Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE TWO STAR WITNESSES Euins & Brennan
111 views
Skip to first unread message
Research
Oct 2, 2012, 3:27:14 PM10/2/12
to
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat
sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting
there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at
the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what direction the gun was pointing.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what direction was the gun pointing when you saw it?
Mr. BRENNAN. At somewhat 30 degrees downward and west by south.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know down what street it was pointing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. Down Elm Street toward the railroad underpasses.
Mr. BELIN. Now, up to the time of the shots, did you observe anything else
that you have not told us about here that you can think of right now?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not of any importance. I don't remember anything else
except--
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you
heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there
was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second
shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and
subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I
could not swear to it.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth
floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair
complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
After all that Brennan did not see the large scope mounted on the top of
the rifle? How could he describe the rifle and not see the scope? Mighty
FISHY thoughts!! He only heard two shots? HUMM mighty fishy!!
Mr. BELIN. A white man? Mr. EUINS - The man in the window. I could see his
hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the
barrel thing.
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?
Mr. EUINS - I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I
was looking at the building.
Mr. SPECTER - Looking at anything special in the building?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.
Mr. SPECTER - How many shots did you hear altogether?
Mr. EUINS - I believe there was four, to be exact.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where were you looking at the time of the third shot, if
you remember?
Mr. EUINS - After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back
here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window.
And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were
you looking then?
Mr. EUINS - I was still down here, looking up at the building.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you see in the building?
Mr. EUINS - I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the
window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I
could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I
could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got
through, he just pulled it back in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him pull it back in the window?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you still standing at point B?
Mr. EUINS - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - When he pulled it back in the window?
Mr. EUINS - I was still behind here, yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where were you when you heard what you described as the fourth
shot?
Mr. EUINS - The first shot I was standing here.
Mr. SPECTER - Now you are referring to 366. Put an "L" on 366 where you were
standing at the first shot.
Mr. EUINS - Right here. (Witness marking.)
Mr. EUINS - And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,
you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in
there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER - At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS - I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then
he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.
Mr. SPECTER - The question I have for you now is where were you when he
fired on that fourth time.
Mr. EUINS - I was still behind point B.
Mr. SPECTER - You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the
fourth shot?
Mr. EUINS - Yes; he just come back like this.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you watch what he did after that?
Mr. EUINS - No, sir; because after he had pulled it back in the window, I
ran this way, and went across the tracks.
Mighty FISHY Euins don't remember the scope either? And he heard four shots
too? He saw the rifle sticking out the window about three feet. He saw both
hands, the trigger and the "receiving group" but he can't see a 16" scope?
Fishy. Mighty fishy!!!
sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting
there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at
the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what direction the gun was pointing.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what direction was the gun pointing when you saw it?
Mr. BRENNAN. At somewhat 30 degrees downward and west by south.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know down what street it was pointing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. Down Elm Street toward the railroad underpasses.
Mr. BELIN. Now, up to the time of the shots, did you observe anything else
that you have not told us about here that you can think of right now?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not of any importance. I don't remember anything else
except--
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you
heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there
was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second
shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and
subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I
could not swear to it.
Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth
floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair
complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
After all that Brennan did not see the large scope mounted on the top of
the rifle? How could he describe the rifle and not see the scope? Mighty
FISHY thoughts!! He only heard two shots? HUMM mighty fishy!!
Mr. BELIN. A white man? Mr. EUINS - The man in the window. I could see his
hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the
barrel thing.
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?
Mr. EUINS - I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I
was looking at the building.
Mr. SPECTER - Looking at anything special in the building?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.
Mr. SPECTER - How many shots did you hear altogether?
Mr. EUINS - I believe there was four, to be exact.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where were you looking at the time of the third shot, if
you remember?
Mr. EUINS - After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back
here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window.
And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were
you looking then?
Mr. EUINS - I was still down here, looking up at the building.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you see in the building?
Mr. EUINS - I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the
window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I
could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I
could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got
through, he just pulled it back in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him pull it back in the window?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you still standing at point B?
Mr. EUINS - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - When he pulled it back in the window?
Mr. EUINS - I was still behind here, yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where were you when you heard what you described as the fourth
shot?
Mr. EUINS - The first shot I was standing here.
Mr. SPECTER - Now you are referring to 366. Put an "L" on 366 where you were
standing at the first shot.
Mr. EUINS - Right here. (Witness marking.)
Mr. EUINS - And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,
you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in
there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER - At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS - I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then
he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.
Mr. SPECTER - The question I have for you now is where were you when he
fired on that fourth time.
Mr. EUINS - I was still behind point B.
Mr. SPECTER - You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS - Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the
fourth shot?
Mr. EUINS - Yes; he just come back like this.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you watch what he did after that?
Mr. EUINS - No, sir; because after he had pulled it back in the window, I
ran this way, and went across the tracks.
Mighty FISHY Euins don't remember the scope either? And he heard four shots
too? He saw the rifle sticking out the window about three feet. He saw both
hands, the trigger and the "receiving group" but he can't see a 16" scope?
Fishy. Mighty fishy!!!
Raymond
Oct 10, 2012, 4:15:05 PM10/10/12
to
How Many shots were fired President Kennedy?
Most people say three. Supposedly, one (the first) shot missed, one
shot hit JFK in the neck, passed through Connally and became the
alleged magic-bullet. And the third was the fatal shot that hit the
president in the head.
The Warren Wizards said: "The consensus among the witnesses at the
scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two
shots. The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots
was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent
cartridges. This led the Commission to conclude that there were three
shots...." WR 110-111.
But, later they said, "The physical and other evidence examined by
the Commission compels the conclusion that AT LEAST TWO SHOTS WERE
FIRED... It is possible that the assassin carried an EMPTY SHELL IN
THE RIFLE and fired only two shots ...." WR 111
Summing up. One shot missed the car completely and there is no
record of recovering any of its remains. One shot allegedly passed
through Kennedy and Connally and magically remained near pristine and
ended up at Parkland Hospital. This bullet weighed 161 grains before
it was fired at the motorcade. When recovered it weighed 158.6 grains
which means that very little was lost in its destructive journey.
A fragment weighing 0.5 grains was recovered from Connally's arm.
Audrey Bell, the operating nurse, stated that there were four or five
fragments "anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a
couple of millimeters wide " These fragments disappeared at the
autopsy.
In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg
wound? Also , there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was
never recovered. He died with fragments still in his body that weighed
more that the alleged two to three missing grains from C-399 that was
described as near pristine. And the Warrens say , about pristine, "The
Governor's wrist wound WAS NOT CAUSED BY A PRISTINE BULLET." p.94
So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
After the coup, two bullet fragments were found in the Lincoln.
According to Warren , the two fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains
respectively."The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose
area... the lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base... the two
fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine
from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose
of one bullet or of two separate bullets."
If one bullet missed the car completely and one ended up at Parkland
almost pristine, the last bullet had to be the bullet that hit JFK in
the head and both fragments were from the same projectile.
I KINDA think that, with the angle of the neck shot, the above
fragments would remain in the car, ergo,the remains of the single
bullet ,and the head shot bullet probably ended up in tiny bits in
Dealey Plaza.
Some say that Tague was hit by the first MISSED shot, but he heard
shots before he was hit by a very tiny fragment. So, he was probably
hit by a fragment from the third shot instead of the ALLEGED MISSED
FIRST SHOT.
I personally do not believe there was a missed shot. If I were the
master-mind of the coup, I would be sure to provide evidence that
would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner, And since I
could not rely on the future condition of the bullets actually fired
at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a bullet through the
barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63 and be sure to leave it
where it would be found.
Enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
the same bullet. I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher, at
Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the limousine
in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital
I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it would be
hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three SOUNDS that
they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of these shots
did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have been a shot at
the President. Witnesses said it sounded different and it was the
first sound. Some of us believe that it was Jim Braden firing a 38.
cal pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw attention away
from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away. Was he the Secret
Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The Commission may have
thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll during the
reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on the floor of the
TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that it could not have
been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I agree. (See Tink
Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.) Was it the empty casing that the
Commission said may have been carried in the rifle? (P111 WR) If
someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and witnesses reported
three shots- it would help if three casings were found in the TSBD to
make us believe that three shots were fired from there, NO?
Agent Bennett : He was stationed in the right rear seat of the follow
up car. He heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded
down Elm Street. Could that have been Braden and his .38? Bennett
then said, " I looked at the back of the President. I heard another
firecracker noise and SAW THAT SHOT HIT THE PRESIDENT ABOUT FOUR
INCHES DOWN THE RIGHT SHOULDER. A second shot followed immediately and
hit the right rear of the President's head. Substantial weight may be
given Bennett's observation. Although his formal statement was dated
Nov, 23, 1963, his notes indicated that he recorded what he saw and
heard at 5:30 p.m. 11-22-63 , on the airplane en route to Washington,
prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had
been hit in the back. Hmmm!
Jim Braden was at the Cabana Motel that was visited by Jack Ruby on
Thursday night. He also allegedly went to see the same oil people that
Jack delivered a young lady to see . They were both in the same
building PROBABLY at about the same time.
Jim had his picture taken down by the underpass after the
shooting. (See Groden's picture book). Did you ever read his
affidavit? Jim Braden (Brading) said he was walking down Elm Street
trying to GET A CAB when he heard someone say that the President had
been shot. He then "Walked UP AMONG THE PEOPLE." Jim Had lived in
Dallas at one time and knew, like everyone else, that walking down Elm
Street was not the place to get a cab.Main Street, by the Adolphus
Hotel, or at the Greyhound Bus Station was where smart folks went for
a cab. Even Lee Oswald went to the bus station to get his cab to Oak
Cliff.
Some friends of mine think it was a firecracker-- thrown by Big Jim
Braden , That way , he would not even have had a gun if Officer Smith
decided to frisk him. If asked about his SECRET SERVICE credentials
and he was exposed--so what ? What would the charge be? This guy
already had an arrest sheet going back to 1934.
It would be senseless to argue that there was not an explosive
"report" from the Knoll, and a careful analyses of testimonies clearly
indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds, but it
was not necessarily from a rifle. No one saw a weapon fired. They did
report seeing and smelling smoke.
In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
resulted from the shots at the motorcade.
Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
shots were fired.
Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the Knoll and fifty-six
(53.8%) said the TSBD. I personally believe that both were right.
It is hard to imagine that one third of the witnesses were wrong
when they reported shots from the Grassy Knoll. What is more
interesting is what they said.
SS Agent Clinton Hill said that the second and third shots sounded
alike. they had a different sound..."than the first sound I heard."
Sam Holland; "...I definitely saw a puff of smoke and heard the
report from under the trees."
Frank Reilly:... "at the park where all the shrubs is up
there...up the slope."
James Simmons:... " Fumes of smoke near the embankment."
Austin Miller:..."there is a little plaza on the hill...who threw
the firecracker or whatever it was."
Clemon Johnson:... " white smoke was observed by the pavilion."
Mary Woodward, Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, Ann Donaldson: All
on the sidewalk said they heard a horrible . "ear-shattering noise
coming from behind us and a little to our right."
John Chism: ..." by the Stemmons sign, I looked behind me,"
Marion Chism;... "It came from behind us."
Ammett Hudson:.. "The shots that I heard definitely came from
behind and above me." He was sitting on the steps on the Knoll.
Ronald Fisher:..." from just west of the TSBD."
Jean Hill: " I frankly thought they were coming from the Knoll."
Others that reported shots from the Knoll: Charles Brehm, Roy
Truly, Virgil Campbell, Mrs. Alvin Hopson, Mrs. Chas. Davis, Dorthy
Ann Garner, Steven Wilson, Otis Williams, Victoria Adams, Billy
Lovelady, Danny Arce, Wesley Frazier, James Jarman, Roger Craig, J. E.
Decker, James Jarman, Harry Weatherford, and many more names can be
added to the list.
And the Warren Commission had the gall to say all the shots... were
fired from the sixth-floor within the TSBD... "There is no credible
evidence that the shots were fired ... from any other location." WR
19
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 9:01:56 PM10/11/12
to
Tague. One even thinks it hit the traffic light above Elm Street.
> through Kennedy and Connally and magically remained near pristine and
> ended up at Parkland Hospital. This bullet weighed 161 grains before
> it was fired at the motorcade. When recovered it weighed 158.6 grains
> which means that very little was lost in its destructive journey.
>
fired. What if ALL the missing weight is what was taken out for testing?
> A fragment weighing 0.5 grains was recovered from Connally's arm.
