bunched up jacket
ajohnstone
in Dallas moments before he was gunned down was released on Monday, a
surprising new detail in a saga that has gripped the United States for
four decades...The film was donated to the Sixth Floor Museum in
Dallas by amateur photographer George Jefferies and his son-in-law,
Wayne Graham. It was released to coincide with the Presidents Day
federal holiday...The footage was taken less than 90 seconds before
the fatal shots were fired.
.
...The president's coat is clearly if briefly seen bunched up on his
back -- a detail that will be scrutinised by conspiracy theorists who
see evidence of a plot in, among other things, the fact the bullet
wounds on his jacket
and body did not appear to match.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19022007/325/new-footage-jfk-dallas-released.html
Gerry Simone (H)
original colour slide under a microscope "showing the President's back at
almost the exact moment when the wounding bullet struck", "the original
color slide shows clearly that the President's clothing was NOT bunched at
the time he was wounded in the back"
In fact, I believe you can see the white of his shirt collar after zooming
in on a good quality photo.
"ajohnstone" <ajsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1171929858.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Cliff
wrote:
> Josiah Thompson confirmed (p. 223, SSID) that after looking at Phil Willis'
> original colour slide under a microscope "showing the President's back at
> almost the exact moment when the wounding bullet struck", "the original
> color slide shows clearly that the President's clothing was NOT bunched at
> the time he was wounded in the back"
>
> In fact, I believe you can see the white of his shirt collar after zooming
> in on a good quality photo.
Bingo!
Exactly right. Any good copy of the Houston St.
segment of the Nix film shows the jacket collar
DROPPING.
The Towner film clearly shows JFK's white shirt collar,
indicating the jacket collar rode in a normal position at
the base of his neck on Elm St.
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
Ditto Betzner #3 (at Z186):
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg
The visible shirt collar on Elm St. kills the SBT, which
requires 3 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket to have
elevated in tandem entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7.
Could 6 inches of clothing bunch up at the base of JFK's
neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base
of his neck?
Of course not. Disparate solid objects cannot occupy
the same physical space at the same time.
Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.
LNers repeat their baseless conclusion about "bunch"
over and over and over and never offer a single fact to
back it up.
They can't. Their "bunch fallacy" is absurd.
Cliff Varnell
>
> "ajohnstone" <ajsc21...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1171929858.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Previously unreleased footage of John F. Kennedy's fateful motorcade
> > in Dallas moments before he was gunned down was released on Monday, a
> > surprising new detail in a saga that has gripped the United States for
> > four decades...The film was donated to the Sixth Floor Museum in
> > Dallas by amateur photographer George Jefferies and his son-in-law,
> > Wayne Graham. It was released to coincide with the Presidents Day
> > federal holiday...The footage was taken less than 90 seconds before
> > the fatal shots were fired.
> > .
>
> > ...The president's coat is clearly if briefly seen bunched up on his
> > back -- a detail that will be scrutinised by conspiracy theorists who
> > see evidence of a plot in, among other things, the fact the bullet
> > wounds on his jacket
> > and body did not appear to match.
>
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19022007/325/new-footage-jfk-dallas-released...
Chad Zimmerman
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1172246501.2...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 3:04 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Josiah Thompson confirmed (p. 223, SSID) that after looking at Phil
>> Willis'
>> original colour slide under a microscope "showing the President's back at
>> almost the exact moment when the wounding bullet struck", "the original
>> color slide shows clearly that the President's clothing was NOT bunched
>> at
>> the time he was wounded in the back"
>>
>> In fact, I believe you can see the white of his shirt collar after
>> zooming
>> in on a good quality photo.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Exactly right. Any good copy of the Houston St.
> segment of the Nix film shows the jacket collar
> DROPPING.
>
> The Towner film clearly shows JFK's white shirt collar,
> indicating the jacket collar rode in a normal position at
> the base of his neck on Elm St.
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
>
> Ditto Betzner #3 (at Z186):
>
> http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg
>
You were going to delineate the boundaries of the shirt collar from the
hairline and the suit, right?
As I've said before, the Betzner just might be the worst photograph to use
to determine much of anything about the collar or anything else. Too much
glare. If you can see collar, then you must also be able to see the
hairline and the suit boundaries opposite the collar. Now, just when are
you going to show us all those boundaries with a visual?
One must wonder if you have a "bunch alert" setting on your
newsreader...;-)
Chad
Cliff
> "Cliff" <n...@sfo.com> wrote in message
No, Chad, it is not necessary to "delineate the boundaries
of the shirt collar from the hairline."
It is sufficient to know that the jacket collar dropped
to allow the shirt collar to be exposed.
The jacket collar on "Stan" rode up into his hairline,
remember?
JFK's jacket collar dropped -- as can be seen clearly
in any good copy of the Houston St. segment of the
Nix film.
In the NY Times, Posner claims that the jacket in the
Jefferies film was in the "precise" location needed by
the SBT -- with the jacket collar riding up above the shirt
collar.
Less than 10 seconds before the assassination the
jacket dropped from Posner's "precise" location --
ergo, the SBT stands debunked.
Still.
>
> As I've said before, the Betzner just might be the worst photograph to use
> to determine much of anything about the collar or anything else.
The white shirt collar is clearly visible in the Towner
film and in Betzner -- a fact you've admitted in the past
after much back pedaling.
Are you going to back pedal from prior back pedaling,
Chad?
Cliff Varnell
David Von Pein
and over and never offer a single fact to back it up. They can't. Their
"bunch fallacy" is absurd." <<<
Nonsense. The jacket was obviously bunched up, causing the discrepancy in
the "alignment". To believe anything else is to climb the ladder of
absurdity to its top rung...and then jump off.
