
> > and the man with his right hand in the air, with no expression on his
> > face. The bullet knocked him out of the position he was sitting in, thus
> > him feeling like he had been punched in the back.
>
> > If JFK was hit by the first shot, so was Connally. JFK's arms sprang up
> > at the same time JBC's right arm sprang up. Both actions were reflexive.
> > The SB was simply the first shot, not the second.
>
> No, JFK was already reacting before they came out from behind the sign.
> Connally reacted after they came out from behind the sign.
***You can see JFK while he was behind the sign? Connally's face was
reacting before JFK's face was seen. The expression on Connally's face
was different in Z224 than Z223.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I don't know what equivalent Zapruder frame or frames Landis and Hickey
turned, but i do know they said it was after the first report. I do know
that Altgens said he took his Z255 photo after the first report. I do
know that Zapruder said he saw JFK slump over after the first report.
I also know that the equivalent Z202 photo shot from the south side of Elm
Street appeared to show from behind, the agents who did turn around, were
just passively observing the bystanders on the north sidewalk, as if no
gunshot had been fired yet.
I also know that that JFK had a shocked look on his face at Z225, an
indication he had just been stuck by a bullet.
I also know that the Altgens photo showed three agents looking behind the
follow car, who were not doing so in the Z202 photo, nor in any of the
Zapruder frames prior to the Z202 photo.
The window narrows down to between Z203 and Z250, considering the agents
were already turned in the Altgen's photo.
As JFK had a look of shock on his face at Z225, the agents would have just
heard the report at that time. Landis would have begun to avert his gaze
to the President.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Landis detailed a whole paragraph of what he did, heard and said
between the first and second shots he heard. Landis responded
immediately. He just didn't turn to his rear immediately. Landis was not
seen in the Zapruder film, changing his field of view from observing the
crowd, to that of looking at the President, let alone turning to his right
and looking behind him, during Z160-202.
>
>
> > It did not matter whether the first shot sounded like a firecracker,
> > Landis said he did look at JFK first in response, then turned to the rear,
> > from where he thought the report had come. Landis could not assume it was
> > a firecracker, it was his job to protect the President. If Landis had
> > heard a report just before Connally turned his head to the right, we would
> > have seen both actions by Landis, in the Zapruder film. Hickey would have
> > been seen turning to the rear. However, that did not occur in the Zapruder
> > film.
>
> > It had occurred in the Altgens photo.
>
> > Altgens said he took his photo in response to the first report.
>
> That's nice. He didn't say he took it at the exact instant of the first
> shot, so don't try to use him to time events.
>
> > ***Ron Judge
***I never said he took his photo at the exact instant of the first shot,
only that he said he took it in response to the first shot. Hickey and
Landis also said they turned to the rear after the first shot. The
Altgens photo was Approximately Z255. JFK had a shocked look on his face
at Z225, which was time enough for them to have turned to the rear in
response to the shot which struck JFK, before Altgens took his photo.
***Ron Judge
bigdog
President, saw his arms immediately flair up and out, and then turned
to rear as he is seen in the Altgens photo, all in a space of less
than two seconds. That defies belief.
> The agents were turned to the rear before Algens took his Z255ish photo.
> Two of the agents and Altgens said they responded to the first shot,
> Altgen's response being his Z55ish photo. Zapruder also said JFK slumped
> over to his left after the first shot was fired. The Altgens photo was
> taken as JFK was in the process of slumping over.
>
> > > Even Connally's wife said > > she saw JFK with his hands at his throat
>
> after she heard the first shot . > > That is a body of recollection that
> is consistent with each other. > > Enough with what Nellie said. JFK's
> hands never went to his throat. Any > resemblence to what she described
> and what actually happened is purely > coincidental. She and Jackie might
> be the worst of all the DP witnesses. > Under the circumstances, that is
> understandable.
>
> ***It does not really matter whether technically, JFK's hands went to his
> throat, Nellie said she heard a report and turned to see JFK as he was,
> when Nellie was seen looking at him in the Zapruder film. JFK had been
> shot at that time and Nellie recalled no other shots prior to the one she
> responded to. Neither did Zapruder, Altgens, Landis, Hickey, Sitzman.
>
You keep cherry picking the same witnesses as if their statements
should be taken as gospel. We know that not every witness accurately
remember what happened because they give conflicting versions of the
same event. You have given no corroborating evidence to support any of
these first shot strike witnesses.
>
>
> > > You state that you don't have faith that witnesses recollected well,
> > > exactly what they saw, yet you quote any comment by Connally as if it were
> > > gospel. Connally was traumatized by being shot. What does trauma do to
> > > memory?
>
> > I accept witness statements that are corroborated by other testimony.
> > That applies to Connally's recollections with just minor
> > discrepancies.
>
> ***Sitting passively and expressionless after allegedly hearing what he
> said he knew was a gunshot, was a major discrepancy between what the
> Zapruder film recorded and his stated recollection.
>