Single-Bullet Logic
David Von Pein
"SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" LOGIC:
-----------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley
Upon looking over just a small portion of Pat Speer's JFK
assassination presentation (linked above), a series of proposed anti-
SBT problems become readily apparent.
Pat thinks that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the back by a
bullet at Zapruder Film frame #190, which is also the "SBT" Z-Film
frame as proposed by the HSCA in the late 1970s, which is a SBT
timeline that I can only assume author Vincent Bugliosi has revised
for his 2007 JFK book ("Reclaiming History"), since Vince, too,
supported such an early SBT hit as of 1986. But better copies of the
Z-Film (which show more clearly the Z224 SBT hit) have come to light
since Mr. Bugliosi's support of a Z190 SBT in '86.
Besides the obvious problem of "WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY REACT TO A Z190
SHOT UNTIL Z225, VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT
Z226?" -- Pat also believes that the Z190 shot into JFK's back did not
transit his body, despite the autopsy report claiming it MUST have
transited. So that's DISAPPEARING BULLET #1.
Plus: What the hell STOPPED this bullet?
And Pat thinks that Connally was hit by a separate shot at Z224 (from
behind, of course), and, based on the slightly R-to-L angle through
JBC's body and the downward angle through him, this bullet almost
certainly had to have come from a window in the Texas School Book
Depository Building.
Now, since the only known gunman in the TSBD was occupying the
"Oswald" Sniper's-Nest window in the southeast corner of the building,
is it reasonable to assume that this bullet DIDN'T come from that
window?
In my own opinion, that is not a reasonable thing to believe, per the
overall evidence. So, based on the reasonable hypothesis that that
Z224 bullet which went into JBC came from that SN window....I want to
know HOW on this green Earth Mr. Speer manages to get John F. Kennedy
OUT OF THE GUNMAN'S way in order for a separate bullet to hit Connally
in the back where we KNOW Connally was hit?
And then Pat needs a separate bullet to hit JFK in the throat from the
front...which (coincidentally) Pat thinks ALSO occurs at Z224....the
EXACT same frame he says Connally is hit (but by a SEPARATE bullet)!
Here's DISAPPEARING BULLET #2.
And -- What stopped THIS bullet from transiting Kennedy's body? Did
the mere friction from the bullet going into his neck stop it dead?
TWO "dud" rounds from TWO separate rifles (to account for the separate
neck and back missiles not transiting)? Come now! How far into crazy-
land are people expected to travel?
Overall -- That CTer-created version of the shooting amounts to what
would be an absolutely-miraculous piece of good fortune and great
(coincidental) marksmanship on the part of the THREE different gunmen
who must have (per this crazy theory) peppered the two victims with
three separate bullets in a beautifully-coordinated "SBT"-like
pattern...with the CORRECT TIMING even (per the Zapruder Film)!
Just how much "coincidence" is too much? How is it even remotely
possible to believe in such a 3-Shot anti-SBT shooting alternative?
Which is a scenario that so closely mirrors the SBT in various ways,
that members of two different Government inquiries FELL FOR THE
SINGLE-BULLET THEORY??!!
There's also the built-in "CE399" problem for any anti-SBT theory.
Let's examine that.....
1.) Bullet CE399 is definitely a bullet from LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUN.
2.) Oswald's gun was almost certainly being fired from the SN window
in the TSBD (it was found on that very same floor -- the 6th Floor --
and the only gunman seen throughout Dealey Plaza was the gunman
located in the southeast corner window on that TSBD 6th Floor).
3.) Connally was hit by just ONE single bullet during the shooting
(per his doctors and per Connally's own beliefs regarding this
matter).
4.) Given this approximate "Z224" view of the limo from the SN in the
TSBD (linked below; via Dale Myers' computer animation, which is based
almost exclusively on the Zapruder Film), President Kennedy is
positively in between the gunman and the place on Governor Connally's
back where he was hit by a bullet at Z224. ....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
5.) CE399 was found inside Parkland Hospital--and was found on a
stretcher located in a place WHERE PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER WAS LOCATED
(nor was JFK's stretcher). Which means that Bullet CE399 HAD to be the
ONE AND ONLY BULLET that struck Governor Connally on 11/22/63. In
other words, given the place where CE399 was found, that bullet had to
have fallen out of CONNALLY, not KENNEDY.
(This hypothesis is sans the introduction of any crazy, totally-
unsupportable/unprovable belief of Bullet 399 being "planted", which
is what most conspiracy theorists HAVE to believe....because if that
bullet was NOT a "plant", the SBT fits like a glove, per #1 through #5
above.)