ONE hole in jacket + ONE hole in JFK's back = The same ONE bullet passed
through BOTH that one jacket hole and that one back hole. Period.
What other explanation IS there....short of climbing that CT ladder that I
mentioned and jumping off?
The CTers cannot explain the ALTERNATIVE scenario to the "bunched-up"
theory in any type of logical and believable and sensible fashion.
Lacking a "buched" coat, the CTers are forced to invent tales of a fake
autopsy photo, which is a pic that was declared genuine by multiple panels
of experts. (Are they ALL liars?)
What other choice is there? A SECOND shot to Kennedy's back? Which makes
no sense either...because there's just the ONE hole in the jacket? So was
the jacket "faked" too?
Plus -- If the back shot to JFK did not exit his throat -- WHERE DID IT
GO? And why didn't it cause substantial damage to JFK's innards upon being
STOPPED dead in its tracks? How was this possible?
CTers have no avenue of escape here...because ANY theory they postulate is
50 times more illogical, undoable, and absurd than the simple explanation
of JFK's coat being hiked up a bit as he was being shot through the back
by Oswald's Bullet #CE399.
"Occam's" is in the dictionary for a reason. I've often wondered why the
CTers of the world won't use it a little more often.
GERRY FORD, MR. SPECTER, JEAN DAVISON, AND THE BEAUTY OF THE S.B.T.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
slatconsulting
news:1172284952.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
And if JFK and Connally were hit by separate shots, then why is it we
only hear about the knoll Knoll KNOLL? Where was the second shooter from
the REAR? Do the CTers not care about that alleged assassin?
Anthony Marsh
There have been many conspiracy writers who have speculated about a
second shooter in the TSBD. Some consider window #10 as a likely source.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I was just looking at a copy of the Towner film on the JFK Films
site.
As the limo started down Elm Street, JFK can be seen leaning to his
right.
The quality of this internet copy is not the best, but it appears that
the collar of the jacket is being pushed up as Kennedy leans to his
right. The white of the shirt collar is seen on the side, but not on
the back.
The Jeffries film shows a serious fold that is not dependent on where
the collar of the jacket is in relation to the collar of the shirt.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The Towner photo shows a cupped fold just below the collar. The
Jeffries film clearly demonstrates that JFK's jacket was indeed seriously
bunching up during the motorcade. The Jeffries film demonstrates that the
jacket was likely more bunched up at Z223, than critics have previously
thought.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "LNers repeat their baseless conclusion about "bunch" over and over
> and over and never offer a single fact to back it up. They can't. Their
> "bunch fallacy" is absurd." <<<
>
> Nonsense. The jacket was obviously bunched up, causing the discrepancy in
> the "alignment". To believe anything else is to climb the ladder of
> absurdity to its top rung...and then jump off.
>
What discrepancy. Quantify it.
Explain how the hole in the shirt matches up with the hole in the
jacket. Take a finely tailored shirt and try to pull it up over the top
of the shoulders.
> ONE hole in jacket + ONE hole in JFK's back = The same ONE bullet passed
> through BOTH that one jacket hole and that one back hole. Period.
>
> What other explanation IS there....short of climbing that CT ladder that I
> mentioned and jumping off?
>
> The CTers cannot explain the ALTERNATIVE scenario to the "bunched-up"
> theory in any type of logical and believable and sensible fashion.
>
The WC defenders cannot explain away the hole in the shirt.
> Lacking a "buched" coat, the CTers are forced to invent tales of a fake
> autopsy photo, which is a pic that was declared genuine by multiple panels
> of experts. (Are they ALL liars?)
>
Are they ALL liars. No, but they COULD be, being government sycophants.
All the government sources have lied about the back wound.
> What other choice is there? A SECOND shot to Kennedy's back? Which makes
> no sense either...because there's just the ONE hole in the jacket? So was
> the jacket "faked" too?
>
> Plus -- If the back shot to JFK did not exit his throat -- WHERE DID IT
> GO? And why didn't it cause substantial damage to JFK's innards upon being
> STOPPED dead in its tracks? How was this possible?
>
A bullet does not have to cause substantial damage to innards when it
stops dead in its tracks. It is possible and it has happened often.
> CTers have no avenue of escape here...because ANY theory they postulate is
> 50 times more illogical, undoable, and absurd than the simple explanation
> of JFK's coat being hiked up a bit as he was being shot through the back
> by Oswald's Bullet #CE399.
>
I might remind you that it is one of your own, Mark Fuhrman, who
proposes that the bullet deflected up and out of the throat to then hit
the chrome topping, the dent of which every other investigation has ignored.
> "Occam's" is in the dictionary for a reason. I've often wondered why the
> CTers of the world won't use it a little more often.
>
Occam's Razor is a crutch for the weak minded. The simplest explanation
is not always the correct explanation. The Earth being flat is the
simplest explanation, but it is not correct.
Quantum mechanics and string theory are not simple explanations.
David Von Pein
There's really no need to "explain" it via any fancier details than I
already have (which HAS to be a true scenario, barring major
undetected/unnoticed "fakery" taking place).
But I'll try (again)........
1 hole in shirt.
1 hole in jacket.
1 hole in the back of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (35th POTUS).
Equals = _____________.
Guess what I'd put in that blank?
Instead...why don't you (or any CTer) fill it in for me. I'd enjoy
seeing any type of logical alternative to the obvious one.
>>> "The WC defenders cannot explain away the hole in the shirt." <<<
Just did. Via common sense.