> Audrey Bell, the operating nurse, stated that there were four or five
> fragments "anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a
> couple of millimeters wide " These fragments disappeared at the
> autopsy.
>
at the autopsy. It is illegal do to an autopsy on a person while he is
still living. Even Dr. Frankenstein did not violate that rule.
> In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg
> wound? Also , there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was
to examine them. Got to maintain the cover-up or else we'll have
mushroom clouds over Washington.
> never recovered. He died with fragments still in his body that weighed
> more that the alleged two to three missing grains from C-399 that was
> described as near pristine. And the Warrens say , about pristine, "The
> Governor's wrist wound WAS NOT CAUSED BY A PRISTINE BULLET." p.94
>
> So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
> removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
>
> After the coup, two bullet fragments were found in the Lincoln.
> According to Warren , the two fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains
> respectively."The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose
> area... the lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base... the two
> fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine
> from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose
> of one bullet or of two separate bullets."
>
> If one bullet missed the car completely and one ended up at Parkland
> almost pristine, the last bullet had to be the bullet that hit JFK in
> the head and both fragments were from the same projectile.
>
> I KINDA think that, with the angle of the neck shot, the above
> fragments would remain in the car, ergo,the remains of the single
> bullet ,and the head shot bullet probably ended up in tiny bits in
> Dealey Plaza.
>
head shot, your need to diagram your theory. Use my drawing of the
limousine.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif
And your fragments have to account for the dent of the chrome topping
and the crack of the windshield and the smashing of the back of the
rearview mirror.
> Some say that Tague was hit by the first MISSED shot, but he heard
> shots before he was hit by a very tiny fragment. So, he was probably
> hit by a fragment from the third shot instead of the ALLEGED MISSED
> FIRST SHOT.
>
mark on the curb, only a lead smear.
> I personally do not believe there was a missed shot. If I were the
> master-mind of the coup, I would be sure to provide evidence that
> would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner, And since I
> could not rely on the future condition of the bullets actually fired
> at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a bullet through the
> barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63 and be sure to leave it
> where it would be found.
>
> Enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
>
> As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
> Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
>
> I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
> bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
> the same bullet. I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
> the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher, at
> Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the limousine
> in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital
>
where one bullet goes through JFK's torso and then Connally's torso and
then another bullet hits Connally's wrist after the head shot?
> I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it would be
> hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three SOUNDS that
> they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of these shots
royalties.
> did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have been a shot at
> the President. Witnesses said it sounded different and it was the
> first sound. Some of us believe that it was Jim Braden firing a 38.
> cal pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw attention away
> from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away. Was he the Secret
> Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The Commission may have
> thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll during the
> reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on the floor of the
they used as long as it was subsonic. They were testing to see if they
could identify the difference between a supersonic shot and a subsonic
shot from the grassy knoll. Their refined analysis indicated it was a
supersonic bullet from a rifle. With a muzzle velocity of 2235 fps.
Slightly faster than Oswald's rifle, but still compatible with some type
of Carcano.
> TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that it could not have
> been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I agree. (See Tink
> Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.) Was it the empty casing that the
> Commission said may have been carried in the rifle? (P111 WR) If
> someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and witnesses reported
> three shots- it would help if three casings were found in the TSBD to
> make us believe that three shots were fired from there, NO?
>
the sniper's nest.
acoustical analysis rules out any shots from the Dal-Tex.
> It would be senseless to argue that there was not an explosive
> "report" from the Knoll, and a careful analyses of testimonies clearly
> indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds, but it
> was not necessarily from a rifle. No one saw a weapon fired. They did
> report seeing and smelling smoke.
>
torpedo in the railyards.
Some of us think the smoke people saw came from the chain-smoking man
behind the fence. Ever see the X-files?
> In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
> diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
> attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
> cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
> resulted from the shots at the motorcade.
>
> Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
> shots were fired.
>
> Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the Knoll and fifty-six
> (53.8%) said the TSBD. I personally believe that both were right.
>
Worshipping McAdams?
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:47:47 PM10/11/12
to
In article
<4ae338f7-39e5-44a8...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
**********
Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene
decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely
circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously
colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots
were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular
the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were
three shots fired.
**********
> Summing up. One shot missed the car completely and there is no
> record of recovering any of its remains. One shot allegedly passed
> through Kennedy and Connally and magically remained near pristine and
> ended up at Parkland Hospital.
Oh yes, there's the "magically remained near pristine" myth again. Let's
see if that's really true:
http://i.imgur.com/cakP7.jpg
Sure doesn't look "nearly pristine" to me. I am superbly confident that
if I stopped at least ten people at random on the street and didn't tell
them that this photo had anything to do with the JFK assassination, most
of them upon looking at it would more likely than not use a word such as
"deformed" or something of similar meaning. I doubt a single one of them
would utter the word "pristine" or any other word of similar meaning.
Since I live in east Texas, and there are a lot of hunters around here, I
could also show this photo to them without telling them this has anything
to do with the JFK assassination. I very much doubt any of them will call
it "pristine" either, even by preceding that with the word "nearly." In
fact, I think none of them will utter the word "pristine" in any context,
unless it is "not at all pristine."
It also looks perfectly consistent with what it has been claimed to have
done. The bullet entered JFK's back near the base of his neck and exited
the front of his throat. In its passage through his body it struck no
hard bone directly, though it seems to have nicked one of his vertebrae.
Thus one should not expect any significant damage to the bullet from that.
The passage through JFK's body first would also slow down the velocity of
the bullet significantly. It also caused the bullet to tumble, because
the entry in Connally's back was elongated, not circular. If the bullet
had hit Connally in the back directly, without having struck or passed
through anything else first, it would be far less likely to be tumbling,
as there wouldn't be any credible evidence to explain that, and the
entrance would be circular, like the one in JFK's back was.
In its passage through Connally's torso the bullet did indeed smash
through one of his ribs. Had the bullet struck the rib nose first, and
also without its velocity being reduced by passage through JFK first, then
yes, I might expect fragmentation or much more serious damage to the
bullet. But since the bullet was slowed down considerably before it
entered Connally, and furthermore did not enter his body nose first, there
is no credible evidence that it struck his rib nose first either.
It then exited his chest, its velocity having been slowed even more by the
additional passage through Connally's torso, and slammed through his right
wrist bones. But again, this would have been at a slower velocity than if
the only person the bullet had gone through had been Connally alone, and
again with the tumbling aspect there is no credible evidence that it hit
his wrist nose first either. So once again, it is unreasonable to expect
more damage than what appears in photos of the bullet. Finally the
bullet's velocity had been slowed down so much by passing through JFK,
then through Connally's torso, then through his wrist, that it was
traveling only fast enough to go a little way into his left thigh.
> This bullet weighed 161 grains before
> it was fired at the motorcade.
How do you know that, when the bullet was never weighed before it was
fired at the motorcade? They may have weighed similar bullets to get an
estimate, but even bullets from the same batch made by the same company
can often vary in weight by at least a few grains.
> When recovered it weighed 158.6 grains
> which means that very little was lost in its destructive journey.
As one would expect, given that the bullet was traveling at a lower
velocity before it struck any hard bone directly than it would have if
it had hit Connally only, and was furthermore tumbling on top of that,
so it may well have not struck any bone nose first either.
> A fragment weighing 0.5 grains was recovered from Connally's arm.
> Audrey Bell, the operating nurse, stated that there were four or five
> fragments "anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a
> couple of millimeters wide " These fragments disappeared at the
> autopsy.
Bullet fragments from Connally's arm disappeared at the autopsy of JFK?
Could you give us a source for that, please? Thanks.
> In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg
> wound? Also , there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was
> never recovered. He died with fragments still in his body that weighed
> more that the alleged two to three missing grains from C-399 that was
> described as near pristine.
I'm still wondering how you know how many grains were missing from CE
399 when no human who has ever lived knows for certain precisely how
many grains the bullet weighed before it was fired? And you also say
that it was "described as near pristine." Described that way by whom?
People who have never seen all of the photographs ever taken of it?
> And the Warrens say , about pristine, "The
> Governor's wrist wound WAS NOT CAUSED BY A PRISTINE BULLET." p.94
Of course it wasn't. And since CE 399 is not even remotely close to
pristine, this is perfectly consistent. And again I find it interesting
that you didn't quote what immediately follows:
**********
A bullet is pristine immediately on exiting from a rifle muzzle when it
moves in a straight line with a spinning motion and maintains its uniform
trajectory with but a minimum of nose surface striking the air through
which it passes. When the straight line of flight of a bullet is deflected
by striking some object, it starts to wobble or become irregular in
flight, a condition called yaw. A bullet with yaw has a greater surface
exposed to the striking material or air, since the target or air is struck
not only by the nose of the bullet, its smallest striking surface, but
also by the bullet's sides.
**********
And then two paragraphs later:
**********
The conclusion that the Governor's wrist was not struck by a pristine
bullet was based upon the following: (1) greater damage was inflicted on
the test material than on the Governor's wrist; (2) the test material had
a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound, characteristic of a
pristine bullet, while the Governor's wrist had a larger entry wound as
compared with its exit wound, indicating a bullet which was tumbling; (3)
cloth was carried into the wrist wound, which is characteristic of an
irregular missile; (4) the partial cutting of a radial nerve and tendon
leading to the Governor's thumb further suggested that the bullet which
struck him was not pristine, since such a bullet would merely push aside a
tendon and nerve rather than catch and tear them; (5) the bullet found on
the Governor's stretcher probably did not pass through the wrist as a
pristine bullet because its nose was not considerably flattened, as was
the case with the pristine bullet which struck the simulated wrist; and
(6) the bullet which caused the Governor's thigh injury and then fell out
of the wound had a "very low velocity, " whereas the pristine bullets
fired during the tests possessed a very high exit velocity.
**********
Note carefully the use of "tumbling" and "very low velocity."
> So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
> removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
Indeed.
> After the coup,
What coup?
> two bullet fragments were found in the Lincoln.
> According to Warren , the two fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains
> respectively."The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose
> area... the lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base... the two
> fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine
> from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose
> of one bullet or of two separate bullets."
>
> If one bullet missed the car completely and one ended up at Parkland
> almost pristine,
You mean "noticeably deformed."
> the last bullet had to be the bullet that hit JFK in
> the head and both fragments were from the same projectile.
>
> I KINDA think that, with the angle of the neck shot, the above
> fragments would remain in the car, ergo,the remains of the single
> bullet ,and the head shot bullet probably ended up in tiny bits in
> Dealey Plaza.
The head shot bullet maybe so. But the remains of the single bullet
also ended up in tiny bits in Dealey Plaza? I would be interested in
the reasoning you use to support that.
> Some say that Tague was hit by the first MISSED shot, but he heard
> shots before he was hit by a very tiny fragment. So, he was probably
> hit by a fragment from the third shot instead of the ALLEGED MISSED
> FIRST SHOT.
Tague was not exactly certain which shot hit him.
> I personally do not believe there was a missed shot.
Oh? Based on what evidence?
> If I were the
> master-mind of the coup,
What coup?
> I would be sure to provide evidence that
> would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner, And since I
> could not rely on the future condition of the bullets actually fired
> at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a bullet through the
> barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63 and be sure to leave it
> where it would be found.
But you just articulated the problem. You could not rely on the future
condition condition of the bullets actually fired at the occupants of the
limousine. You would have no possible way of knowing in advance how many
whole bullets and fragments might be recovered. You would run the risk of
planting one too many bullets. And did you forget that one or more of the
fragments found in the limousine ballistically matched the Carcano too?
> Enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
Oh no, that tired old myth again?
> As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
> Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
>
> I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
> bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
> the same bullet.
Why is that, exactly?
> I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
> the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher, at
> Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the limousine
> in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital
Oh, he was originally planning to plant the bullet in the limousine?
That's definitely a new one on me. I've seen the Jack Ruby Plants CE 399
At Parkland myth many times. But how do you think he intended first to
plant it in the limousine? Did he expect the limousine to stop in Dealey
Plaza after the shooting? And how would he have done that without dozens
and dozens and dozens of witnesses plainly seeing him do it?
I would recommend you rethink that one.
And what *credible* evidence is there that Jack Ruby ever touched that
bullet?
Let me guess: you got this from the movie "JFK," right?
Or are you going by the totally uncorroborated Seth Kantor?
And let me ask, have you ever read Jack Ruby's complete and unabridged
Warren Commission testimony all the way through from the very first word
to the very last word? If you haven't, I would highly recommend it. It
dispels a lot of other myths that are very often repeated by
conspiracy-oriented authors.