So, based on the above five points, the "problem" for anti-SBTers is
finding a way for that bullet (CE399) to get to that stretcher inside
Parkland Hospital (where it was found by Darrell Tomlinson) WITHOUT
FIRST HAVING THAT SAME BULLET GO THROUGH BOTH JOHN F. KENNEDY AND JOHN
B. CONNALLY (IN THAT ORDER).
David Von Pein
March 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89
Andrew Mason
> "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" LOGIC:
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley
>
> Upon looking over just a small portion of Pat Speer's JFK
> assassination presentation (linked above), a series of proposed anti-
> SBT problems become readily apparent.
>
> Pat thinks that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the back by a
> bullet at Zapruder Film frame #190, which is also the "SBT" Z-Film
> frame as proposed by the HSCA in the late 1970s, which is a SBT
> timeline that I can only assume author Vincent Bugliosi has revised
> for his 2007 JFK book ("Reclaiming History"), since Vince, too,
> supported such an early SBT hit as of 1986. But better copies of the
> Z-Film (which show more clearly the Z224 SBT hit) have come to light
> since Mr. Bugliosi's support of a Z190 SBT in '86.
Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly
shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222.
>
> Besides the obvious problem of "WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY REACT TO A Z190
> SHOT UNTIL Z225, VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT
> Z226?" -- Pat also believes that the Z190 shot into JFK's back did not
> transit his body, despite the autopsy report claiming it MUST have
> transited. So that's DISAPPEARING BULLET #1.
I think Bugliosi concludes that JFK is already reacting to the neck shot
by z224. You are assuming that JFK had only one reaction. Why could he
not have an initial reaction (eg. something not right) and then a more
dramatic reaction (eg. can't breathe)
>
> Plus: What the hell STOPPED this bullet?
JFK's neck muscles, skin, clothing, tie and JBC's clothing, thigh.
>
> And Pat thinks that Connally was hit by a separate shot at Z224 (from
> behind, of course), and, based on the slightly R-to-L angle through
> JBC's body and the downward angle through him, this bullet almost
> certainly had to have come from a window in the Texas School Book
> Depository Building.
>
> Now, since the only known gunman in the TSBD was occupying the
> "Oswald" Sniper's-Nest window in the southeast corner of the building,
> is it reasonable to assume that this bullet DIDN'T come from that
> window?
>
> In my own opinion, that is not a reasonable thing to believe, per the
> overall evidence. So, based on the reasonable hypothesis that that
> Z224 bullet which went into JBC came from that SN window....I want to
> know HOW on this green Earth Mr. Speer manages to get John F. Kennedy
> OUT OF THE GUNMAN'S way in order for a separate bullet to hit Connally
> in the back where we KNOW Connally was hit?
If JBC was not hit until z270 or so, it is not a problem. The car is at
an angle of about 3 degrees at that point and JFK has moved over to the
left.
Not a problem at all, as far as I can tell. Your scenario is plausible
until you start fitting it with the witness evidence.
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
From David Von Pein:
* Plus: What the hell STOPPED this bullet?
(from the back)
* And then Pat needs a separate bullet to
hit JFK in the throat from the front...
* And -- What stopped THIS bullet from
transiting Kennedy's body?
From WhiskyJoe:
And another coincidence, how is it the
bullet from the back and the bullet from
the front just happen to hit on opposite
sides of JFK's body, on opposite sides of
his neck, making it easy for attribute the
wounds to one bullet?
And why would the conspirators risk firing
from the front which could cause a wound,
like to the neck, that they can't account
for with a shooter from the back, unless
they get lucky?
*****************************************
The answer is obvious.
They must of used magnetic bullets.
If the rear shooter only used N-S bullets
and the frontal shooter only used
S-N bullets, then the bullets would
naturally attract and will always hit
on opposite sides of the body.
So as long as they were careful to
coordinate their fire, any wound in the
back will always have a wound in the
front, right where it needs to be.
Once the bullets merge their magnetism
would cancel each other out and they
would become like a single non magnetic
bullet. Actually, I don't think it works
that way.
But, if they used one bullet of ordinary
matter and the other bullet of anti matter,
they would tend to attract each other,
hit on opposite sides of a body and
they will annihilate each other and
so no bullets will be found accept for
those they plant, making certain they
don't plant an anti matter bullet by
mistake. Actually, if one did try to
plant an anti matter bullet, one would
discover one's mistake immediately.
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222." <<<
Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the best of all -- which is particularly
odd, since that is a frame when we can't even see JFK at all, due to
the sign obstruction.