>>> "A bullet does not have to cause substantial damage to innards when it stops dead in its tracks. It is possible and it has happened often." <<<
Quantify that statement please. Shoot some people up and see if you
can get a WCC/MC/FMJ bullet at 2000fps (approx.) to stop inside a
person's back/neck without having that bullet hit any "bony
protuberances" en route, AND without leaving many fragments behind in
its wake.
And then try doing it TWICE to the very same victim -- which is what
is really required in this (JFK) case. Because doing it just once
ain't gonna cut it. You need TWO bullets like that to vanish inside
JFK, while causing no damage.
Good luck. (Times two.)
>>> "I might remind you that it is one of your own, Mark Fuhrman, who proposes that the bullet deflected up and out of the throat to then hit the chrome topping, the dent of which every other investigation has ignored." <<<
I'm fully aware of Mr. Fuhrman's anti-SBT theory. And he's dead
wrong...for many reasons. Here's precisely why he's dead wrong.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
>>> "Occam's Razor is a crutch for the weak minded. The simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation." <<<
But more often than not...it is.
And in the "Bullet Holes Don't Line Up" scenario, not only is the
simplest explanation the correct one, it is the ONLY POSSIBLE
EXPLANATION, unless you can prove massive fakery and skullduggery.
Can you do that in this case?
Didn't think so.
>>> "Quantum mechanics and string theory are not simple explanations." <<<
There's nothing like over-complicating the uncomplicated, is there?
CTers are known for it.
But the last time I checked, 1 Hole + 1 Hole + 1 Hole will still equal
1 bullet (i.e., the SAME bullet) going through every one of those
three holes -- even in most Quantum Mechanics classrooms.
Andrew Mason
You say in your review that Fuhrman is "unique" in his "Anti-SBT But
Oswald Was Still The Lone Gunman" stance. Not so. I diagree with his
timing a bit and his conclusion as to where the bullet through JFK went.
Although his scenario is a much better fit to all the evidence than the
SBT, he ignores the shot pattern evidence that the last two shots were
closer together.
Holland recognizes the importance of the shot pattern, but gets it wrong
on the missed first shot.
Maybe Bugliosi will finally address the evidence - and if he does, I am
confident he will get it right.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What discrepancy? Quantify it. Explain how the hole in the shirt matches up with the hole in the jacket." <<<
>
> There's really no need to "explain" it via any fancier details than I
> already have (which HAS to be a true scenario, barring major
> undetected/unnoticed "fakery" taking place).
>
> But I'll try (again)........
>
> 1 hole in shirt.
> 1 hole in jacket.
> 1 hole in the back of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (35th POTUS).
>
> Equals = _____________.
>
Bullet hitting at T-1.
> Guess what I'd put in that blank?
>
Bullet hitting above the top of the shoulders ala the Rydberg drawing
and Boswell's "correction."
> Instead...why don't you (or any CTer) fill it in for me. I'd enjoy
> seeing any type of logical alternative to the obvious one.
>
Again, because you don't have the evidence, you assume that whatever WC
fiction you've red is the obvious solution.
>
>>>> "The WC defenders cannot explain away the hole in the shirt." <<<
>
> Just did. Via common sense.
>
No, just reciting WC fiction is not common sense.
It is common consensus.
>
>>>> "A bullet does not have to cause substantial damage to innards when it stops dead in its tracks. It is possible and it has happened often." <<<
>
> Quantify that statement please. Shoot some people up and see if you
> can get a WCC/MC/FMJ bullet at 2000fps (approx.) to stop inside a
I never said a 2000 fps WCC/M-C/FMJ bullet. In fact many times I have
told other conspiracy believers that Humes's theory about a shallow
entry is impossible for a WCC/M-C/FMJ bullet. Such a shallow entry has
happened many times with other calibers such as a .45 or .22. If they
want to imagine some other caliber then such a thing could happen, but
then they'd have other problems with their theories, such as where the
shot came from and what happened to the bullet, and all the damage that
we know did happen in Kennedy's neck.
And as far as shooting some people up with a WCC/M-C/FMJ bullet and
getting the bullet to stop inside them, that is exactly what you WC
defenders claim happened to Connally, the bullet stopping and getting
stuck in his thigh and then falling out on its own. That is also what
Humes et al theorized about the Kennedy back wound. And you call them
competent?
> person's back/neck without having that bullet hit any "bony
> protuberances" en route, AND without leaving many fragments behind in
> its wake.
>
Where did you come up with the idea of many fragments left behind in its
wake? That did not happen in the JFK back wound.
> And then try doing it TWICE to the very same victim -- which is what
> is really required in this (JFK) case. Because doing it just once
> ain't gonna cut it. You need TWO bullets like that to vanish inside
> JFK, while causing no damage.
>
There have been many cases of a person having more than one bullet left
in the body. I propose no such solution in the JFK case.
> Good luck. (Times two.)
>
>
>>>> "I might remind you that it is one of your own, Mark Fuhrman, who proposes that the bullet deflected up and out of the throat to then hit the chrome topping, the dent of which every other investigation has ignored." <<<
>
> I'm fully aware of Mr. Fuhrman's anti-SBT theory. And he's dead
> wrong...for many reasons. Here's precisely why he's dead wrong.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
>
>
>>>> "Occam's Razor is a crutch for the weak minded. The simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation." <<<
>
> But more often than not...it is.
>
> And in the "Bullet Holes Don't Line Up" scenario, not only is the
> simplest explanation the correct one, it is the ONLY POSSIBLE
> EXPLANATION, unless you can prove massive fakery and skullduggery.
>
But again you misuse Occam's Razor. It is not the simplest explanation
only because you propose it.
> Can you do that in this case?
>
There is no need to prove massive fakery and skulduggery. There is some
and I am one of the few to prove it. But again that idea is a crutch for
weak minds. Deal with the facts.