> I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it would be
> hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three SOUNDS that
> they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of these shots
> did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have been a shot at
> the President. Witnesses said it sounded different and it was the
> first sound.
That is a misleading statement. Many witnesses thought the first shot was
the backfire of a motorcycle or a firecracker, and did not realize they
were hearing gunfire until after hearing the second or third shot. But
that's not quite the same thing as saying the first shot sounded different
from the subsequent shots. That just means the first shot was not
initially recognized as gunfire. And there were plenty of witnesses who
specifically said that all the shots sounded about the same in terms of
volume and so forth.
> Some of us believe that it was Jim Braden firing a 38.
> cal pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw attention away
> from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away.
Do you now? Fascinating. ;-)
> Was he the Secret
> Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The Commission may have
> thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll during the
> reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on the floor of the
> TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that it could not have
> been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I agree. (See Tink
> Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.)
Or an alternate explanation: the bent casing wasn't quite bent enough to
prevent the bullet from firing, but was bent enough to cause the bullet
to exit the muzzle at a somewhat lower velocity than the other two
bullets. Did it ever occur to you that this may have been the single
bullet, which if so, would add an additional slowing to the bullet
besides the passage through JFK before hitting Connally, and thus would
make CE 399 even more plausible?
> Was it the empty casing that the
> Commission said may have been carried in the rifle? (P111 WR)
Doubtful.
> If
> someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and witnesses reported
> three shots- it would help if three casings were found in the TSBD to
> make us believe that three shots were fired from there, NO?
Unfortunately one of the three shots being fired from a different
location is not very plausible, given the witness statements. More on
that below.
> Agent Bennett : He was stationed in the right rear seat of the follow
> up car. He heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded
> down Elm Street. Could that have been Braden and his .38?
Misleading again. Bennett did not specifically say that the next shot
sounded different.
> Bennett
> then said, " I looked at the back of the President. I heard another
> firecracker noise and SAW THAT SHOT HIT THE PRESIDENT ABOUT FOUR
> INCHES DOWN THE RIGHT SHOULDER. A second shot followed immediately and
> hit the right rear of the President's head. Substantial weight may be
> given Bennett's observation.
And did you notice he didn't say the next shot sounded any different
from the first?
Just one from the knoll? Then why did more than 90% of all the
witnesses who said shots came from the knoll either specifically say
that ALL the shots came from the knoll, or else named no other direction
in their entire statements? Also more than 90% of those same witnesses
made no mention of any individual shot sounded louder and/or closer, or
softer and/or farther, than any other individual shot.
> and a careful analyses of testimonies clearly
> indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds, but it
> was not necessarily from a rifle.
Careful analyses of testimonies clearly indicates that it was the first
of the three sounds, but that it was not necessarily from a rifle? Who,
may I ask, has done these "careful analyses"? Apparently not anyone who
has read the statements of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses.
> No one saw a weapon fired. They did
> report seeing and smelling smoke.
A tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the witnesses reported seeing and
smelling smoke, and they came to no real consensus on the location of
the smoke.
> In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
> diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
> attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
> cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
> resulted from the shots at the motorcade.
Then why did so very few witnesses, less than 10% of them, say that
there was any difference in volume and/or distance with any of the shots?
> Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
> shots were fired.
Yep, about that.
> Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the Knoll
Nearly all of whom said that ALL the shots came from the knoll.
> and fifty-six
> (53.8%) said the TSBD.
Nearly all of whom said that ALL the shots came from the TSBD.
> I personally believe that both were right.
You believe that all the shots came from the TSBD and all the shots came
from the knoll? ;-)
> It is hard to imagine that one third of the witnesses were wrong
> when they reported shots from the Grassy Knoll.
When they reported that ALL the shots came from the knoll. Rather
obviously, at least one group of these witnesses has to be mistaken.
> What is more
> interesting is what they said.
> SS Agent Clinton Hill said that the second and third shots sounded
> alike. they had a different sound..."than the first sound I heard."
Yes, and he is one of the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of witnesses who
said anything even remotely like that. He only recalled two shots as
well. And I notice you didn't quote him explaining what it was that was
different about the sound of the second shot, which was the one Hill
thought hit JFK's head:
"The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing
against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound
of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal
place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the
head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it."
> Sam Holland; "...I definitely saw a puff of smoke and heard the
> report from under the trees."
Ah yes, ole Skinny, one of the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of witnesses
who said the shots came from multiple directions. He also said there
were four shots, so he's very much in the minority of that too. But I
notice you didn't mention that he said it was the *third* shot, not the
first, that he associated with the smoke coming out from under the trees.
> Frank Reilly:... "at the park where all the shrubs is up
> there...up the slope."
Yes, he said he thought ALL of the shots came from there. He said that
only a few lines above the part you quoted. Fascinating that you're yet
another author, to be added to many that I've seen, who quotes these
documents very, very, very selectively, and don't quote the other parts
that destroy the argument you're making. I'll quote what you, uh,
"forgot" to quote:
**********
Mr. BALL - Did you hear something?
Mr. REILLY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. REILLY - Three shots.
Mr. BALL - Where did they seem to come from; what direction?
Mr. REILLY - It seemed to me like they came from out of the trees.
Mr. BALL - What trees?
Mr. REILLY - On the north side of Elm Street at the corner up there.
Mr. BALL - On the north side of Elm - on what corner?
Mr. REILLY - Well, where all those trees are - you've never been down
there?
Mr. BALL - Yes, I've been there, but you tell me - I want you to tell me
because it has to go on the record here and it has to be in writing.
Mr. REILLY - Well, it's at the park where all the shrubs is up there -
it's to the north of Elm Street - up the slope.
**********
Quite obviously he meant all three shots came from there, not one only,
as you seem to be implying.
> James Simmons:... " Fumes of smoke near the embankment."
Lol! Why didn't you quote the entire sentence?
"Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the
embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building."
Oh, and what's this, only four sentences later?
"Simmons advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the
direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building."
Awfully selective in your quotes, aren't you. And do you even know the
original source for that? It is the FBI report dated 3-17-64 which is
reproduced in CE 1416.
Admittedly however, Simmons gave a different version to Mark Lane in the
film "Rush to Judgement." This time he did indeed say that the smoke
came from directly in front of the fence on the knoll. I have not seen
the film in a while, though, and cannot at this moment remember whether,
as far as the sounds of the shots, they all seemed to him to come from
that same direction, or from separate directions.
> Austin Miller:..."there is a little plaza on the hill...who threw
> the firecracker or whatever it was."
I would suggest you look at more sources. In his affidavit from the
same day as the assassination he said, "One shot apparently hit the
street past the car." And was he the only witness who said that they
saw something hit the street during the shooting? No. This certainly
does not support some things you said above. And what you quoted above
is from Miller's WC testimony, and I notice you didn't quote him just a
few lines below that where he said he thought all the shots came from
the same direction.
Are you actually looking at the complete, unabridged documents to get
these quotes, or are you just quoting some other author who quoted only
these excerpts?
> Clemon Johnson:... " white smoke was observed by the pavilion."
Oh dear. The original source for that is CE 1422, and here is the
complete sentence that that comes from:
"Mr. Johnson stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion, but
he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot
by a Dallas policeman."
See what he said he thought the smoke came from? Are you purposefully
quoting only the tidbits that support your arguments, and purposefully
leaving out the parts that don't? Or are you just mindlessly quoting
someone else who only quoted these tidbits without bothering to check
the complete, unabridged original documents these excerpts are being
taken from?
> Mary Woodward, Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, Ann Donaldson: All
> on the sidewalk said they heard a horrible . "ear-shattering noise
> coming from behind us and a little to our right."
Mary Woodward said she thought ALL of the shots came from that
direction. I know exactly what the source of that quote is too. Do
you? And what is your source for Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, and Ann
Donaldson as far as which direction or directions they thought the
gunfire came from? The quote you gave is from Woodward only.
> John Chism: ..." by the Stemmons sign, I looked behind me,"
Oh, I think I see now. Are you mindlessly quoting these teensy excerpts
from "Dead Wrong," by Richard Belzer, without checking the complete,
original documents to see what he might have left out, and also to see
if he even got the parts he quoted correct? It would appear so, as I
see exactly all these same excerpts in identical texts as what you've
posted on what appears to be your Facebook page, in another article by
you posted last year, and on several other sites. And what source does
Belzer give for this quote? I'm looking at a source right now that says
that Chism said ALL the shots came from behind him.
> Marion Chism;... "It came from behind us."
I think you mean Marvin Faye Chism, wife of John above, and in the
source that comes from "behind us" is the only direction named in the
entire statement for any of the gunfire.
> Ammett Hudson:.. "The shots that I heard definitely came from
> behind and above me." He was sitting on the steps on the Knoll.
I think you mean Emmett Hudson. Notice he said the "shots," plural. As
in ALL of them.
> Ronald Fisher:..." from just west of the TSBD."
Here's the complete sentence:
"They appeared to be coming from just west of the School Book Depository
Building."
They. Plural. ALL of them.
> Jean Hill: " I frankly thought they were coming from the Knoll."
ALL of the shots.
> Others that reported shots from the Knoll: Charles Brehm,
Charles Brehm said they came from the knoll on which occasion? A Dallas
Morning News story published very shortly after the assassination says
this of Brehm:
"Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the
President."
Now that could certainly be the knoll. But an FBI report on him from
two days after the assassination says this:
"He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came
from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."
Belzer could at least be honest and inform the reader that the two
documents differ.
> Roy
> Truly,
"I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA
project, behind the WPA project west of the building."
ALL the shots.
> Virgil Campbell,
Do you mean Ochus V. Campbell, Vice President of the Texas School Book
Depository Company? If so, I'm looking at a document in which the only
direction named for any of the gunfire was, quote, "his building."
Which building do you suppose that is? Did you independently decide to
put him in the knoll category, or are you going by Belzer without
checking the original sources?
> Mrs. Alvin Hopson,
"Immediately after he passed, she heard two or more loud sounds which
she thought were firecrackers. She stated that she thought they had been
set off on the street below, and she saw people on the street running
toward the underpass and the railroad track."
"On the street below." Why are you putting her in the grassy knoll
category?
> Mrs. Chas. Davis,
LOL!!! She isn't a Dealey Plaza witness, she's a witness in the
vicinity of the Tippit shooting. Jeez, did you get that from Belzer
too? If so, I'd advise you to throw that book away, rofl.
> Dorthy
> Ann Garner,
She said ALL the shots came from the west of the TSBD.
> Steven Wilson,
ALL the shots came from west of the TSBD.
> Otis Williams,
Heh:
"He thought these blasts came from the location of the court house."
But from a later statement:
"I thought these blasts or shots came form the direction of the viaduct
which crosses Elm Street."
Neither of those locations is exactly the grassy knoll, eh? So why did
you put him in the knoll category then?
> Victoria Adams,
Who said that ALL the shots came from below and to the west of the 4th
floor of the TSBD.
> Billy
> Lovelady,
Hmm. On the day of the assassination he said this:
"I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were
across the street from us."
As he was at the front entrance of the TSBD at the time, that is
certainly a very different direction from the knoll. However the
following March he said:
"I heard several loud reports which appeared to me to be in the
direction of Elm Street viaduct just ahead of the motorcade."
There's that viaduct again. But he also said "just ahead of the
motorcade." That could be a stretch to make that the knoll, since the
knoll was on the *right* of the motorcade.
> Danny Arce,
Who said ALL of the shots came from the railroad tracks west of the TSBD.
> Wesley Frazier,
ALL from the railroad tracks.
> James Jarman,
Whoops! Either you or Belzer made another blunder here. Jarman said
ALL of the shots came from below and to the EAST of the 6th floor of the
TSBD. That is the OPPOSITE direction from the knoll.
> Roger Craig,
Who, when asked by David Belin what direction he thought the gunfire had
come from, said:
"It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was
actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and
then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."
Why is he in the knoll category?
> J. E.
> Decker,
Who seemed to think ALL of the shots came from the "railroad yards."
> James Jarman,
Why are you listing him twice? He's still not in the knoll category
this time either. :P
> Harry Weatherford,
Who also thought ALL the shots came from the "railroad yards."
> and many more names can be
> added to the list.
Well, since two you already named, Mr. Jarman and Mrs. Davis, the latter
of whom wasn't even IN Dealey Plaza, certainly didn't say that ANY shots
came from the knoll, I'd suggest you check the names you add a good deal
more carefully than these names you used above. And out of all the ones
you named above, only one said the shots came from multiple directions:
S.M. "Skinny" Holland.
