Kudos to Discovery Channel and Gary Mack
Dave Reitzes
examinations of the SBT and the photographic evidence. My only real
quibble is that they should have considered the Dal-Tex Building as a
possible shooting location, even if only to rule it out, as they do with
the south Knoll locations.
To those who would quibble with the show's findings, I ask only one thing,
and I'm paraphrasing the late Dr. John Lattimer: Where are YOUR
experiments? Where may one scrutinize YOUR data?
I also wish to point out that anyone who thinks Mack is a hardline LNer or
that he is convinced no one fired from the Grassy Knoll that day missed
the implications of a key statement Gary made during the broadcast: that
if anyone DID fire from the Knoll, they must have missed.
Last I heard, Gary continues to advocate two hypotheses he himself helped
develop: the HSCA conclusions re: the acoustical evidence (three shots
from the TSBD and one MISSED shot from the Knoll), and the possibility
that the Moorman photograph depicts a shooter in a particular location on
the Knoll (which Gary himself discovered and later dubbed "Badge Man").
This is why Gary receives criticism from both LNer and CTers. But we all
owe him a debt of gratitude for the responsible work he has done by
assisting with scientific programs like these.
Dave
Gerry Simone
This Sat night show was not available in Canada (unless on some other
digitial channel I have but I doubt it).
I agree that they should rule out other buildings with further tests.
In defence of the quibblers, experiments don't resolve issues if they do
not simulate the actual with reasonable precision.
I didn't think that BTMB resolved the SBT question.
But maybe this show was better and I hope to see it some time soon.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ca575d9f-cb27-4124...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
I'm assuming this is a good place for people to add their reviews. I don't
think we need a fresh thread for everyone's review.
My review of "JFK: Inside the Target Car".
The Discovery show was pretty good.
The most outstanding result was the shot recreating Oswald's shot at frame
312-313. The results look incredibly like what is seen in frame 313. The
main splatter, from Zapruder's view, is up and forward. They even have a
large piece of "skull" flying upward and forward, just like the Harper
fragment as seen in frame 313. I don't know if in the recreation if the
fragment was flying 50+ mph and went 100+ feet. I imagine the stronger the
artificial skull is, the more violent the explosion that results if the
skull fails and ruptures.
It was a surprisingly good result considering that in both reality and in
the recreation, one is seeing an explosive wound out of a skull, or a
simulated skull. This explosive wound could have occurred out of any part
of the head, but in both reality and the recreation it was out the right
side of the head.
I got the impression from Larry Sturdivan's "The JFK Myths" that the
direction of the splatter from the explosive wound won't have much to do
with the direction of the bullet. The explosion of the head takes place a
few milliseconds after the bullet has left. The splatter will just be
directed away from the wound. But, from this recreation and from frame
313, it does appear the direction of the bullet does somehow have a
noticeable effect of this splatter. The splatter was directed mostly
forward (and up), not to the right, as one might expect. Perhaps the
cavity that forms in the wake of the bullet is mostly in the back of the
head when the explosion takes place, propelling the matter forward through
the hole in the side.
And how does the trailing officer's get bits of bone, blood, and brains on
them? How does "brain" matter get on the front of the windshield in the
recreation? From the 25 mph wind. That 25 mph wind will push back
suspended material 2 feet per Zapruder frame, 36 feet in one second.
On a side note, the show should have mentioned, that the 15 mph head wind
at the time of frame 313 is not best established by the wind measurements
taken several miles away, but by observing the wind blown clothes of Jean
Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zapruder film.
Using a couple of eyewitnesses to say that, yes, the pictures of the
inside of "limousine" from the recreation photographs matches what they
remember of the inside of the real limousine was not too useful. Memories
of eyewitnesses are not too reliable. Since the blood was cleaned up, the
best evidence is comparing the recreation film with frame 313. The match
between the film recreation and frame 313 is remarkably good.
Yes, it's true, the Secret Service should not have cleaned up the
evidence. But they really didn't have any procedures or training in place
covering "What to do next if we get the President killed." Deep down, they
were embarrassed to have the blood and brains photographed. For the
dignity of the Kennedy family, I think it's natural for them to want to
have the limousine cleaned up. But let's not go overboard about "Oh if
only the limousine wasn't cleaned up". Frame 313 speaks volumes. The head
is pushed forward 2 inches. The spray is forward and up.
**********
Other excellent parts were showing the views from various alleged sniper
location from the front. This makes clear that no shot can be made from
these locations without firing through the windshield. No sniper is going
to choose a position where he has to fire through the windshield. With JFK
about 6 feet back from the windshield, even a minor deflection will cause
a problem. A deflection of just one degree will cause a deflection of 1.25
inches. Just a four degree deflection can turn a fatal head shot into a
total miss.
With any frontal shot, one has the windshield in the way. The windshield
is very wide. There are no tall buildings to the southwest where one can
shoot over the windshield. The windshield eliminates a very wide arc of
frontal shooting positions.
Ignoring the problem with the windshield, there are other people, the two
secret service agents, the two Connally's, who could easily be in the way.
And one is firing from an exposed position, where one can easily be seen
or photographed, not even by someone trying to capture the shooter on film
but by someone just photographing the President.
Or, one can chose a position from behind, in the TSBD or Dal-Tex building.
No windshield in the way. No one in the limousine in the way. Firing down
the axis of travel. Firing from a position up high, unlikely to be
photograph. Firing from a well concealed position. Firing from a room that
will muffle the sound (if one doesn't stick the barrel of the rifle out
the window).
Above all else, ignoring the windshield problem, ignoring all the other
problems, why chose a position where, for all one knows, Mr. Connally may
very well be in the way and one will have no shot. Selecting a position to
fire from the front is just crazy.
It's a no brainer. Any sniper is going to chose a hidden position from
behind.
**********
Of course, there were a few errors.
Most notably, the position of Mrs. Kennedy was wrong. Her head was not
behind JFK's, her head was in front. It appears she was not pulling JFK
toward herself, trying to pull him down, as Mrs. Connally did. Instead,
she leaned forward, to get a better took at JFK's face. It appears she's
trying to figure out what is wrong with him.
So a shot from the grassy knoll is possible. A shot from there could
travel through his head and exit the left side of his head and still miss
Mrs. Kennedy's head, even if the bullet or bullet fragments traveled in a
straight line. And typically, bullet fragments will "curve" so Mrs.
Kennedy could definitely be missed.
But there is no large exit wound on the left side of JFK's head. The
autopsy photographs don't show it. The X-rays don't show it. We don't even
have eyewitnesses who remember such a wound.
And why one would chose a difficult position where one would have to fire
from way off the axis of travel, will have to rapidly and continuously
adjust the aim, because they are off the axis of travel, will have to aim
possibly in front of the head because they are off the axis of travel,
fire out in the open within ten to fifteen feet of other people, boggles
the imagination.
**********
And another error in the film is talking about Mrs. Kennedy retrieving
part of the skull or brain from the trunk of the limousine. She never made
any claim of this but specifically said that she has no memory of what she
did immediately afterwards. The only support for this is minimum, the
memory of just one witness, Clint Hill, who was very close but very busy,
running as fast as he could to catch up to and climb onto the back of the
limousine. The Zapruder film clearly shows no large piece of debris on the
trunk, certain nothing as large as a finger. She does not grab anything,
her hands are flat on the trunk, supporting her weight. She even starts to
climb out onto the trunk before she looks at the trunk. This "retrieving a
part of the skull or brain" is just a story that never dies.
**********
John McAdams
>
>I'm assuming this is a good place for people to add their reviews. I don't
>think we need a fresh thread for everyone's review.
>
Yes, it's a perfectly fine place.
>My review of "JFK: Inside the Target Car".
>
>The Discovery show was pretty good.
>
>
>And another error in the film is talking about Mrs. Kennedy retrieving
>part of the skull or brain from the trunk of the limousine. She never made
>any claim of this but specifically said that she has no memory of what she
>did immediately afterwards. The only support for this is minimum, the
>memory of just one witness, Clint Hill, who was very close but very busy,
>running as fast as he could to catch up to and climb onto the back of the
>limousine. The Zapruder film clearly shows no large piece of debris on the
>trunk, certain nothing as large as a finger. She does not grab anything,
>her hands are flat on the trunk, supporting her weight. She even starts to
>climb out onto the trunk before she looks at the trunk. This "retrieving a
>part of the skull or brain" is just a story that never dies.
>
If this was really what happened, there should be some brain matter
visible on the shiny trunk of the limo. There isn't, even in the very
best copies of the Zapruder film.
I don't know exactly how this got started -- Clint Hill, maybe, who
apparently *inferred* that this was what she was doing.
My guess is that, knowing that somebody was firing into the limo, she
was trying to get out of the limo.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
Reply to Dave Reitzes post of Nov 17, 2:40 pm:
> My only real quibble is that
> they should have considered
> the Dal-Tex Building as a
> possible shooting location,
> even if only to rule it out,
> as they do with the south
> Knoll locations.
I don't think the Dal-Tex Building can ever be ruled out totally. I think
any window on the third floor up is possible. It's just too close to the
Texas School Book Depository. Some windows even have superior angles than
the TSBD sniper's nest and look directly down the axis of travel.
Considering that bullet fragments not only can but will curve in random
directions through the skull, there is no way the Dal-Tex Building can be
eliminated.
The best one can do is assume the windows would not be closed quickly and
eliminated the windows that were photographed closed shortly after the
shooting. Maybe some other open windows can be eliminated if it is known
that witnesses, who were unlikely assassins, where in those rooms.