> Didn't think so.
>
>
>>>> "Quantum mechanics and string theory are not simple explanations." <<<
>
> There's nothing like over-complicating the uncomplicated, is there?
> CTers are known for it.
>
> But the last time I checked, 1 Hole + 1 Hole + 1 Hole will still equal
> 1 bullet (i.e., the SAME bullet) going through every one of those
> three holes -- even in most Quantum Mechanics classrooms.
>
>
1 Hole + 1 Hole + 1 Hole does not always have to add up to 1 bullet. In
other cases 3 holes indicate 3 bullets.
Cliff
What are you talking about, Ron?
In the last frames that show the motorcade,
Tina Towner was behind JFK, who turned his
head to the right and waved his right arm, but
he did not *lean* to the right.
The white band of shirt collar at the back of his
neck is as clear as the nose on your face, Ron.
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
Betzner #3 shows the same thing at Z186.
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg
Posner claims that the Jefferies film shows the
"precise" location of the jacket for the SBT to work.
But the Dealey Plaza films and photos -- Nix, Towner,
Betzner -- show that the jacket actually dropped.
By Posner's own analysis the SBT stands debunked.
> The white of the shirt collar is seen on the side, but not on
> the back.
Towner was behind JFK and that white band you
see was at the BACK of JFK's neck.
>
> The Jeffries film shows a serious fold that is not dependent on where
> the collar of the jacket is in relation to the collar of the shirt.
>
> ***Ron Judge
Pardon me?
Care to explain how 6 inches of bunched up shirt
and jacket fabric rode above the C7 SBT inshoot at
the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the
jacket collar at the base of his neck?
Disparate solid objects cannot occupy the same
physical space at the same time, Ron.
Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of
reality. Period.
Cliff Varnell
Chad Zimmerman
It is. You claim to be able to see it in that photograph, don't you?
>
> It is sufficient to know that the jacket collar dropped
> to allow the shirt collar to be exposed.
>
> The jacket collar on "Stan" rode up into his hairline,
> remember?
>
> JFK's jacket collar dropped -- as can be seen clearly
> in any good copy of the Houston St. segment of the
> Nix film.
>
> In the NY Times, Posner claims that the jacket in the
> Jefferies film was in the "precise" location needed by
> the SBT -- with the jacket collar riding up above the shirt
> collar.
>
> Less than 10 seconds before the assassination the
> jacket dropped from Posner's "precise" location --
> ergo, the SBT stands debunked.
Not really, you just claim to know everything there is about
tailored shirt physics...;-)
I'll stand with the medical evidence that shows every part of
your thoracic entry to be bunk.
>
> Still.
>
>
>>
>> As I've said before, the Betzner just might be the worst photograph to
>> use
>> to determine much of anything about the collar or anything else.
>
> The white shirt collar is clearly visible in the Towner
> film and in Betzner -- a fact you've admitted in the past
> after much back pedaling.
I've taken the time before to provide an extreme blow up of the Betzner for
you to highlight these pertinent areas and you still won't do it. That
speaks
volumes.
>
> Are you going to back pedal from prior back pedaling,
> Chad?
I'll admit to seeing the shirt collar in the Betzner when you bother to
highlight it.
Chad
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
***Looking at the Tina Towner film on the JFK assassination films, on
the internet, it appears to me that as JFK makes the hand wave you
mention, he disappears behind his wife for a moment. As he re-appears,
JFK appears to reposition his body. It is not the best copy of the
Towner film to view, being in a wide rectangular box, but the
impression i get is that JFK is moving relative to Jackie, beyond the
changing angle between the camera and the limo.
Now we are up to 6 inches of bunching? The hole in the body was not
at the level of the collar of the jacket and the shirt.
The inshoot was near the base of the neck, in the back.
Disparate solid objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
The Jeffries film clearly shows the jacket was seriously bunched up at
times.
I believe that JFK was shot immediately before frame Z224. There was
no photography of JFK's back at that frame. While the Jeffries film
does not prove his jacket remained in that exact position, it does
prove it was possible for the jacket to be bunched enough when JFK was
shot.
***Ron Judge
Chad Zimmerman
Don't forget the Croft photo, too. Just about every decent photo of the
motorcade shows this, but they want us to believe that it disappeared by
moving his arm a little.
Chad
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1172345301.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
jim....@fuse.net
Really? Well David climb this. The Australian/Discovery Channel team
didn't have anything bunched up except their shorts when they executed the
Single Bullet THEORY. After all their meticulous preparation to prove
once and for all the factualness of the Single Bullet THEORY their one
shot proved to all of us how unworkable that theoretical concept really
was/is. Apparently you missed that debacle.
ONE hole in jacket + ONE hole in JFK's back = The same ONE bullet passed
through BOTH that one jacket hole and that one back hole. Period.
David it would appear you've lost your shirt. You've also apparently
missed the description of the location of the bullet hole in JFK's back
given to us by witnesses who were actually at Bethesda and were looking
directly at JFK's body in the Bethesda morgue. SSA Clint Hill who ran
from the SS limo during the shooting and covered Jackie Kennedy and the
fatally wounded president said he was looking directly at JFK's back of
the head wound and had this to say after he climbed onto the back of the
limo during the shooting, "As I lay over the top of the back seat I
noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was
missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a
part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat." This is what SSA
Clint Hill said about JFK's back wound he SAW at Bethesda. "At
approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman
to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the
autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh
and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the
neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed
another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the
Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement
in the casket. A new casket had been obtained from Gawler Mortuary in
which the body was to be placed."