> And the Warren Commission had the gall to say all the shots... were
> fired from the sixth-floor within the TSBD... "There is no credible
> evidence that the shots were fired ... from any other location." WR
> 19
Uh-huh. And it seems to me that you have no clear understanding of why
they said that. Unlike you (and/or Belzer) they seemed to have noticed
the obvious pattern in the witness statements that you have missed.
If you look at all the witnesses who named the same direction, let's
say, the Triple Underpass, for the sounds of gunfire, you will find that
all, or nearly all of them, named only that single direction. They
thought ALL the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
Nearly all of the ones who named the TSBD thought ALL the shots came
from there.
Same thing with the knoll, as I've just demonstrated.
What is the most logical conclusion from this?
Simple tricks of acoustics, a common, mundane, everyday phenomenon.
Witness A is standing in one spot and thinks all the shots sound like
they're coming from the TSBD.
Witness B is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the knoll.
Witness C is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the Triple Underpass.
Witness D is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the Dal-Tex building.
Witness E is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the courthouse.
They are all quite obviously hearing the same shots being fired from the
same rifle. But due to there being tall buildings on three sides of the
plaza, the sound is reflected in various ways, and depending on where
you are in the plaza, the very same sound can seem as if it is coming
from one direction, but if you are in another location in the plaza, the
very same sound may seem as if it is coming from a different direction.
<4ae338f7-39e5-44a8...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Raymond <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote:
> How Many shots were fired President Kennedy?
>
> Most people say three. Supposedly, one (the first) shot missed, one
> shot hit JFK in the neck, passed through Connally and became the
> alleged magic-bullet. And the third was the fatal shot that hit the
> president in the head.
>
> The Warren Wizards said: "The consensus among the witnesses at the
> scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two
> shots. The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots
> was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent
> cartridges. This led the Commission to conclude that there were three
> shots...." WR 110-111.
>
> But, later they said, "The physical and other evidence examined by
> the Commission compels the conclusion that AT LEAST TWO SHOTS WERE
> FIRED... It is possible that the assassin carried an EMPTY SHELL IN
> THE RIFLE and fired only two shots ...." WR 111
I find it interesting that you did not quote the next three sentences:
> How Many shots were fired President Kennedy?
>
> Most people say three. Supposedly, one (the first) shot missed, one
> shot hit JFK in the neck, passed through Connally and became the
> alleged magic-bullet. And the third was the fatal shot that hit the
> president in the head.
>
> The Warren Wizards said: "The consensus among the witnesses at the
> scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two
> shots. The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots
> was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent
> cartridges. This led the Commission to conclude that there were three
> shots...." WR 110-111.
>
> But, later they said, "The physical and other evidence examined by
> the Commission compels the conclusion that AT LEAST TWO SHOTS WERE
> FIRED... It is possible that the assassin carried an EMPTY SHELL IN
> THE RIFLE and fired only two shots ...." WR 111
**********
Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene
decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely
circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously
colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots
were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular
the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were
three shots fired.
**********
> Summing up. One shot missed the car completely and there is no
> record of recovering any of its remains. One shot allegedly passed
> through Kennedy and Connally and magically remained near pristine and
> ended up at Parkland Hospital.
see if that's really true:
http://i.imgur.com/cakP7.jpg
Sure doesn't look "nearly pristine" to me. I am superbly confident that
if I stopped at least ten people at random on the street and didn't tell
them that this photo had anything to do with the JFK assassination, most
of them upon looking at it would more likely than not use a word such as
"deformed" or something of similar meaning. I doubt a single one of them
would utter the word "pristine" or any other word of similar meaning.
Since I live in east Texas, and there are a lot of hunters around here, I
could also show this photo to them without telling them this has anything
to do with the JFK assassination. I very much doubt any of them will call
it "pristine" either, even by preceding that with the word "nearly." In
fact, I think none of them will utter the word "pristine" in any context,
unless it is "not at all pristine."
It also looks perfectly consistent with what it has been claimed to have
done. The bullet entered JFK's back near the base of his neck and exited
the front of his throat. In its passage through his body it struck no
hard bone directly, though it seems to have nicked one of his vertebrae.
Thus one should not expect any significant damage to the bullet from that.
The passage through JFK's body first would also slow down the velocity of
the bullet significantly. It also caused the bullet to tumble, because
the entry in Connally's back was elongated, not circular. If the bullet
had hit Connally in the back directly, without having struck or passed
through anything else first, it would be far less likely to be tumbling,
as there wouldn't be any credible evidence to explain that, and the
entrance would be circular, like the one in JFK's back was.
In its passage through Connally's torso the bullet did indeed smash
through one of his ribs. Had the bullet struck the rib nose first, and
also without its velocity being reduced by passage through JFK first, then
yes, I might expect fragmentation or much more serious damage to the
bullet. But since the bullet was slowed down considerably before it
entered Connally, and furthermore did not enter his body nose first, there
is no credible evidence that it struck his rib nose first either.
It then exited his chest, its velocity having been slowed even more by the
additional passage through Connally's torso, and slammed through his right
wrist bones. But again, this would have been at a slower velocity than if
the only person the bullet had gone through had been Connally alone, and
again with the tumbling aspect there is no credible evidence that it hit
his wrist nose first either. So once again, it is unreasonable to expect
more damage than what appears in photos of the bullet. Finally the
bullet's velocity had been slowed down so much by passing through JFK,
then through Connally's torso, then through his wrist, that it was
traveling only fast enough to go a little way into his left thigh.
> This bullet weighed 161 grains before
> it was fired at the motorcade.
fired at the motorcade? They may have weighed similar bullets to get an
estimate, but even bullets from the same batch made by the same company
can often vary in weight by at least a few grains.
> When recovered it weighed 158.6 grains
> which means that very little was lost in its destructive journey.
velocity before it struck any hard bone directly than it would have if
it had hit Connally only, and was furthermore tumbling on top of that,
so it may well have not struck any bone nose first either.
> A fragment weighing 0.5 grains was recovered from Connally's arm.
> Audrey Bell, the operating nurse, stated that there were four or five
> fragments "anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a
> couple of millimeters wide " These fragments disappeared at the
> autopsy.
Could you give us a source for that, please? Thanks.
> In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg
> wound? Also , there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was
> never recovered. He died with fragments still in his body that weighed
> more that the alleged two to three missing grains from C-399 that was
> described as near pristine.
399 when no human who has ever lived knows for certain precisely how
many grains the bullet weighed before it was fired? And you also say
that it was "described as near pristine." Described that way by whom?
People who have never seen all of the photographs ever taken of it?
> And the Warrens say , about pristine, "The
> Governor's wrist wound WAS NOT CAUSED BY A PRISTINE BULLET." p.94
pristine, this is perfectly consistent. And again I find it interesting
that you didn't quote what immediately follows:
**********
A bullet is pristine immediately on exiting from a rifle muzzle when it
moves in a straight line with a spinning motion and maintains its uniform
trajectory with but a minimum of nose surface striking the air through
which it passes. When the straight line of flight of a bullet is deflected
by striking some object, it starts to wobble or become irregular in
flight, a condition called yaw. A bullet with yaw has a greater surface
exposed to the striking material or air, since the target or air is struck
not only by the nose of the bullet, its smallest striking surface, but
also by the bullet's sides.
**********
And then two paragraphs later:
**********
The conclusion that the Governor's wrist was not struck by a pristine
bullet was based upon the following: (1) greater damage was inflicted on
the test material than on the Governor's wrist; (2) the test material had
a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound, characteristic of a
pristine bullet, while the Governor's wrist had a larger entry wound as
compared with its exit wound, indicating a bullet which was tumbling; (3)
cloth was carried into the wrist wound, which is characteristic of an
irregular missile; (4) the partial cutting of a radial nerve and tendon
leading to the Governor's thumb further suggested that the bullet which
struck him was not pristine, since such a bullet would merely push aside a
tendon and nerve rather than catch and tear them; (5) the bullet found on
the Governor's stretcher probably did not pass through the wrist as a
pristine bullet because its nose was not considerably flattened, as was
the case with the pristine bullet which struck the simulated wrist; and
(6) the bullet which caused the Governor's thigh injury and then fell out
of the wound had a "very low velocity, " whereas the pristine bullets
fired during the tests possessed a very high exit velocity.
**********
Note carefully the use of "tumbling" and "very low velocity."
> So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
> removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
> After the coup,
What coup?
> two bullet fragments were found in the Lincoln.
> According to Warren , the two fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains
> respectively."The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose
> area... the lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base... the two
> fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine
> from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose
> of one bullet or of two separate bullets."
>
> If one bullet missed the car completely and one ended up at Parkland
> almost pristine,
> the last bullet had to be the bullet that hit JFK in
> the head and both fragments were from the same projectile.
>
> I KINDA think that, with the angle of the neck shot, the above
> fragments would remain in the car, ergo,the remains of the single
> bullet ,and the head shot bullet probably ended up in tiny bits in
> Dealey Plaza.
also ended up in tiny bits in Dealey Plaza? I would be interested in
the reasoning you use to support that.
> Some say that Tague was hit by the first MISSED shot, but he heard
> shots before he was hit by a very tiny fragment. So, he was probably
> hit by a fragment from the third shot instead of the ALLEGED MISSED
> FIRST SHOT.
> I personally do not believe there was a missed shot.
> If I were the
> master-mind of the coup,
> I would be sure to provide evidence that
> would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner, And since I
> could not rely on the future condition of the bullets actually fired
> at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a bullet through the
> barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63 and be sure to leave it
> where it would be found.
condition condition of the bullets actually fired at the occupants of the
limousine. You would have no possible way of knowing in advance how many
whole bullets and fragments might be recovered. You would run the risk of
planting one too many bullets. And did you forget that one or more of the
fragments found in the limousine ballistically matched the Carcano too?
> Enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
> As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
> Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
>
> I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
> bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
> the same bullet.
> I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
> the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher, at
> Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the limousine
> in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital
That's definitely a new one on me. I've seen the Jack Ruby Plants CE 399
At Parkland myth many times. But how do you think he intended first to
plant it in the limousine? Did he expect the limousine to stop in Dealey
Plaza after the shooting? And how would he have done that without dozens
and dozens and dozens of witnesses plainly seeing him do it?
I would recommend you rethink that one.
And what *credible* evidence is there that Jack Ruby ever touched that
bullet?
Let me guess: you got this from the movie "JFK," right?
Or are you going by the totally uncorroborated Seth Kantor?
And let me ask, have you ever read Jack Ruby's complete and unabridged
Warren Commission testimony all the way through from the very first word
to the very last word? If you haven't, I would highly recommend it. It
dispels a lot of other myths that are very often repeated by
conspiracy-oriented authors.
> I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it would be
> hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three SOUNDS that
> they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of these shots
> did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have been a shot at
> the President. Witnesses said it sounded different and it was the
> first sound.
the backfire of a motorcycle or a firecracker, and did not realize they
were hearing gunfire until after hearing the second or third shot. But
that's not quite the same thing as saying the first shot sounded different
from the subsequent shots. That just means the first shot was not
initially recognized as gunfire. And there were plenty of witnesses who
specifically said that all the shots sounded about the same in terms of
volume and so forth.
> Some of us believe that it was Jim Braden firing a 38.
> cal pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw attention away
> from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away.
> Was he the Secret
> Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The Commission may have
> thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll during the
> reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on the floor of the
> TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that it could not have
> been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I agree. (See Tink
> Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.)
prevent the bullet from firing, but was bent enough to cause the bullet
to exit the muzzle at a somewhat lower velocity than the other two
bullets. Did it ever occur to you that this may have been the single
bullet, which if so, would add an additional slowing to the bullet
besides the passage through JFK before hitting Connally, and thus would
make CE 399 even more plausible?
> Was it the empty casing that the
> Commission said may have been carried in the rifle? (P111 WR)
> If
> someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and witnesses reported
> three shots- it would help if three casings were found in the TSBD to
> make us believe that three shots were fired from there, NO?
location is not very plausible, given the witness statements. More on
that below.
> Agent Bennett : He was stationed in the right rear seat of the follow
> up car. He heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded
> down Elm Street. Could that have been Braden and his .38?
sounded different.
> Bennett
> then said, " I looked at the back of the President. I heard another
> firecracker noise and SAW THAT SHOT HIT THE PRESIDENT ABOUT FOUR
> INCHES DOWN THE RIGHT SHOULDER. A second shot followed immediately and
> hit the right rear of the President's head. Substantial weight may be
> given Bennett's observation.
from the first?
witnesses who said shots came from the knoll either specifically say
that ALL the shots came from the knoll, or else named no other direction
in their entire statements? Also more than 90% of those same witnesses
made no mention of any individual shot sounded louder and/or closer, or
softer and/or farther, than any other individual shot.