> I also wish to point out that
> anyone who thinks Mack is a
> hardline LNer or that he is
> convinced no one fired from
> the Grassy Knoll that day
> missed the implications of a
> key statement Gary made during
> the broadcast: that if anyone
> DID fire from the Knoll,
> they must have missed.
Good point. He seems to basically believe in the Blakely scenario. Three
shots from behind that provide all the hits. One shot from the grassy
knoll that missed.
John Fiorentino
weasel, who has made his living by speculating, fabricating and
flip-flopping about the death of JFK.
I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ca575d9f-cb27-4124...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>The show demonstrated little that hasn't been done before. Mack is a
>weasel, who has made his living by speculating, fabricating and
>flip-flopping about the death of JFK.
>
>I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
>
I think you are just flat wrong about that.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Erickson, and those involved in the Dallas segment as well as the LA
segment, where the test was filmed, were looking into the abyss -- by
taking upon themselves the objective of re-creating the Z313 shot they
would have to deal with the discrepancies of information available about
it.
It seems that they stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back -- the
Z313 SN test they claim blows away the CT movement actually blows away any
credibility related to the autopsy drawings, plus x-rays and photographs
that were available to the WC for them to make their conclusions. Their
shot blew away the top of the dummy's head. How long is it going to take
before they realize the humongous gaffe they have made?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ca575d9f-cb27-4124...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Exactly what did all three shots hit?
Anthony Marsh
More slander from the Kennedy haters. Jackie was reaching out for Clint
Hill to help her. She picked up nothing.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone
The wind would be a factor but don't the coats worn by the witnesses on
the south side of Elm blow in the opposite direction of the motorcycle
patrolmen riding on the left rear side of the limo, as pointed out by
Robert Harris in one of his discussion papers?
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0ed9a155-29b6-452f...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
One thing you said confuses me. What is this "brain" matter on the front
of the windshield? The FBI photos of the windshield show no matter of any
type on the front of the windshield. So if the recreation did that, isn't
that an indication that it does not correctly reproduce the assassination?
> On a side note, the show should have mentioned, that the 15 mph head wind
> at the time of frame 313 is not best established by the wind measurements
> taken several miles away, but by observing the wind blown clothes of Jean
> Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zapruder film.
>
> Using a couple of eyewitnesses to say that, yes, the pictures of the
> inside of "limousine" from the recreation photographs matches what they
> remember of the inside of the real limousine was not too useful. Memories
> of eyewitnesses are not too reliable. Since the blood was cleaned up, the
> best evidence is comparing the recreation film with frame 313. The match
> between the film recreation and frame 313 is remarkably good.
>
JFK's limo had only a couple of small drops of blood on it.
And it was not typed so we don't know if it was JFK's or Connally's.
> Yes, it's true, the Secret Service should not have cleaned up the
> evidence. But they really didn't have any procedures or training in place
> covering "What to do next if we get the President killed." Deep down, they
> were embarrassed to have the blood and brains photographed. For the
> dignity of the Kennedy family, I think it's natural for them to want to
> have the limousine cleaned up. But let's not go overboard about "Oh if
> only the limousine wasn't cleaned up". Frame 313 speaks volumes. The head
> is pushed forward 2 inches. The spray is forward and up.
>
You are not supposed to admit that the impact of a bullet can move the
head. And you ignore the fact that everyone was moving forward.
> **********
>
> Other excellent parts were showing the views from various alleged sniper
> location from the front. This makes clear that no shot can be made from
That is true for many suspected locations. And the side glass is in the
way part of the time.
> these locations without firing through the windshield. No sniper is going
> to choose a position where he has to fire through the windshield. With JFK
Specious argument. You assume the head shot had to happen ONLY at Z-313. I
could likewise claim that no sniper is going to choose a position where he
had to fire through a tree.
Almost any firing location you pick could have some obstacles at some
points.
> about 6 feet back from the windshield, even a minor deflection will cause
> a problem. A deflection of just one degree will cause a deflection of 1.25
> inches. Just a four degree deflection can turn a fatal head shot into a
> total miss.
>
Yah think? How about for a rifle which missed Walker at 120 feet? If the
point of aim is the cowlick, where does the bullet go when it rises 6
inches higher? If the shooter is carefully tracking the speed of the limo
at 11.2 MPH what happens when it suddenly slowed down to about 8 MPH at
frame 300?
> With any frontal shot, one has the windshield in the way. The windshield
Many times from many places.
> is very wide. There are no tall buildings to the southwest where one can
Not even the triple underpass is high enough. You'd need a helicopter.
> shoot over the windshield. The windshield eliminates a very wide arc of
> frontal shooting positions.
>
> Ignoring the problem with the windshield, there are other people, the two
> secret service agents, the two Connally's, who could easily be in the way.
> And one is firing from an exposed position, where one can easily be seen
> or photographed, not even by someone trying to capture the shooter on film
> but by someone just photographing the President.
>
Well, the actual shooter WAS photographed. So what?
> Or, one can chose a position from behind, in the TSBD or Dal-Tex building.
> No windshield in the way. No one in the limousine in the way. Firing down
> the axis of travel. Firing from a position up high, unlikely to be
> photograph. Firing from a well concealed position. Firing from a room that
Why do you say unlikely to be photographed? A couple of photographers
saw something, but were too slow to capture the picture.
> will muffle the sound (if one doesn't stick the barrel of the rifle out
> the window).
>
Yes, muffling the sound, even with the window barely open, but it is
still extremely loud and that does not muffle the shock wave of about
147 decibels.
> Above all else, ignoring the windshield problem, ignoring all the other
> problems, why chose a position where, for all one knows, Mr. Connally may
> very well be in the way and one will have no shot. Selecting a position to
> fire from the front is just crazy.
>
Shooting from the side eliminates Connally being in the way.
> It's a no brainer. Any sniper is going to chose a hidden position from
> behind.
>
Yes, one did. A second one, the insurance shooter, was posted to the front.
> **********
>
> Of course, there were a few errors.
>
> Most notably, the position of Mrs. Kennedy was wrong. Her head was not
> behind JFK's, her head was in front. It appears she was not pulling JFK
> toward herself, trying to pull him down, as Mrs. Connally did. Instead,
> she leaned forward, to get a better took at JFK's face. It appears she's
> trying to figure out what is wrong with him.
>
Correct.
> So a shot from the grassy knoll is possible. A shot from there could
> travel through his head and exit the left side of his head and still miss
> Mrs. Kennedy's head, even if the bullet or bullet fragments traveled in a
> straight line. And typically, bullet fragments will "curve" so Mrs.
> Kennedy could definitely be missed.
>
There is no need for a shot to travel through a head and exit on the
other side.
> But there is no large exit wound on the left side of JFK's head. The
> autopsy photographs don't show it. The X-rays don't show it. We don't even
> have eyewitnesses who remember such a wound.
>
But there IS a large exit on the left side of JFK's head. The autopsy
photos clearly show it and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show it.
We do have false reports from witnesses who said there was a wound on
the left side of the head.
> And why one would chose a difficult position where one would have to fire
> from way off the axis of travel, will have to rapidly and continuously
> adjust the aim, because they are off the axis of travel, will have to aim
> possibly in front of the head because they are off the axis of travel,
> fire out in the open within ten to fifteen feet of other people, boggles
> the imagination.
>
Because you need an insurance shooter to the front of the kill zone in
case something goes wrong at the beginning. That's why Princip was
waiting in front while his clumsy accomplices bungled the initial attacks.
> **********
>
> And another error in the film is talking about Mrs. Kennedy retrieving
> part of the skull or brain from the trunk of the limousine. She never made
> any claim of this but specifically said that she has no memory of what she
> did immediately afterwards. The only support for this is minimum, the
> memory of just one witness, Clint Hill, who was very close but very busy,
> running as fast as he could to catch up to and climb onto the back of the
> limousine. The Zapruder film clearly shows no large piece of debris on the
> trunk, certain nothing as large as a finger. She does not grab anything,
> her hands are flat on the trunk, supporting her weight. She even starts to
> climb out onto the trunk before she looks at the trunk. This "retrieving a
> part of the skull or brain" is just a story that never dies.
>
How true.
> **********
>
Gerry Simone
visited the Sixth Floor Museum back in November 2004.
What I actually did when I was there was I crouched down and pressed my
face hard on the window next to the glass-enclosed area to be as close as
possible to the alleged SN while looking down Elm and imagining the limo
at the X marked on the street, and thought to myself that it might have
been possible for a shot travelling downward to hit JFK in the right back
of the head and exit out the right side if his head was slightly turned to
the left which I think it was.
I can concede THAT possibility with the LNers but don't know about the
rest that follows.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0ed9a155-29b6-452f...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
John Fiorentino
Would you care to list a few of the contributions Gary has made to our
understanding of the truth re: JFK's assassination?
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:a0o6i4d6vccv373tr...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>OK .John I'm wrong.
>
>Would you care to list a few of the contributions Gary has made to our
>understanding of the truth re: JFK's assassination?
>
Gary has put together an impressive collection of sources about the
assassination at the Sixth Floor Museum.
And (at least in my experience) he has been most generous in allowing
access, allowing use of the material, and so on.
Is he wrong about some issues? I think so. But even when he is
wrong, he's not dogmatic.
You're one of the good guys in this case, John. Please recognize Gary
as another of the good guys.