And Z210 becomes an even odder choice for an SBT hit because of the
fact that that particular frame doesn't even EXIST on the film at all
in the very best copy of the film that we have today--the MPI 1998
digitally-enhanced version. Z208 through Z211, of course, were damaged
by LIFE, so Z210 doesn't really even exist (unless you want to watch
Robert Groden's crappy unspliced copy).
Why in the world Dale Myers' excellent animations (key-framed to the Z-
Film itself) were not able to convince Vince of the obviousness of the
Z224 SBT timing is a mystery to me. I guess Myers must've never shown
Bugliosi his complete animation in motion.
~shrug~
Robert Harris
David, let me help you out here.
Your refutation to Speers' claim that JFK was hit at 190, lies in the
nature of JFK's reaction.
Try a simple experiment. Bring your hands up to your throat, imagining
that you are suffering a terrible pain there. No, seriously, do it.
Now, look down at your elbows. Did they remain at your side?
JFK brought his arms up, not because of anything he felt in his throat,
but because a nerve located at C7 in the spine connects directly with
the elbow extensors.
That's why his elbows rose above the level of his shoulders.
If you talk to any neurologist, you will learn that such reactions are
much faster than even startle reactions. Therefore, JFK's arms and
elbows had to have risen within no more than 3-4 frames of him being
struck by a bullet.
Since we can see that his arm first began to rise at 226, we have a
perfect match with JBC's reactions, which began when his jacket was
blown outward at frame 223.
190 is totally out of the question for JFK.
Unfortunately for your cause however, that shot could not possibly have
come from Oswald's location.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
Robert Harris
In article
<a024f29c-b6d1-4da7...@l8g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog
I like your tongue-in-cheek reply WhiskyJoe but it does address a very
thorny problem for the frontal shot advocates. If you want to frame a
lone gunman, why would you shoot JFK from more than one direction?
Robert Harris
Andrew Mason <a.m...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" LOGIC:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley
> >
> > Upon looking over just a small portion of Pat Speer's JFK
> > assassination presentation (linked above), a series of proposed anti-
> > SBT problems become readily apparent.
> >
> > Pat thinks that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the back by a
> > bullet at Zapruder Film frame #190, which is also the "SBT" Z-Film
> > frame as proposed by the HSCA in the late 1970s, which is a SBT
> > timeline that I can only assume author Vincent Bugliosi has revised
> > for his 2007 JFK book ("Reclaiming History"), since Vince, too,
> > supported such an early SBT hit as of 1986. But better copies of the
> > Z-Film (which show more clearly the Z224 SBT hit) have come to light
> > since Mr. Bugliosi's support of a Z190 SBT in '86.
>
> Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly
> shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222.
That's because Mr. Bugliosi is not a researcher. He is a lawyer who is
far more interested in winning than in learning.
Robert Harris
John Fiorentino
"VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT
Z226?" --"
None of that is correct. The "super-extension" was referred to by Cecil
Kirk as you can reference in the documentary LHO on Trial w/Bugliosi &
Spence. It occurs at frame 199. I explain in my book what this is.
JFK & JBC were most certainly struck Z- 223-224.
John F.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@spmlaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Ib-dnSuWQ7mq8qDX...@posted.sasktel...
bigdog
> David, let me help you out here.
>
> Your refutation to Speers' claim that JFK was hit at 190, lies in the
> nature of JFK's reaction.
>
> Try a simple experiment. Bring your hands up to your throat, imagining
> that you are suffering a terrible pain there. No, seriously, do it.
>
> Now, look down at your elbows. Did they remain at your side?
>
> JFK brought his arms up, not because of anything he felt in his throat,
> but because a nerve located at C7 in the spine connects directly with
> the elbow extensors.
>
> That's why his elbows rose above the level of his shoulders.
>
> If you talk to any neurologist, you will learn that such reactions are
> much faster than even startle reactions. Therefore, JFK's arms and
> elbows had to have risen within no more than 3-4 frames of him being
> struck by a bullet.
>
> Since we can see that his arm first began to rise at 226, we have a
> perfect match with JBC's reactions, which began when his jacket was
> blown outward at frame 223.
>
> 190 is totally out of the question for JFK.
>
> Unfortunately for your cause however, that shot could not possibly have
> come from Oswald's location.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob, you were really going good until you got to the part about the shot
not coming from Oswald. The SN is exactly where two computer animations,
Failure Analysis and Myers, have said that shot came from. FA created a
cone indicating where the bullet could have come from based on the data
they had and the SN was in the center of that cone. Myers was more precise
in his analysis, again pointing to the SN.