> and a careful analyses of testimonies clearly
> indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds, but it
> was not necessarily from a rifle.
of the three sounds, but that it was not necessarily from a rifle? Who,
may I ask, has done these "careful analyses"? Apparently not anyone who
has read the statements of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses.
> No one saw a weapon fired. They did
> report seeing and smelling smoke.
smelling smoke, and they came to no real consensus on the location of
the smoke.
> In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
> diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
> attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
> cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
> resulted from the shots at the motorcade.
there was any difference in volume and/or distance with any of the shots?
> Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
> shots were fired.
> Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the Knoll
> and fifty-six
> (53.8%) said the TSBD.
> I personally believe that both were right.
from the knoll? ;-)
> It is hard to imagine that one third of the witnesses were wrong
> when they reported shots from the Grassy Knoll.
obviously, at least one group of these witnesses has to be mistaken.
> What is more
> interesting is what they said.
> SS Agent Clinton Hill said that the second and third shots sounded
> alike. they had a different sound..."than the first sound I heard."
said anything even remotely like that. He only recalled two shots as
well. And I notice you didn't quote him explaining what it was that was
different about the sound of the second shot, which was the one Hill
thought hit JFK's head:
"The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing
against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound
of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal
place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the
head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it."
> Sam Holland; "...I definitely saw a puff of smoke and heard the
> report from under the trees."
who said the shots came from multiple directions. He also said there
were four shots, so he's very much in the minority of that too. But I
notice you didn't mention that he said it was the *third* shot, not the
first, that he associated with the smoke coming out from under the trees.
> Frank Reilly:... "at the park where all the shrubs is up
> there...up the slope."
only a few lines above the part you quoted. Fascinating that you're yet
another author, to be added to many that I've seen, who quotes these
documents very, very, very selectively, and don't quote the other parts
that destroy the argument you're making. I'll quote what you, uh,
"forgot" to quote:
**********
Mr. BALL - Did you hear something?
Mr. REILLY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. REILLY - Three shots.
Mr. BALL - Where did they seem to come from; what direction?
Mr. REILLY - It seemed to me like they came from out of the trees.
Mr. BALL - What trees?
Mr. REILLY - On the north side of Elm Street at the corner up there.
Mr. BALL - On the north side of Elm - on what corner?
Mr. REILLY - Well, where all those trees are - you've never been down
there?
Mr. BALL - Yes, I've been there, but you tell me - I want you to tell me
because it has to go on the record here and it has to be in writing.
Mr. REILLY - Well, it's at the park where all the shrubs is up there -
it's to the north of Elm Street - up the slope.
**********
Quite obviously he meant all three shots came from there, not one only,
as you seem to be implying.
> James Simmons:... " Fumes of smoke near the embankment."
"Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the
embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building."
Oh, and what's this, only four sentences later?
"Simmons advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the
direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building."
Awfully selective in your quotes, aren't you. And do you even know the
original source for that? It is the FBI report dated 3-17-64 which is
reproduced in CE 1416.
Admittedly however, Simmons gave a different version to Mark Lane in the
film "Rush to Judgement." This time he did indeed say that the smoke
came from directly in front of the fence on the knoll. I have not seen
the film in a while, though, and cannot at this moment remember whether,
as far as the sounds of the shots, they all seemed to him to come from
that same direction, or from separate directions.
> Austin Miller:..."there is a little plaza on the hill...who threw
> the firecracker or whatever it was."
same day as the assassination he said, "One shot apparently hit the
street past the car." And was he the only witness who said that they
saw something hit the street during the shooting? No. This certainly
does not support some things you said above. And what you quoted above
is from Miller's WC testimony, and I notice you didn't quote him just a
few lines below that where he said he thought all the shots came from
the same direction.
Are you actually looking at the complete, unabridged documents to get
these quotes, or are you just quoting some other author who quoted only
these excerpts?
> Clemon Johnson:... " white smoke was observed by the pavilion."
complete sentence that that comes from:
"Mr. Johnson stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion, but
he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot
by a Dallas policeman."
See what he said he thought the smoke came from? Are you purposefully
quoting only the tidbits that support your arguments, and purposefully
leaving out the parts that don't? Or are you just mindlessly quoting
someone else who only quoted these tidbits without bothering to check
the complete, unabridged original documents these excerpts are being
taken from?
> Mary Woodward, Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, Ann Donaldson: All
> on the sidewalk said they heard a horrible . "ear-shattering noise
> coming from behind us and a little to our right."
direction. I know exactly what the source of that quote is too. Do
you? And what is your source for Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, and Ann
Donaldson as far as which direction or directions they thought the
gunfire came from? The quote you gave is from Woodward only.
> John Chism: ..." by the Stemmons sign, I looked behind me,"
from "Dead Wrong," by Richard Belzer, without checking the complete,
original documents to see what he might have left out, and also to see
if he even got the parts he quoted correct? It would appear so, as I
see exactly all these same excerpts in identical texts as what you've
posted on what appears to be your Facebook page, in another article by
you posted last year, and on several other sites. And what source does
Belzer give for this quote? I'm looking at a source right now that says
that Chism said ALL the shots came from behind him.
> Marion Chism;... "It came from behind us."
source that comes from "behind us" is the only direction named in the
entire statement for any of the gunfire.
> Ammett Hudson:.. "The shots that I heard definitely came from
> behind and above me." He was sitting on the steps on the Knoll.
in ALL of them.
> Ronald Fisher:..." from just west of the TSBD."
"They appeared to be coming from just west of the School Book Depository
Building."
They. Plural. ALL of them.
> Jean Hill: " I frankly thought they were coming from the Knoll."
> Others that reported shots from the Knoll: Charles Brehm,
Morning News story published very shortly after the assassination says
this of Brehm:
"Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the
President."
Now that could certainly be the knoll. But an FBI report on him from
two days after the assassination says this:
"He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came
from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."
Belzer could at least be honest and inform the reader that the two
documents differ.
> Roy
> Truly,
"I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA
project, behind the WPA project west of the building."
ALL the shots.
> Virgil Campbell,
Do you mean Ochus V. Campbell, Vice President of the Texas School Book
Depository Company? If so, I'm looking at a document in which the only
direction named for any of the gunfire was, quote, "his building."
Which building do you suppose that is? Did you independently decide to
put him in the knoll category, or are you going by Belzer without
checking the original sources?
> Mrs. Alvin Hopson,
"Immediately after he passed, she heard two or more loud sounds which
she thought were firecrackers. She stated that she thought they had been
set off on the street below, and she saw people on the street running
toward the underpass and the railroad track."
"On the street below." Why are you putting her in the grassy knoll
category?
> Mrs. Chas. Davis,
LOL!!! She isn't a Dealey Plaza witness, she's a witness in the
vicinity of the Tippit shooting. Jeez, did you get that from Belzer
too? If so, I'd advise you to throw that book away, rofl.
> Dorthy
> Ann Garner,
She said ALL the shots came from the west of the TSBD.
> Steven Wilson,
ALL the shots came from west of the TSBD.
> Otis Williams,
Heh:
"He thought these blasts came from the location of the court house."
But from a later statement:
"I thought these blasts or shots came form the direction of the viaduct
which crosses Elm Street."
Neither of those locations is exactly the grassy knoll, eh? So why did
you put him in the knoll category then?
> Victoria Adams,
Who said that ALL the shots came from below and to the west of the 4th
floor of the TSBD.
> Billy
> Lovelady,
Hmm. On the day of the assassination he said this:
"I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were
across the street from us."
As he was at the front entrance of the TSBD at the time, that is
certainly a very different direction from the knoll. However the
following March he said:
"I heard several loud reports which appeared to me to be in the
direction of Elm Street viaduct just ahead of the motorcade."
There's that viaduct again. But he also said "just ahead of the
motorcade." That could be a stretch to make that the knoll, since the
knoll was on the *right* of the motorcade.
> Danny Arce,
Who said ALL of the shots came from the railroad tracks west of the TSBD.
> Wesley Frazier,
ALL from the railroad tracks.
> James Jarman,
Whoops! Either you or Belzer made another blunder here. Jarman said
ALL of the shots came from below and to the EAST of the 6th floor of the
TSBD. That is the OPPOSITE direction from the knoll.
> Roger Craig,
Who, when asked by David Belin what direction he thought the gunfire had
come from, said:
"It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was
actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and
then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."
Why is he in the knoll category?
> J. E.
> Decker,
Who seemed to think ALL of the shots came from the "railroad yards."
> James Jarman,
Why are you listing him twice? He's still not in the knoll category
this time either. :P
> Harry Weatherford,
Who also thought ALL the shots came from the "railroad yards."
> and many more names can be
> added to the list.
of whom wasn't even IN Dealey Plaza, certainly didn't say that ANY shots
came from the knoll, I'd suggest you check the names you add a good deal
more carefully than these names you used above. And out of all the ones
you named above, only one said the shots came from multiple directions:
S.M. "Skinny" Holland.
> And the Warren Commission had the gall to say all the shots... were
> fired from the sixth-floor within the TSBD... "There is no credible
> evidence that the shots were fired ... from any other location." WR
> 19
they said that. Unlike you (and/or Belzer) they seemed to have noticed
the obvious pattern in the witness statements that you have missed.
If you look at all the witnesses who named the same direction, let's
say, the Triple Underpass, for the sounds of gunfire, you will find that
all, or nearly all of them, named only that single direction. They
thought ALL the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
Nearly all of the ones who named the TSBD thought ALL the shots came
from there.
Same thing with the knoll, as I've just demonstrated.
What is the most logical conclusion from this?
Simple tricks of acoustics, a common, mundane, everyday phenomenon.
Witness A is standing in one spot and thinks all the shots sound like
they're coming from the TSBD.
Witness B is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the knoll.
Witness C is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the Triple Underpass.
Witness D is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the Dal-Tex building.
Witness E is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
like they're coming from the courthouse.
They are all quite obviously hearing the same shots being fired from the
same rifle. But due to there being tall buildings on three sides of the
plaza, the sound is reflected in various ways, and depending on where
you are in the plaza, the very same sound can seem as if it is coming
from one direction, but if you are in another location in the plaza, the
very same sound may seem as if it is coming from a different direction.
Research
Oct 11, 2012, 10:50:20 PM10/11/12
to
I read you post and agree with what you said. Thanks for intrest in my
thoughts. You answer, even though intriging, did not answer the question.
The question was, was there any other witnesses who saw the rifle in the
window? Cause I don't think there was only three shot. I do think the
assassin's nest a ploy and the MC was a throw down. But proving it is the
million dollar answer.
I also find it curious that only two (so far) witnesses out of the over 3
hundred looked up to the depository. Hundreds of people stood on the
corner around the building and only two looked up. I can't believe in only
3 shots and that these shots came from the dep. Many of the people the WC
claimed heard 3 shots from the dep was not even asked. Some of these
witneses claimed the FBI had them sign blank affidavids and when they
found out the affidavids were falsified, it was to late.
All the evidence around the MC can be discredited. Oswald had to die to
keep him out of court. The circumstantial evidence of the case would not
hold up. The bent shell is only one example. The "eye" witnesses who did
not see the large scope mounted on the rifle is another issue. They
described they saw the shooter's finger on the trigger. But they did not
see the scope? I personally think the shooter, if there really was one,
used an automatic rifle without a scope. I say automatic because the shots
sound timing were to close together to be a bolt-action. The second and
third shots were reported to almost on top of each other. The dictabelt
showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I rather
think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was a
fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
thoughts. You answer, even though intriging, did not answer the question.
The question was, was there any other witnesses who saw the rifle in the
window? Cause I don't think there was only three shot. I do think the
assassin's nest a ploy and the MC was a throw down. But proving it is the
million dollar answer.
I also find it curious that only two (so far) witnesses out of the over 3
hundred looked up to the depository. Hundreds of people stood on the
corner around the building and only two looked up. I can't believe in only
3 shots and that these shots came from the dep. Many of the people the WC
claimed heard 3 shots from the dep was not even asked. Some of these
witneses claimed the FBI had them sign blank affidavids and when they
found out the affidavids were falsified, it was to late.