>
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:a0o6i4d6vccv373tr...@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Nov 2008 19:36:22 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The show demonstrated little that hasn't been done before. Mack is a
>>>weasel, who has made his living by speculating, fabricating and
>>>flip-flopping about the death of JFK.
>>>
>>>I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> I think you are just flat wrong about that.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone
True Professor but I can see the reflection of the clouds or something
move along the limo trunk as it progresses down Elm on that sunny day.
So white shows up but not blood perhaps because blood on a navy blue
surface doesn't reflect well. There could be other reasons.
After all, we don't see blood on the cuff of JBC in Z230 if I recall
correctly just after Z222-224 alleged SB strike.
However, movie clips from the opposite side show a white or shiny object
move down the top of the trunk. It's discernible from a lateral view so
it's not a reflection.
This is well documented in SSID. So maybe it depends on the angle that
something is exposed to the sun.
I really think that Jackie Kennedy was trying to retrieve something from
the trunk in a vain attempt to save her husband (get a part of his skull
or brain) while she was in shock.
I don't think she would be leaving her husband, and don't think she'd try
to save herself from jumping out of a speeding car when all she had to do
was duck below the top of the seat line.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:h5k4i4l2rvn1ktat7...@4ax.com...
Gerry Simone
I will disagree with him on the BM photo for now, but he's replied to me
directly on various issues including providing info that makes it unlikely
if not impossible that LBJ was at the Murchison Ranch (to counter what I
was told by a respected lecturer on the topic who has been retired for
several years).
I think he's a man in search of the truth and an ideal custodian of the
SFM.
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:49229949$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
ss6...@gmail.com
wrote:
> The show demonstrated little that hasn't been done before. Mack is a
> weasel, who has made his living by speculating, fabricating and
> flip-flopping about the death of JFK.
>
> I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
>
> John F.
>
>
> news:ca575d9f-cb27-4124...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This was a very good show -- a first-rate companion to their earlier
> > examinations of the SBT and the photographic evidence. My only real
> > quibble is that they should have considered the Dal-Tex Building as a
> > possible shooting location, even if only to rule it out, as they do with
> > the south Knoll locations.
>
> > To those who would quibble with the show's findings, I ask only one thing,
> > and I'm paraphrasing the late Dr. John Lattimer: Where are YOUR
> > experiments? Where may one scrutinize YOUR data?
>
> > I also wish to point out that anyone who thinks Mack is a hardline LNer or
> > that he is convinced no one fired from the Grassy Knoll that day missed
> > the implications of a key statement Gary made during the broadcast: that
> > if anyone DID fire from the Knoll, they must have missed.
>
> > Last I heard, Gary continues to advocate two hypotheses he himself helped
> > develop: the HSCA conclusions re: the acoustical evidence (three shots
> > from the TSBD and one MISSED shot from the Knoll), and the possibility
> > that the Moorman photograph depicts a shooter in a particular location on
> > the Knoll (which Gary himself discovered and later dubbed "Badge Man").
>
> > This is why Gary receives criticism from both LNer and CTers. But we all
> > owe him a debt of gratitude for the responsible work he has done by
> > assisting with scientific programs like these.
>
> > Dave
My gosh, I actually agree with you about something. ;-0
ss6...@gmail.com
> On 18 Nov 2008 20:44:22 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
>
> >OK .John I'm wrong.
>
> >Would you care to list a few of the contributions Gary has made to our
> >understanding of the truth re: JFK's assassination?
>
> Gary has put together an impressive collection of sources about the
> assassination at the Sixth Floor Museum.
>
> And (at least in my experience) he has been most generous in allowing
> access, allowing use of the material, and so on.
>
> Is he wrong about some issues? I think so. But even when he is
> wrong, he's not dogmatic.
>
> You're one of the good guys in this case, John. Please recognize Gary
> as another of the good guys.
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:a0o6i4d6vccv373tr...@4ax.com...
> >> On 18 Nov 2008 19:36:22 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
>
> >>>The show demonstrated little that hasn't been done before. Mack is a
> >>>weasel, who has made his living by speculating, fabricating and
> >>>flip-flopping about the death of JFK.
>
> >>>I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
>
> >> I think you are just flat wrong about that.
>
> >> .John
> >> --------------
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gary is a 'good guy' who wants to see all the CTs 'defeated', no
matter how many dirty tricks it takes. Or is that what 'good guy'
means to you too?
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> As this test developed it became evident that the producer, Robert
> Erickson, and those involved in the Dallas segment as well as the LA
> segment, where the test was filmed, were looking into the abyss -- by
> taking upon themselves the objective of re-creating the Z313 shot they
> would have to deal with the discrepancies of information available about
> it.
>
> It seems that they stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back
"They stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back"?
Dave \:^)
WhiskyJoe
> Their shot blew away the top
> of the dummy's head. How long
> is it going to take before they
> realize the humongous gaffe
> they have made?
They did use the wrong aiming point. It should have been near the EOP, not
the cowlick. Certainly that greatly increases the odds of blowing off the
top as opposed to the side.
But some of the top of the skull, as well as some of the side was blown
off when JFK was killed. So the results of the recreation were reasonably
close to the real event despite hitting the wrong entry point.
And, even if ten real skulls filled with ballistic gel were used and the
correct "EOP" spot was hit precisely each time, the results will never be
the same. The bullet fragments can and will curve in random directions
each time. If they happen to curve upward, more of the top will be blown
off. If they curve to the right, more of the side will likely be blown
off.
The key point is that most of the debris gets blown up and forward, in
both the recreation and the real event, as seen in frame 313. The large
"skull" piece in the recreation seems to fly off in the same direction as
the Harper fragment, as seen in frame 313. The match between the real
event and the recreation is closer than one would expect. I'm not certain
that in every recreation, one is going to get a large "skull" piece fly up
and forward. But it did happen in TV show.
John Canal
>You're one of the good guys in this case, John. Please recognize Gary
>as another of the good guys.
So who are the bad guys in this case, .john, those who disagree with you?
I hope I'm taking what you said too literally...because I spent my career
serving my country as have my three sons--all spending time in harm's way,
with one back in Iraq for another tour as I write this...so, I hope
because I disagree with you I'm not someone who you think is a bad guy.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe
> The wind would be a factor but don't the coats worn by the witnesses on
the south side of Elm blow in the opposite direction of the motorcycle
patrolmen riding on the left rear side of the limo, as pointed out by
Robert Harris in one of his discussion papers?
This doesn't make sense since the relative wind on the patrolmen should be
even greater, since they are riding into to wind. The force of the wind
should be from the same direction, just stronger.
Did Robert indicate which picture or which frame of the Zapruder film
showed the patrolmen's clothes being blown forward, in the direction they
are riding?
David Von Pein
>>> "JFK's limo had only a couple of small drops of blood on it." <<<
Huh?? WTF??
>>> "Well, the actual shooter WAS photographed." <<<
Huh? Where? When? By whom?
Tony's imagining stuff again, I see.
>>> "But there IS a large exit on the left side of JFK's head." <<<
Huh? And WTF???!!
Tony must be imagining things (again).
>>> "The autopsy photos clearly show it..." <<<
Huh??
Oh, yes,.....
WTF????
>>> "and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show it." <<<
Huh?
Tony's imagining things (yet again).
>>> "We do have false reports from witnesses who said there was a wound on
the left side of the head." <<<
Huh?
You just said there was "a large exit on the left side of JFK's head". But
now you're saying that the reports from any witnesses who might have said
that (which, in reality, are ZERO in number, AFAIK) are "false reports"??
What a tangled mess of unsupportable nonsense Tony has hammered out in
this post I'm responding to here.
Geeeeesh.
black...@aol.com
Sounds like PMcEB (now posting under yet another screen name,
something she once hassled me about) has been watching Stone's "Wall
Street": Hal Holbrook counsels Sheen's Bud Fox, just prior to being
arrested in an SEC probe.
David Von Pein
>>> "Would you care to list a few of the contributions Gary [Mack] has made to our understanding of the truth re: JFK's assassination?" <<<
I know this was question directed at John McAdams, but let me add my 2
cents re. Mr. Mack ---
Gary Mack has been extremely helpful to me several times in e-mail
discussions I've had with him. He'll even send unsolicited e-mails
when he sees something on a JFK Forum that he feels needs some
straightening out. And I appreciate that help.
In my experience with Gary via e-mail, he's always tried to remain
right squarely in the "middle" (i.e., on the "JFK fence", as it were),
not leaning toward the "CT" side or the "LN" side in my discussions
with him. He simply points out FACTS...the raw, hard facts.
And there's certainly nobody alive today who knows more about the
seven-story building that sits at 411 Elm Street in Dallas than does
Mr. Gary Mack. And I doubt if anyone knows more about the general area
known as Dealey Plaza than Gary does either.
One very helpful discussion he and I had by e-mail in early February
of this year concerned the always-controversial question of: How Did
Jack Ruby Enter The DPD Basement On 11/24/63? (Gary knows a heck of a
lot about that basement garage too, as I discovered in his e-mails.)
Gary's expertise in the Ruby/Basement discussion made me take a harder
look at the possibility that Ruby just might have gotten into the
basement via another route (other than the Main St. ramp). Gary's
arguments on that matter are convincing, and they are based on
something else very important as well -- his own personal knowledge of
how the doors in the DPD work(ed).