Navy Medical tech Paul O'Connor who was actually there and assisted HBF
during the autopsy, told me a couple of years ago that "JFK's back wound
was located 3 or 3 1/2 inches BELOW the big bump on the back of the neck
(C7/T1) and about 2 inches to the right of the spine." So it seems to me
that if you are seriously looking for evidence to support a T & T bullet
trajectory from back to front, don't you think that looking where the
entrance wound on the back actually was would be in order here? The
"bunched up clothing is a useless diversion IMO. BTW didn't Humes say the
bullet entered the back at a fairly steep angle? And if that observation
is true how did it turn upward to purportedly exit at the throat wound
site? And then how did it turn back downward to hit Connally the way
Connally was wounded do you think?
What other explanation IS there....short of climbing that CT ladder that I
mentioned and jumping off?
The CTers cannot explain the ALTERNATIVE scenario to the "bunched-up"
theory in any type of logical and believable and sensible fashion. Lacking
a "buched" coat, the CTers are forced to invent tales of a fake autopsy
photo, which is a pic that was declared genuine by multiple panels of
experts. (Are they ALL liars?)
It's ironic that you would ask that question because the answer is YES!
Humes etal lied in his autopsy reports (there was more than one) and HBF
did not dissect the back wound and the front of the neck wound to prove
their POST AUTOPSY GUESS that there was a T & T wound from JFK's back to
the front of his neck. On Friday night/early Saturday morning when the
autopsy was finished, there was no such assumption by Humes and the
autopsy team.
Also, FBI's firearms expert, Agent Robert Frazier, lied about the
ballistics evidence.
Frazier was in charge of all the bullets and fragments. Frazier said he,
Killian and Cunningham test fired about 60 rounds from Oswald's rifle.
Then the FBI gave the WC a report written by Frazier that was deliberately
false (CE2011). FBI agent Frazier also withheld from the WC etal that he
had received not just 1 bullet but 2 bullets on the evening of 11/22/63 as
John Hunt discovered in the NARA files and reported to this NG last year.
Frazier's own handwritten notes show he recorded the receipt a whole
bullet at 7:30 pm on 11/22/63. The second bullet, the so called stretcher
bullet/Magic Bullet, that Darrell Tomlinson had found and given to the
head of security at Parkland Hospital, O.P. Wright, had not arrived from
Dallas.
And let's not forget that the CIA withheld what they knew about LHO from
the WC and the HSCA "investigations" for reasons known only to the CIA.
Yes David they all lied and obstructed justice.
What other choice is there? A SECOND shot to Kennedy's back? Which makes
no sense either...because there's just the ONE hole in the jacket? So was
the jacket "faked" too?
Why do you keep leaving out the shirt? The way I see it, JFK did get shot
in the front of the neck between Z frames 186 and 200 depending on how
startle reaction time is calculated for Phil Willis. And as you have
pointed out on numerous occasions JFK is then seen reacting to being hit
in the back just as the limo is seen emerging from behind the Stemmons
Freeway sign at Z frames 224/225. His movements in the Z Film made him
appear to have just been slapped on the back hard enough to make his arms
come up abruptly. I'm also going with the Connally hit(s) at Z frames 234
or 235 or 236. We all know when the head shot occurred, Z frames 312/313.
Charles Brehm, who was standing on the south side of Elm Street almost
abreast of the limo with his son when the head shot occurred, said that
another bullet whizzed past him AFTER the Z frame 313 head shot. Both
Mary Mooreman (who took the famous Polaroid picture during the shooting)
and Jean Hill, who were standing near Brehm on the South curb of Elm
Street, said they heard more that 3 shots during the shooting.
Plus -- If the back shot to JFK did not exit his throat -- WHERE DID IT
GO? And why didn't it cause substantial damage to JFK's innards upon being
STOPPED dead in its tracks? How was this possible?
Here's what Navy x-ray technician Jerroll Custer said he OBSERVED during
the autopsy. "when we lifted the body to put a plate under it, the
fragment fell out, a misshapen bullet." And when asked, if it appeared to
be a half of a bullet or a fragment his answer was it was "like a bullet.
It was misshapen as if it had hit bone and flattened out partially. It was
fairly sized." He further stated that he recognized this bullet the next
day when "Ebersol had him hold that and other fragments up against pieces
of skull bone to make X-rays." (He said Ebersol told him this was being
done "to make a bust of JFK's head." James Curtis Jenkins also remembered
very clearly that a BULLET rolled out of the sheets of the back area. Navy
corpsman Paul O'Connor said "the bullet from the (back) wound fell out
when the body was lifted from the coffin to the examining table at
Bethesda." Captain David Osborne, head of Surgery at Bethesda Naval
Hospital said he SAW a whole bullet at he autopsy that rolled out of the
sheet(s) JFK was wrapped in. He said was very sure of this "because I
held it in my hand." Where did all this evidence disappear to and who do
YOU think is lying about the evidence, David? If you've read John Hunt's
latest essay, it looks like the HSCA's forensic panel is also lying about
the evidence given to them to inspect.
CTers have no avenue of escape here...because ANY theory they postulate is
50 times more illogical, undoable, and absurd than the simple explanation
of JFK's coat being hiked up a bit as he was being shot through the back
by Oswald's Bullet #CE399.
As I've pointed out to you before, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier has
lied and obstructed justice by manipulating and withholding ballistic
evidence. Was the FBI/Frazier C1, CE399 the bullet received and logged in
by Robert Frazier at 7:30 pm on 11/22/63? It certainly wasn't the
Tomlinson/Wright Dallas stretcher bullet because Wright is on record
saying "that bullet had a pointed tip."
The Dallas stretcher bullet wasn't delivered to Frazier at the FBI lab by
FBI Agent Elmer Lee Todd until shortly after 9 pm and wasn't logged in
until 9:20 pm on 11/22/63.