All the evidence around the MC can be discredited. Oswald had to die to
keep him out of court. The circumstantial evidence of the case would not
hold up. The bent shell is only one example. The "eye" witnesses who did
not see the large scope mounted on the rifle is another issue. They
described they saw the shooter's finger on the trigger. But they did not
see the scope? I personally think the shooter, if there really was one,
used an automatic rifle without a scope. I say automatic because the shots
sound timing were to close together to be a bolt-action. The second and
third shots were reported to almost on top of each other. The dictabelt
showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I rather
think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was a
fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 4:57:21 PM10/12/12
to
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:01:57 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory (copyright Anthony Marsh 1995)
where one bullet goes through JFK's torso and then Connally's torso and
then another bullet hits Connally's wrist after the head shot?
Oh, you copyrighted that, did you? I must owe you a dime for every time I
> How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory (copyright Anthony Marsh 1995)
where one bullet goes through JFK's torso and then Connally's torso and
then another bullet hits Connally's wrist after the head shot?
say that was the shot at Zapruder frame 322.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 12, 2012, 5:38:12 PM10/12/12
to
On 10/11/2012 10:50 PM, Research wrote:
> I read you post and agree with what you said. Thanks for intrest in my
> thoughts. You answer, even though intriging, did not answer the question.
> The question was, was there any other witnesses who saw the rifle in the
> window? Cause I don't think there was only three shot. I do think the
> assassin's nest a ploy and the MC was a throw down. But proving it is the
> million dollar answer.
Your question is nonsense. People seeing a rifle in the window does not
> I read you post and agree with what you said. Thanks for intrest in my
> thoughts. You answer, even though intriging, did not answer the question.
> The question was, was there any other witnesses who saw the rifle in the
> window? Cause I don't think there was only three shot. I do think the
> assassin's nest a ploy and the MC was a throw down. But proving it is the
> million dollar answer.
prove it was fired and does not rule out a second rifle from somewhere
else. That's why we pushed for the HSCA and their tests PROVED that
three shots were fired from the sniper's nest and one shot was fired
from the grassy knoll.
Maybe more refined tests could even prove that it was Oswald's rifle
that fired all three shots. But in the meantime the recovered bullet and
fragments were fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
> I also find it curious that only two (so far) witnesses out of the over 3
> hundred looked up to the depository. Hundreds of people stood on the
were never questioned.
> corner around the building and only two looked up. I can't believe in only
> 3 shots and that these shots came from the dep. Many of the people the WC
> claimed heard 3 shots from the dep was not even asked. Some of these
> witneses claimed the FBI had them sign blank affidavids and when they
> found out the affidavids were falsified, it was to late.
>
are claiming.
> All the evidence around the MC can be discredited. Oswald had to die to
> keep him out of court. The circumstantial evidence of the case would not
> hold up. The bent shell is only one example. The "eye" witnesses who did
had 25 convictions out of 26 cases. Wade could have convicted a ham
sandwich.
> not see the large scope mounted on the rifle is another issue. They
> described they saw the shooter's finger on the trigger. But they did not
> see the scope? I personally think the shooter, if there really was one,
> used an automatic rifle without a scope. I say automatic because the shots
> sound timing were to close together to be a bolt-action. The second and
> third shots were reported to almost on top of each other. The dictabelt
> showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I rather
than a second are not from the same weapon. They are from two weapons in
two different locations. Try reading the evidence before setting out to
dream up wacky theories.
> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was a
> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
>
>
fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had
dozens of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
destroying evidence of conspiracy?
Ah ha, but what he didn't know is that the real conversation was
accidentally duplicated on an early part of the tape via printthtough!
You know, that aside to Haldeman where he said, "God damn it, I covered
up for Helms when he killed Kennedy and now God damn it, he's going to
cover up for me."
>
>
claviger
Oct 12, 2012, 8:58:32 PM10/12/12
to
JRK,
> > So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
> > removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > After the coup,
>
> What coup?
President Kennedy was much more conservative than VP Johnson. If LBJ
was the mastermind behind this assassination, as some CTs believe,
then this was a Liberal coup to overthrow a Conservative Democrat.
> > So this leaves one bullet and it had to be the fatal projectile that
> > removed part of the president's skull and much of his brains.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > After the coup,
>
> What coup?
was the mastermind behind this assassination, as some CTs believe,
then this was a Liberal coup to overthrow a Conservative Democrat.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 12, 2012, 9:08:08 PM10/12/12
to
BTW, the acoustical evidence PROVES that there were exactly three shots
fired from the sniper's nest. No need for guessing.
> **********
>
>> Summing up. One shot missed the car completely and there is no
>> record of recovering any of its remains. One shot allegedly passed
>> through Kennedy and Connally and magically remained near pristine and
>> ended up at Parkland Hospital.
>
> Oh yes, there's the "magically remained near pristine" myth again. Let's
> see if that's really true:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/cakP7.jpg
>
> Sure doesn't look "nearly pristine" to me. I am superbly confident that
> if I stopped at least ten people at random on the street and didn't tell
liars and you, a non-shooter, are more expert than the WC experts?
> them that this photo had anything to do with the JFK assassination, most
> of them upon looking at it would more likely than not use a word such as
> "deformed" or something of similar meaning. I doubt a single one of them
> would utter the word "pristine" or any other word of similar meaning.
> Since I live in east Texas, and there are a lot of hunters around here, I
> could also show this photo to them without telling them this has anything
> to do with the JFK assassination. I very much doubt any of them will call
> it "pristine" either, even by preceding that with the word "nearly." In
> fact, I think none of them will utter the word "pristine" in any context,
> unless it is "not at all pristine."
>
it nearly pristine they are liars?
> It also looks perfectly consistent with what it has been claimed to have
> done. The bullet entered JFK's back near the base of his neck and exited
> the front of his throat. In its passage through his body it struck no
> hard bone directly, though it seems to have nicked one of his vertebrae.
where in the WC they admitted that it nicked one of his vertebrae. FAIL
> Thus one should not expect any significant damage to the bullet from that.
> The passage through JFK's body first would also slow down the velocity of
> the bullet significantly. It also caused the bullet to tumble, because
lied about that.
> the entry in Connally's back was elongated, not circular. If the bullet
tumbling.
> had hit Connally in the back directly, without having struck or passed
> through anything else first, it would be far less likely to be tumbling,
> as there wouldn't be any credible evidence to explain that, and the
> entrance would be circular, like the one in JFK's back was.
>
tumbling and yet that entrance wound is supposedly exactly as elongated
as Connally's back wound. I have made this point a million times and no
WC defender will dare touch it or admit it.
> In its passage through Connally's torso the bullet did indeed smash
> through one of his ribs. Had the bullet struck the rib nose first, and
> also without its velocity being reduced by passage through JFK first, then
> yes, I might expect fragmentation or much more serious damage to the
> bullet. But since the bullet was slowed down considerably before it
> entered Connally, and furthermore did not enter his body nose first, there
> is no credible evidence that it struck his rib nose first either.
>
> It then exited his chest, its velocity having been slowed even more by the
> additional passage through Connally's torso, and slammed through his right
> wrist bones. But again, this would have been at a slower velocity than if
> the only person the bullet had gone through had been Connally alone, and
> again with the tumbling aspect there is no credible evidence that it hit
> his wrist nose first either. So once again, it is unreasonable to expect
> more damage than what appears in photos of the bullet. Finally the
My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination
By Joseph R. Dolce, MD, FACS
I am the Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics at the
Edgewood Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. I have been
dealing with high velocity missles for the Army for the past twenty?five
years and I feel that there are no forensic pathologists in this country
who have had the experience I have had with this type of missile. The
forensic pathologist in civilian life, deals primarily with homicides
caused by slow velocity missiles.
I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the
VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I
reviewed all the X?rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley
[sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on
my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley)
specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured
until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast
on his right hand and forearm ? but, in an interview with Life magazine
? he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.
I am disturbed as to why I was not asked by the Warren Commission to
give final testimony, even though Doctors Olivier and Dzimean [sic], to
whom I serve as their Consultant were called, to give final testimony. I
had advised these doctors to conduct certain experiments at Edgewood ?
which they did ? and their findings were not consistent with their
testimony.
Dr. Olivier accepts Dr. Gregory?s impression of what was the entrance
and what was the exit wounds of Connaley?s right wrist, in spite of the
fact, that his experiments on ten (10) cadaver wrists proved just the
opposite ? yet, he is willing to accept the conclusions of Gregory, who
has no wound ballistic experience. This is extremely important, as he
then tries to fit the yaw and the tumbling effects to coincide with
Gregory?s interpretations ? this is wrong and this is the part of the
investigation that has been criticized so bitterly in medical circles.
Personally, I strongly believe that the wrist wound in a separate and
distinct wound made by one of the shots by Oswald. Also ? this bullet is
not deformed and yet, the bullets that struck the cadaver wrists are
badly deformed, and these same bullets did not go through a neck or
through a chest wall. In the experiments on ten cadaver wrists, all the
exit wounds are larger than the entrance wounds ? this is a known fact ?
yet, Dr. Olivier chose to accept Gregory?s thoughts of Connaley?s wound
as just the opposite.
I feel that the first bullet fired by Oswald went through the
President?s neck and caused him to become paralyzed even though the
bullet did not strike the spine. This is due to the fact that you can
have an injury to the spinal cord with high velocity missiles without
the missiles striking the cord, because of the large temporary cavity
produced by high velocity missiles. I can demonstrate amd [sic] prove
this fact by several films which we have developed at the Edgewood
Arsenal. The autopsy should have included a section of the cervical
spinal cord, which I am sure would have demonstrated a hemorrhage.
I am convinced that the one bullet theory is wrong, because of the fact,
that one bullet striking the President?s neck, the Governor?s chest and
wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood
Arsenal proved. There never was a bullet in Governor Connaley?s left
thigh, but just a small fragment which I feel came from the third bullet
which struck J.F.K. in the head. My testimony on the one bullet theory
are [sic] clearly written in Dr. Thompson?s book ? ?Six Seconds in
Dallas? on pages 152 and 206.
I feel that the sequence of the bullets is as follows:
The first bullet went through JFK?s neck and this is the so?called
pristine bullet
The second bullet went through Governor Connaley?s chest and wrist
and the film clearly demonstrates Connaley?s wrist against his chest
wall. I feel that this is the bullet that is missing
The third bullet struck JFK in the head and one fragment of this
bullet struck Connaley in the left thigh and also struck the windshield
of the car
I feel that Oswald was the sole assassin who fired the three shots.
This is not an unusual deduction with high velocity missiles and we are
compounding this investigation because it happens to be the President of
the U.S. who was assassinated.
I have waited so long to express my thoughts, because I did not realize
that the testimony given by my colleagues at Edgewood, was so different
from what we had discussed and proved by experiments at Edgewood.
I am in the private practice of General Surgery & trauma and have had a
great deal of experience in my private practice with gun shot wounds,
also I served 37 years in the U.S. Army and Army reserves and have had
wide experience with wounds caused by high velocity missiles.
I am a retired colonel of the U.S. Army Medical Corps.
I am a board certified surgeon and a Fellow and the American College of
Surgeons and also, the Army?s ballistics expert and I feel that I should
be given the opportunity to express my thoughts before a responsible
group of people.
I have been awarded the following decorations for my work in Wound
Ballistics
The Distinguished Civilian Service Medal ? the Army?s highest
civilian service award
The Legion of Merit ? the Army?s fifth highest military award.
Joseph R. Dolce, M.D. F.A.C.S.
> bullet's velocity had been slowed down so much by passing through JFK,
> then through Connally's torso, then through his wrist, that it was
> traveling only fast enough to go a little way into his left thigh.
>
>> This bullet weighed 161 grains before
>> it was fired at the motorcade.
>
> How do you know that, when the bullet was never weighed before it was
> fired at the motorcade? They may have weighed similar bullets to get an
> estimate, but even bullets from the same batch made by the same company
> can often vary in weight by at least a few grains.
>
>> When recovered it weighed 158.6 grains
>> which means that very little was lost in its destructive journey.
>
> As one would expect, given that the bullet was traveling at a lower
> velocity before it struck any hard bone directly than it would have if
> it had hit Connally only, and was furthermore tumbling on top of that,
> so it may well have not struck any bone nose first either.
>
>> A fragment weighing 0.5 grains was recovered from Connally's arm.
>> Audrey Bell, the operating nurse, stated that there were four or five
>> fragments "anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a
>> couple of millimeters wide " These fragments disappeared at the
>> autopsy.
>
> Bullet fragments from Connally's arm disappeared at the autopsy of JFK?
> Could you give us a source for that, please? Thanks.
>
But he may be remembering reports that fragments fell out during
Connally's operation and were not recovered.
>> In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg
>> wound? Also , there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was
>> never recovered. He died with fragments still in his body that weighed
>> more that the alleged two to three missing grains from C-399 that was
>> described as near pristine.