I still think the best answer is that Ruby entered the basement by way
of the Main St. ramp, but Gary Mack made me take a hard look at a very
viable alternative. And I thank him for that information. (The Ruby
discussion in question is linked below, if anyone's interested.)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5bfb6bd1b771ed4d
In short, Gary Mack is a class act, as far as I'm concerned. I might
not agree with his Badge Man or acoustics theories (and I certainly
don't agree with those things), but his detailed knowledge of the
assassination in many OTHER areas (plus his knowledge of the SITES
where important events took place in November 1963) have provided
great insight and important factual information to many, many people
who are searching for those answers.
And Gary always gives the answers without forcing any kind of high-and-
mighty "It Was A Conspiracy" or "It Was Only Oswald" opinion down your
throat. And that type of person is very rare to find in the arena
marked "JFK Assassination Research".
I certainly couldn't maintain Gary's always-congenial "middle-of-the-
road" posture when talking to a lot of the over-the-top conspiracy
theorists that I've encountered over the last few years, I'll tell you
that right now. ;)
David Von Pein
November 19, 2008
John Fiorentino
I doubt .John was making any reference to your service to this country, for
that you should certainly be commended.
Also, I doubt, simply because we may not all agree on everything .John would
seek to put people in different camps, i.e., good or bad guys.
In his response to my criticism of Mack, I simply think .John believes
Gary's motives are essentially pure, for want of a better word. I don't,
thus my "weasel" descriptor.
BTW, in case you are not aware, Ken Rahn seems to think you may have it
right on the rear entry. And, I disagree with Ken about that, but I doubt
that would put any of us in different camps such as "good" or "bad."
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gg082...@drn.newsguy.com...
Gerry Simone
and matter riding to the left and rear of the limo, which does not explain
why they were hit unless there was a shot from in front which blew blood and
brain matter towards the left rear.
Robert Harris's paper indeed shows a photo from either Nix or a
photographer's snapshot showing the coats blowing in a northeasterly
direction as I recall.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:f169cedf-d47f-41c9...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
I really wasn't referring to Gary's work at the SFM.
I suppose I could post a myriad of communications between Mack and myself if
I wanted to turn this thing into a soap opera, but frankly I'm too busy.
I thank you for your compliment and will return the same to you. I do
suppose though we will just have to agree to disagree on the Mack issue.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:7sr6i4tkvpi75ono4...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
point about Gary, even if it was done in a rather convoluted fashion.
John F.
<ss6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d5e4a9c-a281-4324...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
>
>John:
>
>I doubt .John was making any reference to your service to this country, for
>that you should certainly be commended.
>
>Also, I doubt, simply because we may not all agree on everything .John would
>seek to put people in different camps, i.e., good or bad guys.
>
>In his response to my criticism of Mack, I simply think .John believes
>Gary's motives are essentially pure, for want of a better word. I don't,
>thus my "weasel" descriptor.
>
>BTW, in case you are not aware, Ken Rahn seems to think you may have it
>right on the rear entry. And, I disagree with Ken about that, but I doubt
>that would put any of us in different camps such as "good" >or "bad."
Thanks for commenting. I just don't like to be called a bad guy--I've
lived my life trying to be a "good guy" and tried to teach my three sons
to live that way as well...and I think they're doing just that. As far as
I'm concerned, there are no bad guys here...on either side.
I think .john's choice of words was probably a mistake on his part---too
bad it's you that has to cover for him. Then again, he avoids exchanges
with me---I'd hope that's because he feels he might be wrong about some
issues we disagree on and not because I'm one of the bad guys on his list.
If I am, that's the way the cookie crumbles, as they say---I think I'll
still live.
I always had the feeling Ken realized the entry was where the autopsists
put it--I'd like to think my posts contributed to his conclusions on that
but it's much more liely he arrived at them on his own, as he is obviously
well-read on the evidence in this case, or even perhaps partially from
exchanges on the subject with his friend and associate, Larry Sturdivan.
Whatever the reason, considering how intelligent and accomplished Ken is,
it's good to know that--thanks for letting me know.
John Canal
John Fiorentino
TMWKK, the acoustics, etc. that just MAY enter into your assessment.
Gary's more congenial attitude started to develop in the early 90's when it
was quite apparent that the whole conspiracy idea was just about on it's
last legs.
Now, Mr. Mack can still make a living off the death of JFK as curator of the
SFM, appear on every "documentary" produced on the subject, and continue to
waffle just enough to make things interesting.
He is a master of equivocation, shrouded in a facade of respectability.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7a9ff619-449e-41aa...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ss6...@gmail.com
Gary Mack is paid to be helpful; that is part of his job.
Anthony Marsh
>> Their shot blew away the top
>> of the dummy's head. How long
>> is it going to take before they
>> realize the humongous gaffe
>> they have made?
>
> They did use the wrong aiming point. It should have been near the EOP, not
> the cowlick. Certainly that greatly increases the odds of blowing off the
> top as opposed to the side.
>
> But some of the top of the skull, as well as some of the side was blown
> off when JFK was killed. So the results of the recreation were reasonably
> close to the real event despite hitting the wrong entry point.
>
I'd like to see how you could have ANY shot to the head with Oswald's
bullets that doesn't blow off some of the top of the skull. Fired from
anywhere.
John Fiorentino
FYI
He recently indicated to me that he believes Sturdivan got it right.
John F
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gg26n...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> I'm saying that the wind was blowing AWAY from those officers 'hit' by blood
Ok. WHY do you say that the wind was blowing away from those officers?
> and matter riding to the left and rear of the limo, which does not explain
> why they were hit unless there was a shot from in front which blew blood and
> brain matter towards the left rear.
>
That is not necessary.
> Robert Harris's paper indeed shows a photo from either Nix or a
> photographer's snapshot showing the coats blowing in a northeasterly
> direction as I recall.
>
What?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "JFK's limo had only a couple of small drops of blood on it." <<<
>
>
> Huh?? WTF??
>
The windshield.
>
>>>> "Well, the actual shooter WAS photographed." <<<
>
>
> Huh? Where? When? By whom?
BY Moorman and Zapruder.
>
> Tony's imagining stuff again, I see.
>
>
>>>> "But there IS a large exit on the left side of JFK's head." <<<
>
> Huh? And WTF???!!
>
> Tony must be imagining things (again).
>
The autopsy photos and the ARRB diagrams of the autopsy doctors show the
extent of the missing skull bone well into the left side of JFK's head.
>
>>>> "The autopsy photos clearly show it..." <<<
>
> Huh??
>
> Oh, yes,.....
>
> WTF????
>
>
>
>>>> "and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show it." <<<
>
>
> Huh?
>
> Tony's imagining things (yet again).
>
Maybe I've seen things that you haven't.
>
>>>> "We do have false reports from witnesses who said there was a wound on
> the left side of the head." <<<
>
>
> Huh?
>
> You just said there was "a large exit on the left side of JFK's head". But
> now you're saying that the reports from any witnesses who might have said
> that (which, in reality, are ZERO in number, AFAIK) are "false reports"??
>
Not what I said. The false reports are of an entrance wound on the left
side of the head.
> What a tangled mess of unsupportable nonsense Tony has hammered out in
> this post I'm responding to here.
>
English please.
> Geeeeesh.
>
Anthony Marsh
> True Professor but I can see the reflection of the clouds or something
> move along the limo trunk as it progresses down Elm on that sunny day.
>
> So white shows up but not blood perhaps because blood on a navy blue
> surface doesn't reflect well. There could be other reasons.
>
> After all, we don't see blood on the cuff of JBC in Z230 if I recall
> correctly just after Z222-224 alleged SB strike.
>
On the other hand we can see in later Zapruder frames the blood pooling
on the back of Connally's dark coat.
> However, movie clips from the opposite side show a white or shiny object
> move down the top of the trunk. It's discernible from a lateral view so
> it's not a reflection.
>
Maybe what Randy Robertson thinks is the late arriving skull fragment.
> This is well documented in SSID. So maybe it depends on the angle that
> something is exposed to the sun.
>
That is part of the answer.
> I really think that Jackie Kennedy was trying to retrieve something from
> the trunk in a vain attempt to save her husband (get a part of his skull
> or brain) while she was in shock.
>
There was nothing big enough for her to grab when she went onto the trunk.
> I don't think she would be leaving her husband, and don't think she'd try
> to save herself from jumping out of a speeding car when all she had to do
> was duck below the top of the seat line.
>
Especially went she would have been run over by the SS car, as Clint
Hill almost was.
As I said before the speculation about Jackie trying to escape comes
from the Kennedy haters.
John Canal
>
>John
>
>FYI
>
>He recently indicated to me that he believes Sturdivan got it right.
Well, when I contacted Larry about a decade or so ago, it was to question
what he said in his HSCA deposition about the cowlick entry. I guess we
have different recollections of what changed his mind, but in my notes of
our phone conversations and emails, I have it where he was shocked at the
clear copy of F8 that I sent him, saying it clearly showed the entry near
the EOP....because in the clear copy he could see the lateral sinus (which
is close to the EOP) near the entry. He added that the only copy of F8 the
HSCA showed him as out of focus and useless.
If Larry's recollection of why he reversed himself is different than mine,
I'm not going to quibble--it's no big deal...and I'm fine with whatever he
remembers. The important thing is (and it goes to why I have a great deal
of respect for him) he had the courage to admit he had been wrong about
the fatal bullet entering in the cowlick, as his larte-seventies testimony
reflects.
John Canal
ss6...@gmail.com
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
> >> Their shot blew away the top
> >> of the dummy's head. How long
> >> is it going to take before they
> >> realize the humongous gaffe
> >> they have made?