"Occam's" is in the dictionary for a reason. I've often wondered why the
CTers of the world won't use it a little more often.
It's probably because we would rather rely on the facts than on some
theoretical concept as you and some of the other Lners prefer to do.
GERRY FORD, MR. SPECTER, JEAN DAVISON, AND THE BEAUTY OF THE S.B.T.:
Here's a tip for you that you might want to use when trying to determine
what is truth and what is fiction. Walk away from your obsession with the
presumption of regularity that you so generously give to anything
"official" in this case. Robert Blakey stated in his indictment of the
CIA's lies and obstruction of justice, "The law has long followed the rule
that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his
testimony." It now appears that most if not all of the "official evidence"
in this case is tainted evidence. Regards, Jim
David Von Pein
Nope. I didn't miss it at all. I've seen that program in question
("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") several times, and I bought the DVD
version through The Discovery Store.
It's a fabulous program...not a "debacle" in the slightest. And it's a
rare opportunity to see both Dale Myers and Vince Bugliosi in the same
documentary.
But the big mystery to me is WHY the CT crowd thinks of that
Australian SBT re-creation as a "debacle" or why the CTers feel that
that test proves the SBT is totally unworkable....when it, in fact,
shows exactly the opposite.
Instead of writing this all out yet again, allow me to point you to
this weblink re. "Beyond The Magic Bullet":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f6c34dca27986d7
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
jim....@fuse.net
Oh my. Well then David tell me if you know, what is the difference
between the Dale Meyers animation and the movie Jursassic Park? I
thought so. You really don't know, do you. Oh well. No one is
perfect. Not even your idol Bugliosi. Also tell me if you know, what
is the difference if you make a free throw or miss a free throw in
basketball? Your do know the answer to that one? Great. Please
apply your new found insight to the FAILURE by the Australian LNers/
Discovery Channel's recreation to attempt to prove the Single Bullet
THEORY to be a fact. Maybe it wasn't a debacle but it was ludicrously
calamitous for the SBT advocates like yourself. When the shot exited
in the front of the JFK dummy torso's chest, you must know that is the
equivalent of a missed free throw. I notice you didn't respond to the
FBI lies by Frazier and the cover up and deception by the autopsy
team, HBF or the indictment of the CIA by not only Robert Blakey and
Gerald Posner for hiding Joannidies. In the 11/24/03 Newsweek Posner
indicted the CIA in an article he wrote for that issue.
"This is not the only instance of the CIA's foot-dragging. I am one
of the signatories on a letter to the the CIA and the Defense
Department demanding release of all relevant records on a career CIA
operations officer, George Joannides."
"Declassified portions of Joannides's personnel file reveal that
in August 1963 he was responsible for reporting on "propaganda" and
"intelligence collection" for the Directorio Revolucionario
Estudiantil (DRE), a prominent anti-Castro organization known in
English as the Cuban Student Directorate. That same month Oswald
attempted to infiltrate the DRE's New Orleans delegation. That branch
- subsisting on $25,000 a month in CIA funds provided by Joannides -
publicly condemned Oswald as a Castro sympathizer."
"In November 1963, Joannides ran the CIA's Psychological Warfare
branch in Miami. After the assassination, DRE members were among the
first sources to expose Oswald's pro-Castro activities in interviews
with journalists. Within days of JFK's assassination, the DRE
published charges that Oswald had killed the president on behalf of
Castro."
"In 1978 Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the
CIA's liasion to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The
agency did not reveal Joannides's role to the congressional
investigators, even claiming it was unable to identify the DRE case
officer in 1963. Joannides never volunteered that he was the person
for whom investigators were searching. Eventually, the review board's
staff independently located records revealing it was Joannides."
"This is not a performance that inspires public confidence and is
a significant reason there is little trust in the CIA's willingness to
be truthful and forthcoming on many important fronts."
Did you notice the date on the Posner article in Newsweek? This is
2007 and the CIA still refuses to disclose any information about their
operative/agent George Joannides.
aren't you the least bit curious why they are hiding Joannides
files? You also chose not to comment on the medical disinformation/
lies. I wonder why?
Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
I was shocked to read that it was Joannides who was responsible for the
stories linking Oswald to Castro.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"The way I see it, JFK did get shot in the front
of the neck between Z frames 186 and 200
depending on how startle reaction time is
Parts of your post are quite
lucid and 90% of it I fully
embrace and then.. The apparent
bombshell quote above. Allow me
to point out and ask a few
things if I may:
1) Since I live here I have had the luxury of
looking long and hard and quite objectively
for a frontal shot. None exist that make sense
Jim. None. Zip. 0.
Have you ever been here and REEeeally looked?
2) Additionally there is little or no credible*
evidence supporting a frontal neck shot (of all
things).. WHERE would the shooter be?<=========
3) Jim where did the frontal neck entry" go?
4) Where did the Kennedy back entry shot go?
5) Doesn't this require 4 (four) shots none of
which are of the simultaneous nature?
Jim I have seldom seen a post
that makes so many points so well
then mysteriously comes
completely unraveled.. At least
in my view. Can you address the
5 questions above?
**********
Jim I think you are giving too much
credence to eyewitness recollections
and such as opposed to x-rays,
autopsy photos, and the Z film.
Please see my footnote below.
**********
MR ;~D 1741Mar107
* The PH team mistakenly and justifiably initially thought the neck
wound to be an entry wound because of it's neat clean appearance
caused by the fact that it's back entry had hit virtually nothing,
save an almost invisible nick at circa C7. - Ed Cage
jim....@fuse.net
Yep, sure did, Ed.