>
> I'm still wondering how you know how many grains were missing from CE
> 399 when no human who has ever lived knows for certain precisely how
> many grains the bullet weighed before it was fired? And you also say
> that it was "described as near pristine." Described that way by whom?
> People who have never seen all of the photographs ever taken of it?
>
>> two bullet fragments were found in the Lincoln.
>> According to Warren , the two fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains
>> respectively."The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose
>> area... the lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base... the two
>> fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine
>> from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose
>> of one bullet or of two separate bullets."
>>
>> If one bullet missed the car completely and one ended up at Parkland
>> almost pristine,
>
> You mean "noticeably deformed."
>
>> the last bullet had to be the bullet that hit JFK in
>> the head and both fragments were from the same projectile.
>>
>> I KINDA think that, with the angle of the neck shot, the above
>> fragments would remain in the car, ergo,the remains of the single
>> bullet ,and the head shot bullet probably ended up in tiny bits in
>> Dealey Plaza.
>
> The head shot bullet maybe so. But the remains of the single bullet
> also ended up in tiny bits in Dealey Plaza? I would be interested in
> the reasoning you use to support that.
>
from the head shot, but the two large fragments found the front seat
area could have come from the wrist shot.
>> Some say that Tague was hit by the first MISSED shot, but he heard
>> shots before he was hit by a very tiny fragment. So, he was probably
>> hit by a fragment from the third shot instead of the ALLEGED MISSED
>> FIRST SHOT.
>
> Tague was not exactly certain which shot hit him.
>
knocked off the curb by a bullet fragment.
>> I personally do not believe there was a missed shot.
>
> Oh? Based on what evidence?
>
>> If I were the
>> master-mind of the coup,
>
> What coup?
>
>> I would be sure to provide evidence that
>> would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner, And since I
>> could not rely on the future condition of the bullets actually fired
>> at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a bullet through the
>> barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63 and be sure to leave it
>> where it would be found.
>
> But you just articulated the problem. You could not rely on the future
> condition condition of the bullets actually fired at the occupants of the
> limousine. You would have no possible way of knowing in advance how many
> whole bullets and fragments might be recovered. You would run the risk of
> planting one too many bullets. And did you forget that one or more of the
> fragments found in the limousine ballistically matched the Carcano too?
>
A. Know that this type of bullet can go through someone without staying
in the body and keep going for a half mile, or
B. Fire an intentional miss to allow you to plant a phony bullet.
How come the FBI said three shots, three hits and no misses and Frazier
said that two large fragments could have come from two different bullets?
Add in the washing out of the back seat at Parkland, tearing out the rug
and throwing it away, and throwing away parts of the limousine which
were hit by bullets.
If you look at only the limousine damage you could have at least 3
bullets which hit neither man, but were never recovered. The limousine
is the Best Evidence.
And they destroyed it.
That would be like the LA police throwing away the tiles from the pantry
where RFK was assassinated.
>> Enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
>
> Oh no, that tired old myth again?
>
>> As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
>> Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
>>
>> I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
>> bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
>> the same bullet.
>
> Why is that, exactly?
>
>> I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
>> the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher, at
>> Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the limousine
>> in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital
>
> Oh, he was originally planning to plant the bullet in the limousine?
> That's definitely a new one on me. I've seen the Jack Ruby Plants CE 399
> At Parkland myth many times. But how do you think he intended first to
> plant it in the limousine? Did he expect the limousine to stop in Dealey
> Plaza after the shooting? And how would he have done that without dozens
> and dozens and dozens of witnesses plainly seeing him do it?
>
> I would recommend you rethink that one.
>
going upwards of 70 MPH and Jack Ruby was out of shape.
So the limo is parked in the emergency bay so why couldn't he plant CE
399 in it then? Maybe because it was being guarded or the SS put the top
on it.
> And what *credible* evidence is there that Jack Ruby ever touched that
> bullet?
>
> Let me guess: you got this from the movie "JFK," right?
>
> Or are you going by the totally uncorroborated Seth Kantor?
>
years later.
> And let me ask, have you ever read Jack Ruby's complete and unabridged
> Warren Commission testimony all the way through from the very first word
> to the very last word? If you haven't, I would highly recommend it. It
> dispels a lot of other myths that are very often repeated by
> conspiracy-oriented authors.
>
highly recommend it.
>> I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it would be
>> hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three SOUNDS that
>> they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of these shots
>> did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have been a shot at
>> the President. Witnesses said it sounded different and it was the
>> first sound.
>
> That is a misleading statement. Many witnesses thought the first shot was
> the backfire of a motorcycle or a firecracker, and did not realize they
> were hearing gunfire until after hearing the second or third shot. But
> that's not quite the same thing as saying the first shot sounded different
> from the subsequent shots. That just means the first shot was not
> initially recognized as gunfire. And there were plenty of witnesses who
> specifically said that all the shots sounded about the same in terms of
> volume and so forth.
>
muzzle velocity than the other shots. It's known in the trade as a
fouling shot.
>> Some of us believe that it was Jim Braden firing a 38.
>> cal pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw attention away
>> from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away.
>
> Do you now? Fascinating. ;-)
>
>> Was he the Secret
>> Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The Commission may have
>> thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll during the
>> reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on the floor of the
>> TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that it could not have
>> been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I agree. (See Tink
>> Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.)
>
> Or an alternate explanation: the bent casing wasn't quite bent enough to
> prevent the bullet from firing, but was bent enough to cause the bullet
even be able to hold a bullet in that condition. So your theory is
nonsense. So is Tink's. It only gets that dent AFTER the bullet has been
fired successfully as the primer shows. It can happen if you try to
reload too quickly. It happened to Todd Vaughan on every third shot and
happened in the CBS tests one third of the time. It is a mechanical
failure where the empty is not ejected.
It used to happen on my AR-7 about 1 in 100 times and more often with
one brand than another.
> to exit the muzzle at a somewhat lower velocity than the other two
> bullets. Did it ever occur to you that this may have been the single
> bullet, which if so, would add an additional slowing to the bullet
> besides the passage through JFK before hitting Connally, and thus would
> make CE 399 even more plausible?
>
>> Was it the empty casing that the
>> Commission said may have been carried in the rifle? (P111 WR)
>
> Doubtful.
>
>> If
>> someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and witnesses reported
>> three shots- it would help if three casings were found in the TSBD to
>> make us believe that three shots were fired from there, NO?
>
> Unfortunately one of the three shots being fired from a different
> location is not very plausible, given the witness statements. More on
> that below.
>
grassy knoll area.
>> and a careful analyses of testimonies clearly
>> indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds, but it
>> was not necessarily from a rifle.
>
> Careful analyses of testimonies clearly indicates that it was the first
> of the three sounds, but that it was not necessarily from a rifle? Who,
> may I ask, has done these "careful analyses"? Apparently not anyone who
> has read the statements of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses.
>
shot from the sniper's nest. Not a blank, not a silencer, not a handgun.
>> No one saw a weapon fired. They did
>> report seeing and smelling smoke.
>
> A tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the witnesses reported seeing and
> smelling smoke, and they came to no real consensus on the location of
> the smoke.
>
Fresh footprints and fresh cigarette butts were found in that spot.
>> In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
>> diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
>> attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
>> cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
>> resulted from the shots at the motorcade.
>
> Then why did so very few witnesses, less than 10% of them, say that
> there was any difference in volume and/or distance with any of the shots?
>
>> Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
>> shots were fired.
>
> Yep, about that.
>
>> Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the Knoll
>
> Nearly all of whom said that ALL the shots came from the knoll.
>
>> and fifty-six
>> (53.8%) said the TSBD.
>
> Nearly all of whom said that ALL the shots came from the TSBD.
>
>> I personally believe that both were right.
>
> You believe that all the shots came from the TSBD and all the shots came
> from the knoll? ;-)
>
>> It is hard to imagine that one third of the witnesses were wrong
>> when they reported shots from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> When they reported that ALL the shots came from the knoll. Rather
> obviously, at least one group of these witnesses has to be mistaken.
>
>> What is more
>> interesting is what they said.
>> SS Agent Clinton Hill said that the second and third shots sounded
>> alike. they had a different sound..."than the first sound I heard."
>
> Yes, and he is one of the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of witnesses who
> said anything even remotely like that. He only recalled two shots as
> well. And I notice you didn't quote him explaining what it was that was
> different about the sound of the second shot, which was the one Hill
> thought hit JFK's head:
>
> "The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing
> against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound
> of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal
> place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the
> head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it."
>
>> Sam Holland; "...I definitely saw a puff of smoke and heard the
>> report from under the trees."
>
> Ah yes, ole Skinny, one of the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of witnesses
> who said the shots came from multiple directions. He also said there
> were four shots, so he's very much in the minority of that too. But I
> notice you didn't mention that he said it was the *third* shot, not the
> first, that he associated with the smoke coming out from under the trees.
>
embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building? Show
me that in any film or photograph.
Maybe you have that on the filming of the HSCA test shooting.
> Oh, and what's this, only four sentences later?
>
> "Simmons advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the
> direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>
> Awfully selective in your quotes, aren't you. And do you even know the
> original source for that? It is the FBI report dated 3-17-64 which is
> reproduced in CE 1416.
>
volumes.
Did he say he heard three and only three shots?
>> Ronald Fisher:..." from just west of the TSBD."
>
> Here's the complete sentence:
>
> "They appeared to be coming from just west of the School Book Depository
> Building."
>
> They. Plural. ALL of them.
>
>> Jean Hill: " I frankly thought they were coming from the Knoll."
>
> ALL of the shots.
>
>> Others that reported shots from the Knoll: Charles Brehm,
>
> Charles Brehm said they came from the knoll on which occasion? A Dallas
> Morning News story published very shortly after the assassination says
> this of Brehm:
>
> "Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the
> President."
>
> Now that could certainly be the knoll. But an FBI report on him from
> two days after the assassination says this:
>
> "He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came
> from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."
>
> Belzer could at least be honest and inform the reader that the two
> documents differ.
>
>> Roy
>> Truly,
>
> "I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA
> project, behind the WPA project west of the building."
>
> ALL the shots.
>
>> Virgil Campbell,
>
> Do you mean Ochus V. Campbell, Vice President of the Texas School Book
> Depository Company? If so, I'm looking at a document in which the only
> direction named for any of the gunfire was, quote, "his building."
> Which building do you suppose that is? Did you independently decide to
> put him in the knoll category, or are you going by Belzer without
> checking the original sources?
>
>> Mrs. Alvin Hopson,
>
> "Immediately after he passed, she heard two or more loud sounds which
> she thought were firecrackers. She stated that she thought they had been
> set off on the street below, and she saw people on the street running
> toward the underpass and the railroad track."
>
> "On the street below." Why are you putting her in the grassy knoll
> category?
>
sixth floor. What you need to do is claim that she was confused by the
echo.
>> Mrs. Chas. Davis,
>
> LOL!!! She isn't a Dealey Plaza witness, she's a witness in the
> vicinity of the Tippit shooting. Jeez, did you get that from Belzer
> too? If so, I'd advise you to throw that book away, rofl.
>
>> Dorthy
>> Ann Garner,
>
> She said ALL the shots came from the west of the TSBD.
>
>> Steven Wilson,
>
> ALL the shots came from west of the TSBD.
>
>> Otis Williams,
>
> Heh:
>
> "He thought these blasts came from the location of the court house."
>
> But from a later statement:
>
> "I thought these blasts or shots came form the direction of the viaduct
> which crosses Elm Street."
>
> Neither of those locations is exactly the grassy knoll, eh? So why did
> you put him in the knoll category then?
>
>> Victoria Adams,
>
> Who said that ALL the shots came from below and to the west of the 4th
> floor of the TSBD.
>
>> Billy
>> Lovelady,
>
> Hmm. On the day of the assassination he said this:
>
> "I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were
> across the street from us."
>
> As he was at the front entrance of the TSBD at the time, that is
> certainly a very different direction from the knoll. However the
> following March he said:
>
> "I heard several loud reports which appeared to me to be in the
> direction of Elm Street viaduct just ahead of the motorcade."
>
> There's that viaduct again. But he also said "just ahead of the
> motorcade." That could be a stretch to make that the knoll, since the
> knoll was on the *right* of the motorcade.
>
standing was confused by an echo.
>> Danny Arce,
>
> Who said ALL of the shots came from the railroad tracks west of the TSBD.
>
>> Wesley Frazier,
>
> ALL from the railroad tracks.