>
> > They did use the wrong aiming point. It should have been near the EOP, not
> > the cowlick. Certainly that greatly increases the odds of blowing off the
> > top as opposed to the side.
>
> > But some of the top of the skull, as well as some of the side was blown
> > off when JFK was killed. So the results of the recreation were reasonably
> > close to the real event despite hitting the wrong entry point.
>
> I'd like to see how you could have ANY shot to the head with Oswald's
> bullets that doesn't blow off some of the top of the skull. Fired from
> anywhere.
Then what kind of bullet would plow through the skull and leave the top of
the head relatively intact?
ss6...@gmail.com
Let me simplify, just for you, Dave --they stared into the abyss that
is the myth of the WCR and look what happened -- while trying to prove
the myth they destroyed it. Better?
David Von Pein
>>> "He is a master of equivocation, shrouded in a facade of
respectability." <<<
Wow. I guess he must be a "master" indeed (per John F.'s assessment of
Gary). Because he's sure got me fooled.
David Von Pein
>>> "Gary Mack is paid to be helpful; that is part of his job." <<<
Says who? You?
Do all curators of all museums around the globe bother to e-mail
people out of the blue (unsolicited) in order to provide them with
factual data?
John McAdams
wrote:
Gary does get paid to be helpful, but he's way more helpful than he
*has* to be.
I think all he really has to do is maintain the collection at the
Sixth Floor Museum. But he goes way beyond that to help all sorts of
people on all sorts of fronts.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4925e1cd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
What I meant by 'away for those officers' was, for those cops riding to
the left and rear of the presidential limo, the wind was blowing in a
direction (NE) that likely would not have carried blood and brain matter
splatter ejected to the front and to the right (NW) of JFK from a
back-to-front shot, BACK in the opposite direction to hit those officers.
As for those officers to the right side of the limo, there might not have
been any wind necessary for them to get sprayed since they would have rode
straight thru falling or suspended spray which was on their side to begin
with.
Bob Harris made this point in one of his papers (not sure if it was 'The
Answer') showing a pic of either Moorman or Hill or both of them and their
long coats blowing in the wind.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4924f227$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
ss6...@gmail.com
> On 20 Nov 2008 23:52:47 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Gary Mack is paid to be helpful; that is part of his job." <<<
>
> >Says who? You?
>
> >Do all curators of all museums around the globe bother to e-mail
> >people out of the blue (unsolicited) in order to provide them with
> >factual data?
>
> Gary does get paid to be helpful, but he's way more helpful than he
> *has* to be.
>
> I think all he really has to do is maintain the collection at the
> Sixth Floor Museum. But he goes way beyond that to help all sorts of
> people on all sorts of fronts.
>
himself with them. How better to destroy an adversary than from
within?
Dave Reitzes
You and Pamela sound like two sides of the same coin, John, voicing
unfounded (and, I must say, comically sinister) suspicions of someone
just because he disagrees with you.
On Nov 20, 6:19�pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Yes, well, perhaps if you knew the complete history on "badge man" the
> TMWKK, the acoustics, etc. that just MAY enter into your assessment.
>
> Gary's more congenial attitude started to develop in the early 90's when it
> was quite apparent that the whole conspiracy idea was just about on it's
> last legs.
>
> Now, Mr. Mack can still make a living off the death of JFK as curator of the
> SFM, appear on every "documentary" produced on the subject, and continue to
> waffle just enough to make things interesting.
>
> He is a master of equivocation, shrouded in a facade of respectability.
>
> John F.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 18, 11:39�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:41�pm, "Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > As this test developed it became evident that the producer, Robert
> > > Erickson, and those involved in the Dallas segment as well as the LA
> > > segment, where the test was filmed, were looking into the abyss -- by
> > > taking upon themselves the objective of re-creating the Z313 shot they
> > > would have to deal with the discrepancies of information available about
> > > it.
>
> > > It seems that they stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back
>
> > "They stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back"?
>
> > Dave �\:^)
>
> Let me simplify, just for you, Dave --
Oh, I could guess what you meant, Pamela. It was that Judyth-like
combination of melodrama and self-importance that made me giggle.
> they stared into the abyss that
> is the myth of the WCR and look what happened -- while trying to prove
> the myth they destroyed it. �Better?
How so?
Dave
John Fiorentino
David:
We can't ALL have finely tuned "weasel detectors." Generally speaking,
it's a highly intuitive function, honed by years of
practice............... ;-)
Perhaps, if I get some time I will post some stuff on Mr. Mack, and you
can interpret it as you will.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f655de4d-c94d-403d...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:7qfci4pn3fv76c5bm...@4ax.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
> TOP POST
>
> You and Pamela sound like two sides of the same coin, John, voicing
> unfounded (and, I must say, comically sinister) suspicions of someone
> just because he disagrees with you.
And you, on the other hand, seem willing to blindly follow anyone who
does.
John Fiorentino
Just saying my opinion is "unfounded" is very interesting, and carries about
as much weight as my own thoughts on Mack, sans any documentation.
That is why I thought about posting some things re: Gary which I have,
unfortunately on another computer. You may want to consult the archives here
though as there were some exchanges between myself and Ed Cage, when I
helped him locate Crowley.
I do find it odd that you would defend someone who was involved in the
fabrication of a hoax like "badgeman." Gary was also quite aware as the work
on TMWKK progressed that his "badgeman" would have to have been about the
size of Tom Thumb based on a proper analysis of the photo.
Of course, Mr. Mack failed to mention this fact. You're welcome to defend
that though Dave, it's still a free country, at least for the moment.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:709cec37-1f1b-473d...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Gary, also seems incapable (or unwilling) to properly present the facts re:
the acoustics, another issue on which he waffles, perhaps because he takes
the credit for dictabelt "evidence."
One wonders why he persists in propping up the discredited analysis of W&A
and Barger before them. As far as I know Mack now believes (or says) that
JFK and JBC were both struck at Z-223-224. Yet he fails to state that the
HSCA scenario has no "impulse" attributed to a "shot" where it needs to be
in order to support that scenario.
Of course, if he did report that fact, he'd certainly have a much tougher
time defending the acoustics fiasco.
And just as a side note, I never realized the identification of a weasel
fell into the category of being "comically sinister." Of course you are
entitled to your opinion.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:709cec37-1f1b-473d...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
dshar...@yahoo.com
> This was a very good show -- a first-rate companion to their earlier
> examinations of the SBT and the photographic evidence. My only real
> quibble is that they should have considered the Dal-Tex Building as a
> possible shooting location, even if only to rule it out, as they do with
> the south Knoll locations.
>
> To those who would quibble with the show's findings, I ask only one thing,
> and I'm paraphrasing the late Dr. John Lattimer: Where are YOUR
> experiments? Where may one scrutinize YOUR data?
>
> I also wish to point out that anyone who thinks Mack is a hardline LNer or
> that he is convinced no one fired from the Grassy Knoll that day missed
> the implications of a key statement Gary made during the broadcast: that
> if anyone DID fire from the Knoll, they must have missed.
>
> Last I heard, Gary continues to advocate two hypotheses he himself helped
> develop: the HSCA conclusions re: the acoustical evidence (three shots
> from the TSBD and one MISSED shot from the Knoll), and the possibility
> that the Moorman photograph depicts a shooter in a particular location on
> the Knoll (which Gary himself discovered and later dubbed "Badge Man").
>
> This is why Gary receives criticism from both LNer and CTers. But we all
> owe him a debt of gratitude for the responsible work he has done by
> assisting with scientific programs like these.
>
> Dave
it was a good show...high production...curious though...what happened
to the bullet?
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 21, 8:54�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > You and Pamela sound like two sides of the same coin, John, voicing
> > unfounded (and, I must say, comically sinister) suspicions of someone
> > just because he disagrees with you.
>
> And you, on the other hand, seem willing to blindly follow anyone who
> does.
Huh?
Anthony Marsh
> Addenda to my other response......
>
> Gary, also seems incapable (or unwilling) to properly present the facts
> re: the acoustics, another issue on which he waffles, perhaps because he
> takes the credit for dictabelt "evidence."
>
> One wonders why he persists in propping up the discredited analysis of
> W&A and Barger before them. As far as I know Mack now believes (or says)
> that JFK and JBC were both struck at Z-223-224. Yet he fails to state
> that the HSCA scenario has no "impulse" attributed to a "shot" where it
> needs to be in order to support that scenario.
>
Just FYI, Don Thomas uses a different correction factor for the
sequence, which places one shot at Z-224.
> Of course, if he did report that fact, he'd certainly have a much
> tougher time defending the acoustics fiasco.
>
Gary Mack was the guy who invented the idea that shots might have been
recorded.
Anthony Marsh
> What I meant by 'away for those officers' was, for those cops riding to
> the left and rear of the presidential limo, the wind was blowing in a
> direction (NE) that likely would not have carried blood and brain matter
> splatter ejected to the front and to the right (NW) of JFK from a
> back-to-front shot, BACK in the opposite direction to hit those officers.
>
I still don't see your point. There is a windshield, so the blood and
brain are blown upwards until the wind catches them. Blowing from the WSW
it blows the mist into the cyclists on the left side of the limo.
> As for those officers to the right side of the limo, there might not have
> been any wind necessary for them to get sprayed since they would have rode
> straight thru falling or suspended spray which was on their side to begin
> with.
>
They were on the same side as the massive head wound.
> Bob Harris made this point in one of his papers (not sure if it was 'The
> Answer') showing a pic of either Moorman or Hill or both of them and their
> long coats blowing in the wind.