Parts of your post are quite lucid and 90% of it I fully
embrace and then..
Since your opinion is just that and you only know what you know I am
curious about what you think the 90% part is and what you think the
10% part is.
The apparent bombshell quote above. Allow me
to point out and ask a few things if I may:
1) Since I live here I have had the luxury of looking long and hard
and quite objectively for a frontal shot. None exist that make sense
Jim. None. Zip. 0.
Have you ever been here and REEeeally looked?
You left out the IMO after the 0. And living in Dallas has not been
an advantage if you continue to believe the 'Official"
disinformation. Ed, the FBI lied about the ballistics evidence and
concealed how they obtained evidence from the eyewitnesses. The
autopsy team, HBF, lied about what they saw and reported at the
autopsy, especially Humes.
2) Additionally there is little or no credible*
evidence supporting a frontal neck shot (of all things).. WHERE would
the shooter be?<=========
Are you carrying on where Gerald Ford left off in this investigation?
Ed, get a piece of paper and draw a top view of a skull, a slightly
elongated circle will do. Choose the frontal area and then place the
throat/neck area where you think it should be inside the top view of
the skull circle. Be sure to consider the distance between the chin
and the front of the neck circle. Now draw a small round circle for
the trachea near the front inside the neck circle. Find the center of
the front of the neck and mark a point. Then on the right side of the
trachea (your left side) mark a point on the trachea circle. Now draw
a fairly long line through those two points and beyond. The front of
the neck shot came from that angle in the front of the limo. This
shot must have come from the front because where the wounds were
located (see Dr. Perry's answers at the 3 pm news conference at
Parkland shortly after the president was pronounced dead and
SSA Clint Hill's statement of what he observed at the Bethesda morgue
after the autopsy was finished) the angle from the front of the neck
wound and the wound in the back is too shallow to have been fired
from the 6th floor of the TSBD, the so called "sniper's nest." The
Australian LNers presented us with undisputable empirical evidence
that the shot from the height of the 6th floor was too steep even
though their back entrance wound location was too high when they set
everything up in the beginning. Their shot proved beyond a reasonable
doubt the Single Bullet THEORY is still an unworkable THEORY when the
shot exited the JFK dummy torso in the upper chest area and not at the
neck wound location. So Ed, you can't have it both ways.
3) Jim where did the frontal neck entry" go?
Who in the hell knows at this point. What we do know is the autopsy
team lied about what they really saw and reported. Especially Humes.
And FBI firearms expert in charge of the ballistic evidence lied about
the evidence he and his team collected.
4) Where did the Kennedy back entry shot go?
Jerroll Custer, one of the X-ray technicians who helped take the X-
rays at the autopsy said he saw a misshapen bullet fall out of the
back when they lifted Kennedy's body up to put an X-ray plate under
it.
5) Doesn't this require 4 (four) shots none of which are of the
simultaneous nature?
Say what?
Jim I have seldom seen a post that makes so many points so well
then mysteriously comes completely unraveled.
Spoken like a true blue Lner, Ed. I'm glad to see you added, "At
least in my view."
At least in my view. Can you address the 5 questions above?
**********
Jim I think you are giving too much credence to eyewitness recollections
and such as opposed to x-rays, autopsy photos, and the Z film. Please see
my footnote below.
Let's see now, that means you believe everything happened as described
by the "official investigators" and the results of the "official
investigations" right?
And to do that you must ignore the lies and disinformation of the FBI,
the autopsy team, the CIA, the WC findings and the HCSA's forensic
panel's lies and most of the testimony produced by the WC and the
HSCA. It is apparent that you haven't read any of the ARRB report or
John Hunt's essays nor Dr. Gary Aguilar's and Josiah Thompson's
articles on the History Matters web site.
As Robert Blakey reminded us at the end of his indictment of the CIA's
obstruction of justice during both official investigations, "the law
has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point,
you may reject all of his testimony."
**********
MR ;~D 1741Mar107
* The PH team mistakenly and justifiably initially thought the neck
wound to be an entry wound because of it's neat clean appearance
caused by the fact that it's back entry had hit virtually nothing,
save an almost invisible nick at circa C7. - Ed Cage
Ed, you forgot to add an IMO or IMHO at the end of your opinion. Navy med
tech Paul O'Connor who assisted HBF at the autopsy told me a couple of
years ago the Wound on Kennedy's back was 3 or 3 1/2 inches below the
C7-T1 bump on the spine and about 2 inches to the right of the spine.
SSA Clint Hill who saw the JFK's body after the autopsy was finished
described what he saw at that time.
Clint Hill stated ...
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC
Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I
arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer,
General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six
inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the
spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of
the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time
preparing the body for placement in the casket. A new casket had been
obtained from Gawler Mortuary in which the body was to be placed.
I went back to the 17th Floor of the hospital at approximately 3:10
a.m. The President's body was taken from the U.S. Naval Hospital,
Bethesda, Maryland, at 3:56 a.m., accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and
Attorney General Kennedy, in the rear of a U.S. Navy ambulance driven
by SA Greer. ASAIC Kellerman rode in the right front seat. I rode in
the right front seat of a White House limousine immediately behind the
ambulance. The motorcade was accompanied by motorcycle police and
arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. The casket was taken
immediately to the East Room and placed in the center of the room on a
catephalt.
/s/ Clinton J. Hill
Special Agent
U.S. Secret Service
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The Austrailan test was to determine what would happen to a bullet
fired into a replica of JFK, as he would have been nearly positioned at
nearly the moment the SBT is believed to have been fired.
The Australian test bullet was fired somewhat off mark, but the bullet
stuck the Connally replica in the right side of the back and struck the
right rib cage. The exiting bullet traversed the material representing the
arm, then bounced off the material representing a leg.