>
>> James Jarman,
>
> Whoops! Either you or Belzer made another blunder here. Jarman said
> ALL of the shots came from below and to the EAST of the 6th floor of the
> TSBD. That is the OPPOSITE direction from the knoll.
>
>> Roger Craig,
>
> Who, when asked by David Belin what direction he thought the gunfire had
> come from, said:
>
> "It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was
> actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and
> then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."
>
because you think there were only 3 shots.
>
> Same thing with the knoll, as I've just demonstrated.
>
> What is the most logical conclusion from this?
>
> Simple tricks of acoustics, a common, mundane, everyday phenomenon.
>
HSCA gave when he talked about acoustical ducting could make a shot
fired somewhere else sound like it was fired from the grassy knoll?
Is there no level that the cover-up will stoop to in order to deny
simple facts?
> Witness A is standing in one spot and thinks all the shots sound like
> they're coming from the TSBD.
>
> Witness B is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
> like they're coming from the knoll.
>
> Witness C is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
> like they're coming from the Triple Underpass.
>
> Witness D is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
> like they're coming from the Dal-Tex building.
>
> Witness E is standing in another spot and thinks all the shots sound
> like they're coming from the courthouse.
>
> They are all quite obviously hearing the same shots being fired from the
> same rifle. But due to there being tall buildings on three sides of the
> plaza, the sound is reflected in various ways, and depending on where
> you are in the plaza, the very same sound can seem as if it is coming
> from one direction, but if you are in another location in the plaza, the
> very same sound may seem as if it is coming from a different direction.
>
directions. Yeah, right.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:41:21 AM10/13/12
to
On Friday, October 12, 2012 5:38:12 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>That's why we pushed for the HSCA and their tests PROVED that
>
> three shots were fired from the sniper's nest and one shot was fired
>
> from the grassy knoll.
They proved that experts can hear any damn thing they want in static. Are
>That's why we pushed for the HSCA and their tests PROVED that
>
> three shots were fired from the sniper's nest and one shot was fired
>
> from the grassy knoll.
these also the experts who proved that Hargis was the only cop wearing
gloves, or is that just another of your copyrighted theories?
Research
Oct 13, 2012, 11:32:11 AM10/13/12
to
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:507856b7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
still exist today. Hell, they just arrested a local coroner in my area,
just like they been doing all over the country. For falsefing evidence.
>
>> not see the large scope mounted on the rifle is another issue. They
>> described they saw the shooter's finger on the trigger. But they did not
>> see the scope? I personally think the shooter, if there really was one,
>> used an automatic rifle without a scope. I say automatic because the
>> shots
>
> Never rely on witnesses.
>
>> sound timing were to close together to be a bolt-action. The second and
>> third shots were reported to almost on top of each other. The dictabelt
>
> The acoustical evidence rules out an automatic.
>
>> showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I rather
>
> You know nothing about the Dictabelt. Those two shots separated by less
> than a second are not from the same weapon. They are from two weapons in
> two different locations. Try reading the evidence before setting out to
> dream up wacky theories.
trumpets!
>
>> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was a
>> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
>> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
>> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
> So your brilliant conspirators cover up their conspiracy by planting a
> fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
> Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had dozens
> of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
> destroying evidence of conspiracy?
yourself.
> Ah ha, but what he didn't know is that the real conversation was
> accidentally duplicated on an early part of the tape via printthtough!
> You know, that aside to Haldeman where he said, "God damn it, I covered up
> for Helms when he killed Kennedy and now God damn it, he's going to cover
> up for me."
>
Helms arrested and tried for the assassination? Cause this never happened.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:13:12 PM10/13/12
to
I do have a copyright on my computer map of Dealey Plaza, but it is free
to copy and share.
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 13, 2012, 10:40:29 PM10/13/12
to
You maybe mean "anomaly"?
Or "abnormality"?
Or did these two words collide in your head, so you came up with
something like Sarah Palin's "refudiate"?
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:47:27 PM10/13/12
to
>>
>>> showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I rather
>>
>> You know nothing about the Dictabelt. Those two shots separated by less
>> than a second are not from the same weapon. They are from two weapons in
>> two different locations. Try reading the evidence before setting out to
>> dream up wacky theories.
>
> What two rifles? That's it you proved the conspiracy. Get out the
> trumpets!
>
conspiracy.
>>
>>> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was a
>>> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
>>> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
>>> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
>
>> So your brilliant conspirators cover up their conspiracy by planting a
>> fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
>> Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had dozens
>> of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
>> destroying evidence of conspiracy?
>
> Hey I'm not the one who said it was faked. It was "experts" like, humm,
> yourself.
>
first time you have seen that rhetorical technique used? Are you really
that uneducated?
And don't try to insult me by claiming that anyone else was smart enough
to think of that solution.
>> Ah ha, but what he didn't know is that the real conversation was
>> accidentally duplicated on an early part of the tape via printthtough!
>
> Printthought isn't even a word, much less a mechanical anomility.
>
Printthrough is what happens when you keep a reel to reel tape tightly
wound up in storage for 20 years. The magnetized sections from one part of
the tape partially magnetize the other part of the tape where they
overlap. If you had studied anything about the acoustics you would have
heard that for yourself in the very poor quality copies of the reel to
reel tape may by Bowles. Exactly the same words are repeated at specific
intervals before or after the original broadcast of the words. How many
seconds depends on much tape was on the reel at that point. Steve Barber
understands the principle of printthrough. The Gallery record he
originally based his research on.
drummist1965
Post reply
More message actions
Apr 6
- show quoted text -
Of course they do. What else can we expect from conspiracy
theorists who can't accept the fact that it has been proven that it
was recorded on 11-22-63?
>
> Do you understand printthrough?
Of course I "understand printthrough". But "printthrough" occurs
only with magnetic tape, not plastic discs such as those used by the
DPD in 1963.
WIKI:
Backing thickness also affects print-through, the phenomenon of adjacent
layers of tape wound on a reel picking up weak copies of the magnetic
signal from each other. Print-through on analog tape causes unintended
pre- and post-echoes on playback, and is generally not fully reversible
once it has occurred.
>> You know, that aside to Haldeman where he said, "God damn it, I covered up
>> for Helms when he killed Kennedy and now God damn it, he's going to cover
>> up for me."
>>
>
> Then why didn't this event make the news? And why wasn't Haldeman and
> Helms arrested and tried for the assassination? Cause this never happened.
>
make the news at the time?
Haldeman had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. He was just
Nixon's messenger boy. Why is it that you don't know the basic facts
about Watergate? Not born yet?
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:49:08 PM10/13/12
to
acoustical evidence and refuse to do your homework.
No experts HEARD any shots on the tape. They were discovered
mathematically by a correlation analysis.
Steve Barber is not an expert in anything but percussion and he was the
one who proved that Hargis was the motorcycle cop wearing black gloves
and I agree with him.
Raymond
Oct 13, 2012, 10:56:55 PM10/13/12
to
Audrey Bell, 20 Mar 1997
Side 1 (47:41)
Side 2 (35:40)
No transcript available.
Nurse Audrey Bell was the Parkland Hospital Supervisor of Operating
and Recovery Rooms in 1963. In the course of her work on November 22,
1963, she had an opportunity to view President Kennedy's wounds. She
also participated in the surgery on Governor Connally.
Nurse Bell described Kennedy's head wound as occipital, in the right
posterior portion of the head. She did not see his throat wound. She
recalled receiving "three to five fragments, perhaps four" from the
body of Governor Connally, more than are currently in EVIDENCE. She
viewed the Warren Commission photograph of these fragments and said
that they were too small. According to ARRB staff member Doug Horne,
Nurse Bell drew pictures of the fragments as she remembered them, but
ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn refused to take her drawing into
evidence.
Audrey Bell also recalled phone calls from Bethesda to Dr. Perry on
Friday night, not Saturday morning as reported by the autopsy doctors
to the Warren Commission. This recollection, corroborated by Dr. John
Ebersole's formerly-secret HSCA testimony among others, would if true
cast grave doubt on the honesty of the reporting about the autopsy
findings, and make all the more suspicious the fact that the neck was
not dissected to track the bullet path.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/ARRB_Medical_Interviews
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Research
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:36 PM10/14/12
to
"Raymond" <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dd9f3477-bcd2-4415...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
rifle. So the LNers claim.
> > Summing up. One shot missed the car completely and there is no
> > record of recovering any of its remains. One shot allegedly passed
>
> Well, some WC defenders think that the missed shot hit the curb near
> Tague. One even thinks it hit the traffic light above Elm Street.
the limo got to that position.
trajectory. And the LNers rely on the fact that the autopsy doctors were
inexperienced. But if we hypothetically connect just those two dots, bullet
entered Kennedy's right back and exited his front throat. That alone
disspells the SBT. Because the bullet trajectory would be traveling south,
away from Connally and had to reverse trajectory to hit Connally in the
back.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/ARRB_Medical_Interviews
Research
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:42 PM10/14/12
to
news:5079b4db$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
What about the 3 shots from the window? And the 3 spent shells on the floor?
I mean. I don't contest the accoustical evidence, even though I do think the
conclusions were flawed. Because there was more than 3 or 4 shots.
Not everybody is old as dirt. ;)
I mean. I don't contest the accoustical evidence, even though I do think the
conclusions were flawed. Because there was more than 3 or 4 shots.
>
>>>> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was
>>>> a
>>>> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
>>>> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
>>>> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
>>
>>> So your brilliant conspirators cover up their conspiracy by planting a
>>> fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
>>> Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had
>>> dozens
>>> of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
>>> destroying evidence of conspiracy?
>>
>> Hey I'm not the one who said it was faked. It was "experts" like, humm,
>> yourself.
>>
>
> I did not state a fact, I asked an ironic question. Is this the very first
> time you have seen that rhetorical technique used? Are you really that
> uneducated?
.)
>>>> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was
>>>> a
>>>> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
>>>> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
>>>> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
>>
>>> So your brilliant conspirators cover up their conspiracy by planting a
>>> fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
>>> Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had
>>> dozens
>>> of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
>>> destroying evidence of conspiracy?
>>
>> Hey I'm not the one who said it was faked. It was "experts" like, humm,
>> yourself.
>>
>
> I did not state a fact, I asked an ironic question. Is this the very first
> time you have seen that rhetorical technique used? Are you really that
> uneducated?
> And don't try to insult me by claiming that anyone else was smart enough
> to think of that solution.
LOL ')
> to think of that solution.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:07:12 PM10/14/12
to
weigh the fragments.
The evidence has changed over the years. There used to be more fragments
than there are now. But no proof that the original fragments added up to
more than was missing from CE399.
> viewed the Warren Commission photograph of these fragments and said
> that they were too small. According to ARRB staff member Doug Horne,
> Nurse Bell drew pictures of the fragments as she remembered them, but
> ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn refused to take her drawing into
> evidence.
>
> Audrey Bell also recalled phone calls from Bethesda to Dr. Perry on
> Friday night, not Saturday morning as reported by the autopsy doctors
And what's the difference between Friday night a couple of hours after
midnight and early Saturday morning.
> to the Warren Commission. This recollection, corroborated by Dr. John
> Ebersole's formerly-secret HSCA testimony among others, would if true
> cast grave doubt on the honesty of the reporting about the autopsy
> findings, and make all the more suspicious the fact that the neck was
> not dissected to track the bullet path.
>
the Army.
>>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 10:46:15 PM10/14/12
to
trajectory. They were not forensic pathologists or crime scene
investigators. Hell, they couldn't even tell the difference between an
entrance wound and an exit wound. Were you impressed by Dr. Perry's
theory that the bullet entered the throat, hit a vertebra and exited the
back of the President's head?
> trajectory. And the LNers rely on the fact that the autopsy doctors were
> inexperienced. But if we hypothetically connect just those two dots, bullet
> entered Kennedy's right back and exited his front throat. That alone
the autopsy doctors didn't know about the throat wound. And no one could
see the obvious hole in the forehead? Did they think JFK was born with
that hole in his forehead. Maybe an old ware wound from WWII?
> disspells the SBT. Because the bullet trajectory would be traveling south,
> away from Connally and had to reverse trajectory to hit Connally in the
> back.
>
sniper's nest is only about 11-12 degrees off the midline of the car
depending on which frame you pick.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:10:19 PM10/15/12
to
In article
<88c0e10a-b09e-469f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
I understand what they believe. I asked "What coup?" because this is an
*unproven* belief. ;-)
<88c0e10a-b09e-469f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
*unproven* belief. ;-)
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Oct 27, 2012, 6:49:08 PM10/27/12
to
3 shots were fired.
The scope was long, but not tall. The scope was black.
***Ron Judge
0 new messages