>
Yeah, so what?
Anthony Marsh
Yes.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 20, 5:24 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>>> Their shot blew away the top
>>>> of the dummy's head. How long
>>>> is it going to take before they
>>>> realize the humongous gaffe
>>>> they have made?
>>> They did use the wrong aiming point. It should have been near the EOP, not
>>> the cowlick. Certainly that greatly increases the odds of blowing off the
>>> top as opposed to the side.
>>> But some of the top of the skull, as well as some of the side was blown
>>> off when JFK was killed. So the results of the recreation were reasonably
>>> close to the real event despite hitting the wrong entry point.
>> I'd like to see how you could have ANY shot to the head with Oswald's
>> bullets that doesn't blow off some of the top of the skull. Fired from
>> anywhere.
>
> Then what kind of bullet would plow through the skull and leave the top of
> the head relatively intact?
>
Possibly a .22 or a .45.
Herbert Blenner
> Gerry Simone wrote:
> > What I meant by 'away for those officers' was, for those cops riding to
> > the left and rear of the presidential limo, the wind was blowing in a
> > direction (NE) that likely would not have carried blood and brain matter
> > splatter ejected to the front and to the right (NW) of JFK from a
> > back-to-front shot, BACK in the opposite direction to hit those officers.
>
> I still don't see your point. There is a windshield, so the blood and
> brain are blown upwards until the wind catches them. Blowing from the WSW
> it blows the mist into the cyclists on the left side of the limo.
According to officer Hargis he was not hit by a mist.
Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally in connection with
the
shot you have just described?
Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
Mr. STERN. Yes.
Mr. HARGIS. Yes: when President Kennedy straightened back up in the
car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed
like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and
kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood. And at that time the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or
"get going,"-
End of quotation.
I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
velocity to the ejectra.
Herbert
>
> > As for those officers to the right side of the limo, there might not have
> > been any wind necessary for them to get sprayed since they would have rode
> > straight thru falling or suspended spray which was on their side to begin
> > with.
>
> They were on the same side as the massive head wound.
>
> > Bob Harris made this point in one of his papers (not sure if it was 'The
> > Answer') showing a pic of either Moorman or Hill or both of them and their
> > long coats blowing in the wind.
>
> Yeah, so what?
>
>
>
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>> are riding?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 22, 10:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Gerry Simone wrote:
>>> What I meant by 'away for those officers' was, for those cops riding to
>>> the left and rear of the presidential limo, the wind was blowing in a
>>> direction (NE) that likely would not have carried blood and brain matter
>>> splatter ejected to the front and to the right (NW) of JFK from a
>>> back-to-front shot, BACK in the opposite direction to hit those officers.
>> I still don't see your point. There is a windshield, so the blood and
>> brain are blown upwards until the wind catches them. Blowing from the WSW
>> it blows the mist into the cyclists on the left side of the limo.
>
> According to officer Hargis he was not hit by a mist.
>
He did not say that.
> Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally in connection with
> the
> shot you have just described?
> Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
> Mr. STERN. Yes.
> Mr. HARGIS. Yes: when President Kennedy straightened back up in the
> car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed
> like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and
> kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood. And at that time the
> Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or
> "get going,"-
> End of quotation.
>
There's your clue. "It wasn't really blood."
It was a "kind of bloody water." I.E. a mist.
> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
> velocity to the ejectra.
>
No one said the breeze carried the blood, brain, and bloody water toward
Hargis. He drove into it.
Inertia is the answer.
Herbert Blenner
You said, "There is a windshield, so the blood and brain are blown
upwards until the wind catches them. Blowing from the WSW it blows the
mist into the cyclists on the left side of the limo."
Now cite your source, Marsh.
>
> > I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
> > water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
> > velocity to the ejectra.
>
> No one said the breeze carried the blood, brain, and bloody water toward
> Hargis. He drove into it.
> Inertia is the answer.
The blood, brain and bloody water had inertia. In other words the
ejectra kept moving forward with the head in the moving limousine.
This initial velocity canceled the forward velocity of Hargis.
Now do you care to discuss how air friction would have sorted the
ejectra according to particle size?
Herbert
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
The M/C bullets did not fragment; they tore through the front of the car.
This amazing fact is minimized in the show. Now we need to ask why kind
of ammo from what kind of firearm and from what direction could create the
damage to the skull while leaving the car virtually unharmed.
Anthony Marsh
What do you mean source? Source for what? Do I need a source to prove
that the limo had a windshield? The wind direction was found by the HSCA.
>>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
>>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
>>> velocity to the ejectra.
>> No one said the breeze carried the blood, brain, and bloody water toward
>> Hargis. He drove into it.
>> Inertia is the answer.
>
> The blood, brain and bloody water had inertia. In other words the
> ejectra kept moving forward with the head in the moving limousine.
Wrong. When the ejecta gets above the windshield the ejecta is blown
back. You can test this at home by throwing a ball up into the air while
riding in a convertible. Some people who exist in the real world see
this every day when things are blown out of a convertible.
> This initial velocity canceled the forward velocity of Hargis.
>
Huh?
> Now do you care to discuss how air friction would have sorted the
> ejectra according to particle size?
>
Sure, this could be fun. I bet Dr. Henry Lee has even tested it.
claviger
> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
> velocity to the ejectra.
We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
for cold fronts moving through Texas. The TDC program is just further
corroboration the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
No doubt a shot entered the rear of JFK's head. Also no doubt that
bllod and gore went in all directions ... as Robt Frazier of the FBI
lab testified noting matter was on the hood of the car as well as a
goodly amount on the trunk lid....and just about everywhere else in
between besides.
See his testimony at the Shaw trial.
QUOTE
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, other than the windshield of the automobile,
could you tell us what particular examinations were conducted with
other parts of this vehicle?
A: Yes, sir. The first examination which was made was of the exterior
portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood,
the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the
outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to
determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact
areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the
foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over
the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the
complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on
the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior
portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the
car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the
trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks.
END QUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazrsh.htm
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On 24 Nov 2008 21:36:59 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
>>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
>>> velocity to the ejectra.
>> We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
>> they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
>> blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
>> for cold fronts moving through Texas. The TDC program is just further
>> corroboration the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
>
> No doubt a shot entered the rear of JFK's head. Also no doubt that
What kind of a bullet are you imagining that can enter the rear of JFK's
head and leave no hole? Show me that hole.
> bllod and gore went in all directions ... as Robt Frazier of the FBI
> lab testified noting matter was on the hood of the car as well as a
> goodly amount on the trunk lid....and just about everywhere else in
> between besides.
>
> See his testimony at the Shaw trial.
>
> QUOTE
> Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, other than the windshield of the automobile,
> could you tell us what particular examinations were conducted with
> other parts of this vehicle?
> A: Yes, sir. The first examination which was made was of the exterior
> portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood,
> the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the
> outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to
> determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact
> areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the
> foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over
> the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the
> complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on
> the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior
> portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the
> car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the
> trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks.
> END QUOTE
>
What about the dent of the chrome topping? What about the hole in the floor?
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazrsh.htm
>
> Barb :-)
Herbert Blenner
About ten years ago, I checked the weather records and found that Ft.
Worth reported a southwest wind at 12:00 P.M. Since then I read that
at 12:30 P.M., Love Field reported a west-southwest wind. This
information is consistent with the testimony of a motorcycle officer
who reported turning into the wind as he entered Elm Street.
As for the Connallys, their misfortune and that of Hargis shows that
the wind played a minor, if any, role in determining the landing
positions of the larger bits of ejectra.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
>> velocity to the ejectra.
>
> We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
> they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
> blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
The Zapruder film proves no such thing and we assume you mean right to
left relative to the limo. The limo was driving into the wind.
The wind at that time was coming from the WSW.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Addenda to my other response......
>
> Gary, also seems incapable (or unwilling) to properly present the facts re:
> the acoustics, another issue on which he waffles, perhaps because he takes
> the credit for dictabelt "evidence."
>
> One wonders why he persists in propping up the discredited analysis of W&A
> and Barger before them. As far as I know Mack now believes (or says) that
> JFK and JBC were both struck at Z-223-224. Yet he fails to state that the
> HSCA scenario has no "impulse" attributed to a "shot" where it needs to be
> in order to support that scenario.
>
> Of course, if he did report that fact, he'd certainly have a much tougher
> time defending the acoustics fiasco.
I disagree with Gary about the acoustical claims as well, and your point
about the Z223-224 hit is perfectly valid; but none of the Discovery
Channel broadcasts with which he was involved discussed the acoustical
evidence, so he did not have the opportunity to address such issues.
Perhaps in the future he will. Why attack him over it now?
> And just as a side note, I never realized the identification of a weasel
> fell into the category of being "comically sinister." Of course you are
> entitled to your opinion.
>
> John F.
You characterized Gary Mack as someone who "can still make a living off
the death of JFK . . . a master of equivocation, shrouded in a facade of
respectability."
I stand by my comment.
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:709cec37-1f1b-473d...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> You and Pamela sound like two sides of the same coin, John, voicing
> unfounded (and, I must say, comically sinister) suspicions of someone
> just because he disagrees with you.
>
> On Nov 20, 6:19 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, well, perhaps if you knew the complete history on "badge man" the
> > TMWKK, the acoustics, etc. that just MAY enter into your assessment.
>
> > Gary's more congenial attitude started to develop in the early 90's when
> > it
> > was quite apparent that the whole conspiracy idea was just about on it's
> > last legs.