The test was not performed to test what a bullet would do to clothing, but
to test the path a bullet would likely make.
I believe, that while not wholely accurate, the test did confirm that a
bullet shot through Kennedy from the 6th floor window, could have passed
through both men in a manner consistant with their non fatal wounds.
***Ron Judge
Paul.Lee.1971
http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html
Best wishes
Paul
Anthony Marsh
Thanks. Pretty good, but you can correct a few things. I think your exit
point in the front is too high to nick the SIDE of the tie. Your green
line angle looks wrong. I think you have the entrance too high. And
compare your red dot to the autopsy photos. Minor problem, but sometimes
your grammar is too informal. "Now try and line up the entrance wound with
the jacket holes." Should read:
"Now try to line up the entrance wound with the jacket holes."
Because obviously you don't think the exercise can be accomplished.
Chad Zimmerman
Tell me, how many inches below the collar was the hole? 4". Now, tell me
where the collar rested on JFK as related a specific cervical vertebrae.
Then, once that is completed, tell me how much suit fabric has to be
bunched up for the bullet to have hit at the base of the neck.
I've done this. It is not only possible, it is the only way it could've
happened. Those that believe in a T3 entry have a lot of explaining to do,
such as:
1. Where'd the bullet exit and where was it fired from?
2. Where's the damage to the thoracic cavity?
Now, once you get past those two very important questions, then we'll talk
about the plausibility of ice bullets, dum dum rounds and any other escape
from the obvious that can be discussed.
Chad
"Paul.Lee.1971" <Paul.L...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1175252695.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> With all due respect, the only clothing gymnastics occurs in your mind.
>
> Tell me, how many inches below the collar was the hole? 4". Now, tell me
> where the collar rested on JFK as related a specific cervical vertebrae.
> Then, once that is completed, tell me how much suit fabric has to be
> bunched up for the bullet to have hit at the base of the neck.
>
> I've done this. It is not only possible, it is the only way it could've
> happened. Those that believe in a T3 entry have a lot of explaining to do,
> such as:
>
> 1. Where'd the bullet exit and where was it fired from?
> 2. Where's the damage to the thoracic cavity?
>
> Now, once you get past those two very important questions, then we'll talk
> about the plausibility of ice bullets, dum dum rounds and any other escape
> from the obvious that can be discussed.
>
No conspiracy researcher has brought up ice bullets. That came from the
FBI agents during the autopsy. What do Dum Dum bullets have to do with the
back wound? Who ever proposed that, oh master of the strawman argument?
Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZYmdnUZD9JJRXpPb...@comcast.com...
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> With all due respect, the only clothing gymnastics occurs in your mind.
>>
>> Tell me, how many inches below the collar was the hole? 4". Now, tell me
>> where the collar rested on JFK as related a specific cervical vertebrae.
>> Then, once that is completed, tell me how much suit fabric has to be
>> bunched up for the bullet to have hit at the base of the neck.
>>
>> I've done this. It is not only possible, it is the only way it could've
>> happened. Those that believe in a T3 entry have a lot of explaining to
>> do, such as:
>>
>> 1. Where'd the bullet exit and where was it fired from?
>> 2. Where's the damage to the thoracic cavity?
>>
>> Now, once you get past those two very important questions, then we'll
>> talk about the plausibility of ice bullets, dum dum rounds and any other
>> escape from the obvious that can be discussed.
>>
>
> No conspiracy researcher has brought up ice bullets.
Oh, you want to talk about who first brought them up instead of CT's that
bring
them up. Perhaps you thought that is what I was referring to. As usual, you
read
something into what I said. I didn't say that.
That came from the
> FBI agents during the autopsy. What do Dum Dum bullets have to do with the
> back wound? Who ever proposed that, oh master of the strawman argument?
Hehe. Typical Marsh. Mention strawman just after creating one.
NWR.
Chad
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZYmdnUZD9JJRXpPb...@comcast.com...
>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>> With all due respect, the only clothing gymnastics occurs in your mind.
>>>
>>> Tell me, how many inches below the collar was the hole? 4". Now, tell me
>>> where the collar rested on JFK as related a specific cervical vertebrae.
>>> Then, once that is completed, tell me how much suit fabric has to be
>>> bunched up for the bullet to have hit at the base of the neck.
>>>
>>> I've done this. It is not only possible, it is the only way it could've
>>> happened. Those that believe in a T3 entry have a lot of explaining to
>>> do, such as:
>>>
>>> 1. Where'd the bullet exit and where was it fired from?
>>> 2. Where's the damage to the thoracic cavity?
>>>
>>> Now, once you get past those two very important questions, then we'll
>>> talk about the plausibility of ice bullets, dum dum rounds and any other
>>> escape from the obvious that can be discussed.
>>>
>> No conspiracy researcher has brought up ice bullets.
>
> Oh, you want to talk about who first brought them up instead of CT's that
> bring
> them up. Perhaps you thought that is what I was referring to. As usual, you
> read
> something into what I said. I didn't say that.
>
Oh yes, please let's talk about conspiracy believers who think an ice
bullet was used. What's his name? Let's line him up against a wall and
shoot him, eh? And the rest of the research community is tainted by one
kook? Like Morningstar, whom the rest of us vilify?
> That came from the
>> FBI agents during the autopsy. What do Dum Dum bullets have to do with the
>> back wound? Who ever proposed that, oh master of the strawman argument?
>
> Hehe. Typical Marsh. Mention strawman just after creating one.
>
I didn't create a strawman. You did with your claim that the conspiracy
believers are the ones who thought up the nutty idea of ice bullets.