>
> > Now, Mr. Mack can still make a living off the death of JFK as curator of
> > the
> > SFM, appear on every "documentary" produced on the subject, and continue
> > to
> > waffle just enough to make things interesting.
>
> > He is a master of equivocation, shrouded in a facade of respectability.
>
> > John F.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
one below, it just makes you look batty.
Dave
Herbert Blenner
> > wrote:
>
> >>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
> >>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
> >>> velocity to the ejectra.
> >> We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
> >> they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
> >> blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
> >> for cold fronts moving through Texas. The TDC program is just further
> >> corroboration the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
>
> > No doubt a shot entered the rear of JFK's head. Also no doubt that
>
> What kind of a bullet are you imagining that can enter the rear of JFK's
> head and leave no hole? Show me that hole.
A bullet that enters tangentially at a large angle of incidence leaves
no visible hole when viewed with the surface of the object parallel to
the plane of view. Under these conditions the viewer sees a deepening
trough.
A wooden block from "My boring experiment" shows this effect.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/surfacehole.jpg
Herbert
claviger
Anthony,
> The Zapruder film proves no such thing and we assume you mean
> right to left relative to the limo. The limo was driving into the wind.
> The wind at that time was coming from the WSW.
Before you wrote this brilliant comment did you consult a Dallas city map
or a 16 pt Compass Rose or the Zapruder film? Obviously not. Had you taken
the time to do a minimal amount of research you would know that Elm Street
runs WSW until the intersection at Houston St when it turns SW down the
curving decline through Dealey Plaza until it turns due West crossing the
Triple Underpass. So the wind direction that day was blowing right to left
in the Zapruder film, as anyone can easily observe by watching the coats
worn by Hill and Moorman.
Therefore the influence of the wind would be either straight back or back
and left of the Limousine. In fact, the Triple Underpass might act as a
wind tunnel and possibly direct the wind flow more due east moving up Elm
Street toward downtown. All these facts lend more weight to TDC program
which concluded the head shot must have come from behind the Limousine to
cause brain matter to spray the interior of the passenger area forward of
the back seat. The two witnesses who saw the interior at Parkland Hospital
and the testimony of the Connallys further corroborate this fact.
As Barb points out the the spray of brain fluid went in all directions so
had there been no wind the motorcycles would still drive through ejecta in
suspension above the Limousine. From reading several accounts there seems
to be a heavier deposit of brain matter forward than to the rear. This
indicates a trajectory from behind the Limousine, not in front. As Gary
Mack mentions in the show if there was a sniper on the GK, he missed.
John Fiorentino
Again, you can stand by anything you want. I noticed you didn't address
"badge-man." Why not?
I have a rather hysterical exchange between Gary and myself, where he
shucks and gibes re: Geoff Crawley.
On the acoustics, Steve Barber suggests we review the footnotes section to
Vince Bugliosi's book. Steve believes the exchanges between himself and
Gary may provide some insight into the mind of Mr. Mack.
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5c46729d-e0fd-49db...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
Based on which accounts?
Barb Junkkarinen
>TOP POST
>
>Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
>practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
>respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
>one below, it just makes you look batty.
Saves us a lot of time, Dave .... her posts are her own worst
advertisement.
Happy Thanjksgiving!
Cranberry sauce,
Barb :-)
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the absence of a wind, the motorcycle could have not have driven
into ejecta in suspension above the moving limousine. Instead your
suggestion requires that air friction slows the ejectra and the
motorcycle catches up with it.
So how do you account for the larger amd denser bits of tissue that
struck offcier Hargis?
Herbert
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Dave:
>
> Again, you can stand by anything you want. I noticed you didn't address
> "badge-man." Why not?
The subject at hand is your adoption of the ad hominem fallacy, not
Gary Mack's personal theories. Nevertheless, if you want to read about
my views on the "Badge Man" matter, you certainly may:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
I've said my piece. If you want to make yourself look like one of the
kooks, it is your right.
Take care.
> I have a rather hysterical exchange between Gary and myself, where he
> shucks and gibes re: Geoff Crawley.
>
> On the acoustics, Steve Barber suggests we review the footnotes section to
> Vince Bugliosi's book. Steve believes the exchanges between himself and
> Gary may provide some insight into the mind of Mr. Mack.
>
> John F.
>
jfk...@gmail.com
> practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
> respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
> one below, it just makes you look batty.
This may be an example of the p-tactic 'obtaining disaproval'. Is
that what Dave intended? Perhaps he will explain.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 25, 11:38 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> claviger wrote:
>>
>>>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
>>>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
>>>> velocity to the ejectra.
>>> We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
>>> they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
>>> blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
>> The Zapruder film proves no such thing and we assume you mean right to
>> left relative to the limo. The limo was driving into the wind.
>> The wind at that time was coming from the WSW.
>>
>>> for cold fronts moving through Texas. The TDC program is just further
>>> corroboration the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
>
>
> Anthony,
>
>> The Zapruder film proves no such thing and we assume you mean
>> right to left relative to the limo. The limo was driving into the wind.
>> The wind at that time was coming from the WSW.
>
> Before you wrote this brilliant comment did you consult a Dallas city map
> or a 16 pt Compass Rose or the Zapruder film? Obviously not. Had you taken
Even better than that? I have a copy of the map which was made for the
HSCA and have made my own. I did not specify the exact angle. But I am not
interested in the turn onto Elm. I am only dealing with frame 313. And at
that exact frame the limo is driving into the wind. You can dispute that
it is not exactly 0 degrees. Fine with me. I never specified that level of
accuracy.
> the time to do a minimal amount of research you would know that Elm Street
> runs WSW until the intersection at Houston St when it turns SW down the
> curving decline through Dealey Plaza until it turns due West crossing the
> Triple Underpass. So the wind direction that day was blowing right to left
> in the Zapruder film, as anyone can easily observe by watching the coats
> worn by Hill and Moorman.
>
The wind coming from the WSW can not be described as being right to left.
> Therefore the influence of the wind would be either straight back or back
> and left of the Limousine. In fact, the Triple Underpass might act as a
Yes, that is what we have been talking about.
> wind tunnel and possibly direct the wind flow more due east moving up Elm
> Street toward downtown. All these facts lend more weight to TDC program
Gee, it's fun to speculate, isn't it? And what does such speculation
gain you?
> which concluded the head shot must have come from behind the Limousine to
> cause brain matter to spray the interior of the passenger area forward of
> the back seat. The two witnesses who saw the interior at Parkland Hospital
> and the testimony of the Connallys further corroborate this fact.
>
None of that nonsense proves where the bullet came from.
> As Barb points out the the spray of brain fluid went in all directions so
> had there been no wind the motorcycles would still drive through ejecta in
> suspension above the Limousine. From reading several accounts there seems
> to be a heavier deposit of brain matter forward than to the rear. This
There are no accounts specifying a difference in the dispersal pattern of
brain matter. Much of the ejecta seen in frame 313 must be brain matter.
> indicates a trajectory from behind the Limousine, not in front. As Gary
> Mack mentions in the show if there was a sniper on the GK, he missed.
The acoustical scientists do not believe that bullet missed.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 25, 12:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>> On 24 Nov 2008 21:36:59 -0500, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I reject that idea that a breeze carried the blood, brain and bloody
>>>>> water toward Hargis and assert that the head imparted a rearward
>>>>> velocity to the ejectra.
>>>> We already know from testimony by Governor Connally and his wife Nelly
>>>> they were covered by brain fluid and tissue. The Z-film proves the wind is
>>>> blowing from right to left, possibly from the northwest, which is common
>>>> for cold fronts moving through Texas. The TDC program is just further
>>>> corroboration the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
>>> No doubt a shot entered the rear of JFK's head. Also no doubt that
>> What kind of a bullet are you imagining that can enter the rear of JFK's
>> head and leave no hole? Show me that hole.
>
> A bullet that enters tangentially at a large angle of incidence leaves
> no visible hole when viewed with the surface of the object parallel to
> the plane of view. Under these conditions the viewer sees a deepening
> trough.
>
Are you serious? Your trough is still a hole.
I didn't say it had to be perfectly round.
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
> practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
> respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
> one below, it just makes you look batty.
>
What is it about you Googlers that makes you think star ratings matter
at all?
jfk...@gmail.com
'obtain disapproval'.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 7:11 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
>> practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
>> respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
>> one below, it just makes you look batty.
>
>This may be an example of the p-tactic 'obtaining disaproval'. Is
>that what Dave intended? Perhaps he will explain.
What's to explain? You don't seem to be able to stop yourseld from
proving his point ... over and over again. Sigh.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Another half-hearted attempt to use the propaganda tactic called
>'obtain disapproval'.
You must be talking about your tactic in posting this island thread?
Nothing else here to refer to. Someone trying to "obtain disapproval"?
You're the only one here who does that. Repeatedly. In post after post
after post. Can you go 24 hours without typing my name or Dave's?
Without adding them to a new nonsense thread title that is intended
only to demean ... or "obtain disapproval"?
Oh I get it ... you just want to draw more attention to your
"propaganda tactic."
Well done.
But no need, really. Everyone already knows.
Relax, take a break. And enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
I never said that the cyclist drove above the limousine. The ejecta dropped.
> suggestion requires that air friction slows the ejectra and the
> motorcycle catches up with it.
>
> So how do you account for the larger amd denser bits of tissue that
> struck offcier Hargis?
>
Prove the largeness and density of the matter which hit Hargis.
> Herbert
>
>
>
Dave Reitzes
> On Nov 25, 7:11�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
> > practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
> > respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
> > one below, it just makes you look batty.
>
> This may be an example of the p-tactic 'obtaining disaproval'. �Is
> that what Dave intended? �Perhaps he will explain.
Sorry, you've lost me (again).
Why not just admit you can't support your bizarre claims about Gary
Mack?
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008 20:11:29 -0500, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >TOP POST
>
> >Pam, if you don't like me, you might want to consider adopting the
> >practice of anonymously voting my posts one star instead of trying to
> >respond. When you interject hostile and/or nonsensical messages like the
> >one below, it just makes you look batty.
>
> Saves us a lot of time, Dave .... her posts are her own worst
> advertisement.
>
> Happy Thanjksgiving!
>
> Cranberry sauce,
> Barb :-)
You, too.
John Fiorentino
I don't know Dave, I'm certainly shocked to learn that disagreeing with you
puts one in the "kook" camp.
BTW, your "views" on "badge-man" are rather nebulous when it comes to Mack
specifically.
Since you are not a kook and I am, why not ask Gary why he persisted with
his idea in TMWKK when Crawley determined his "badge-man" would stand
approx. 4'4'' tall and thus not even be able to see over the fence, let
alone fire at the President?
Ask him why Nigel Turner never produced that information, or why he pretends
not to know about it.
And then perhaps we can see who the real "kook" is. Fair enough?
John F.
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:def042a8-afc7-43c0...@v42g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
pjfk
wrote:
> Dave:
>
> I don't know Dave, I'm certainly shocked to learn that disagreeing with you
> puts one in the "kook" camp.
He's been a bit off his game recently. Try not to take it personally.
>
> BTW, your "views" on "badge-man" are rather nebulous when it comes to Mack
> specifically.
>
> Since you are not a kook and I am, why not ask Gary why he persisted with
> his idea in TMWKK when Crawley determined his "badge-man" would stand
> approx. 4'4'' tall and thus not even be able to see over the fence, let
> alone fire at the President?
>
> Ask him why Nigel Turner never produced that information, or why he pretends
> not to know about it.
>
> And then perhaps we can see who the real "kook" is. Fair enough?
>
> John F.
>
Herbert Blenner
Claviger wrote the words to which I replied. Obviously you miss the
meaning of ejectra being in suspension above the limousine. This means
that the particles did not fall. Under these conditions if air friction
slowed the particles then the motorcycles could have driven beneath, not
into, them.
>
> > suggestion requires that air friction slows the ejectra and the
> > motorcycle catches up with it.
Earlier you claimed that the wind blew a mist of particles into the path
of the motorcycle. The wind would have carried particles that were
sufficiently small. However, this condition conflicts with your current
excuse that the particles were sufficiently large for gravity to pull them
down. Clearly, Marsh, you have incurred the responsibility for showing
that the sizes of the particles can simultaneously satisfy two opposing
conditions.
>
> > So how do you account for the larger amd denser bits of tissue that
> > struck offcier Hargis?
>
> Prove the largeness and density of the matter which hit Hargis.
Read the testimony of Hargis. He said "I was splattered with blood and
brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood."
The testimony shows that Hargis perceived redness of the droplets. This
observation shows that these droplets were larger than those of a mist.
Further his recognition of brain tissue establishes that the densities of
the solid particles were greater than the density of water.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> Dave:
>
> I don't know Dave, I'm certainly shocked to learn that disagreeing with
> you puts one in the "kook" camp.
>
> BTW, your "views" on "badge-man" are rather nebulous when it comes to
> Mack specifically.
>
> Since you are not a kook and I am, why not ask Gary why he persisted
> with his idea in TMWKK when Crawley determined his "badge-man" would
> stand approx. 4'4'' tall and thus not even be able to see over the
> fence, let alone fire at the President?
>
That is ridiculous. The Badge Man theory requires that a person there be
standing on something to get his waist above the top of the fence. It is a
stupid position, but not impossible. The image is only an optical
illusion. Some people have sought the easy way out by lying about the
physical conditions to claim that no shot from there was possible.
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> Dave:
>
> I don't know Dave, I'm certainly shocked to learn that disagreeing with you
> puts one in the "kook" camp.
I'm sorry you keep misinterpreting my remarks.
But, as a great movie star once said, to continue this conversation
would serve no purpose.
> BTW, your "views" on "badge-man" are rather nebulous when it comes to Mack
> specifically.
>
> Since you are not a kook and I am, why not ask Gary why he persisted with
> his idea in TMWKK when Crawley determined his "badge-man" would stand
> approx. 4'4'' tall and thus not even be able to see over the fence, let
> alone fire at the President?
>
> Ask him why Nigel Turner never produced that information, or why he pretends
> not to know about it.
>
> And then perhaps we can see who the real "kook" is. Fair enough?
>
> John F.
>
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:492f2da9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Exactly WHAT is ridiculous, Tony?
>
What is ridiculous is that someone would propose that the Badge Man figure
was only 4'4" tall and thus could not even see over the fence. In the
first place, like professional propagandists like McAdams he misstates the
conditions. The Badge Man theory stipulates that a person must be standing
on something in order to get his chest above the fence.
The image is interpreted as a man whose upper torso is seen above the
fence. Second, proponents of the Badge Man position place the tip of the
barrel at about 8 feet above the ground, which is adequate to shoot at the
President. Crawley is setting up a straw man. Not dealing with the claim
as presented.
Anthony Marsh
Please consult with Mr. Newton. Everything falls. Suspension means it
takes longer to fall. The ejecta went upwards and to the left. It was a
stream or jet of material. It went up and then fell down. Considering
how far behind the limo the cyclists started there are ample Zapruder
frames or fractions of a second for them to be sprayed by ejecta.
>>> suggestion requires that air friction slows the ejectra and the
>>> motorcycle catches up with it.
>
> Earlier you claimed that the wind blew a mist of particles into the path
> of the motorcycle. The wind would have carried particles that were
> sufficiently small. However, this condition conflicts with your current
> excuse that the particles were sufficiently large for gravity to pull them
> down. Clearly, Marsh, you have incurred the responsibility for showing
> that the sizes of the particles can simultaneously satisfy two opposing
> conditions.
>
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The wind can catch something
and slow its forward progress and it still falls.
>
>>> So how do you account for the larger amd denser bits of tissue that
>>> struck offcier Hargis?
>> Prove the largeness and density of the matter which hit Hargis.
>
> Read the testimony of Hargis. He said "I was splattered with blood and
> brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood."
>
So what?
> The testimony shows that Hargis perceived redness of the droplets. This
> observation shows that these droplets were larger than those of a mist.
He was covered in enough droplets that he recognized the redness of
blood. He is not talking about seeing a red mist in the air above him.
> Further his recognition of brain tissue establishes that the densities of
> the solid particles were greater than the density of water.
>
Yeah, so what?
> Herbert
John Fiorentino
human, it would stand about 4'4''
Quite obviously he (it) would have to be "standing on something," or be
suspended in midair as some propose, but it doesn't affect the height
measurement.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4930...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> No, Tony. What Crawley did is measure the image and determine that if it
> was human, it would stand about 4'4''
>
Again, stupid. Measure what? He'd have to accept the theory from the
proponents. It is only an optical illusion. So what can he measure? The
4'4" may the the height of a person derived from what Crawley assumes to
he the head or the shoulders. But again he ignores the fact that the
theory already requires that a person be standing on something to get his
upper torso above the top of the fence. Why is that so difficult a concept
for you to understand?
> Quite obviously he (it) would have to be "standing on something," or be
> suspended in midair as some propose, but it doesn't affect the height
> measurement.
>
There is no damn height measurement. That is a lie. There is an estimate.
But based on false premises and false measurements of an optical illusion.
claviger
> Even better than that? I have a copy of the map which was made for the
> HSCA and have made my own. I did not specify the exact angle. But I am not
> interested in the turn onto Elm. I am only dealing with frame 313. And at
> that exact frame the limo is driving into the wind. You can dispute that
> it is not exactly 0 degrees. Fine with me. I never specified that level of
> accuracy.
Abraham Zapruder is on the North side of the street across from the
Limousine with his camera pointed South. The Limousine is moving left to
right, heading SW about to turn due West. So a wind from the West is
blowing from right to left in the film. A WSW wind would blow any
suspended matter to the back and left of the Limousine, where Hargis is
positioned.
> The wind coming from the WSW can not be described as being right to left.
Then how would you describe it? By your own words the the wind is
coming from the WSW and the Limousine at Z-313 is pointed SW.
>> which concluded the head shot must have come from behind the Limousine to
>> cause brain matter to spray the interior of the passenger area forward of
>> the back seat. The two witnesses who saw the interior at Parkland Hospital
>> and the testimony of the Connallys further corroborate this fact.
> None of that nonsense proves where the bullet came from.
Are calling the testimony of these witnesses nonsense?
> There are no accounts specifying a difference in the dispersal pattern of
> brain matter. Much of the ejecta seen in frame 313 must be brain matter.
And the thickest mass of brain matter is moving up and forward as we
can plainly see in the Z-313.
>> indicates a trajectory from behind the Limousine, not in front. As Gary
>> Mack mentions in the show if there was a sniper on the GK, he missed.
> The acoustical scientists do not believe that bullet missed.
On what basis do they form that belief? How can they tell whether the
bullet struck anything by acoustic evidence?