David Von Pein
>>> "Your refutation to Speers' claim that JFK was hit at 190, lies in the
nature of JFK's reaction." <<<
Yes. Exactly. Which is why I said this earlier:
"Besides the obvious problem of "WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY REACT TO A Z190
SHOT UNTIL Z225, VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT Z226?"
-- Pat [Speer] also believes that the Z190 shot into JFK's back did not
transit his body, despite the autopsy report claiming it MUST have
transited." -- D.V.P.
Anthony Marsh
> David, let me help you out here.
>
> Your refutation to Speers' claim that JFK was hit at 190, lies in the
> nature of JFK's reaction.
>
> Try a simple experiment. Bring your hands up to your throat, imagining
> that you are suffering a terrible pain there. No, seriously, do it.
>
> Now, look down at your elbows. Did they remain at your side?
>
> JFK brought his arms up, not because of anything he felt in his throat,
> but because a nerve located at C7 in the spine connects directly with
> the elbow extensors.
>
Right idea, but I believe it was the nerve between C7 and T-1, the C8
nerve.
> That's why his elbows rose above the level of his shoulders.
>
I never see his elblows rise above the level of the shoulders.
> If you talk to any neurologist, you will learn that such reactions are
> much faster than even startle reactions. Therefore, JFK's arms and
> elbows had to have risen within no more than 3-4 frames of him being
> struck by a bullet.
>
True, but we don't know how many frames his arms and elbows had already
been up there.
> Since we can see that his arm first began to rise at 226, we have a
> perfect match with JBC's reactions, which began when his jacket was
> blown outward at frame 223.
>
No. His arm was already up there before 226.
> 190 is totally out of the question for JFK.
>
Frame 190 came from the HSCA which had the match-up of the acoustical
evidence wrong.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222."<<<
>
> Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the best of all -- which is particularly
> odd, since that is a frame when we can't even see JFK at all, due to
> the sign obstruction.
>
Z-210 is a good choice because this was the first frame where a shooter
from the sniper's nest got a clear line of sight at Kennedy after the tree.
> And Z210 becomes an even odder choice for an SBT hit because of the
> fact that that particular frame doesn't even EXIST on the film at all
> in the very best copy of the film that we have today--the MPI 1998
> digitally-enhanced version. Z208 through Z211, of course, were damaged
> by LIFE, so Z210 doesn't really even exist (unless you want to watch
> Robert Groden's crappy unspliced copy).
>
Excuse me? Groden does not have an unspliced copy of the camera original
Zapruder film. He shows one of the other three COPIES which was not
damaged. Only Zapruder's copy was damaged by LIFE. The other two copies
were in the hands of the FBI and CIA.
> Why in the world Dale Myers' excellent animations (key-framed to the Z-
> Film itself) were not able to convince Vince of the obviousness of the
> Z224 SBT timing is a mystery to me. I guess Myers must've never shown
> Bugliosi his complete animation in motion.
>
Then who wrote all the Z-224 crap in his book? Myers did and perhaps the
Bug did not even read it carefully. Funny how you guys claim the SBT
works perfectly no matter which frame you chose from day to day.
> ~shrug~
>
WhiskyJoe
> I like your tongue-in-cheek reply
> WhiskyJoe but it does address a very
> thorny problem for the frontal shot
> advocates. If you want to frame a
> lone gunman, why would you shoot JFK
> from more than one direction?
Of course, they wouldn't use frontal
shooters. Snipers firing from the
rear get to fire down the line of
travel of the limousine, making for
the easiest possible shot. Any wounds
can easily be explained as coming
from Oswald.
The only disadvantage of using only
snipers from the rear, is if somehow
at under one hundred yards, firing
down the line of travel, the sniper
misses the first shot, JFK could duck
down and snipers from the rear won't be
able to see him. But snipers from the
Grassy Knoll or anywhere else won't
be able to see him either. So much
for crossfire.
WhiskyJoe
> Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the
> best of all -- which is particularly
> odd, since that is a frame when we
> can't even see JFK at all, due to
> the sign obstruction.
Not to mention tree obstruction from
Oswald's viewpoint. It's possible a
shot fired at Z190 might not hit any
twigs and might not get deflected.
But no one is going to be dumb enough
to try it.
Vince first started studying this case
in depth in the mid 1980's. At the time,
there was the HSCA Z190 shot and the
Warren Commission Z210-225 shot.
With the stabilized versions of the
Zapruder film became available, it became
clear to him that a shot at Z190 had
nothing going for it. And so he went
with the WC Z210-225 and I think Z210
just stuck in his mind.
If he started looking into this case in
the mid 1990's, he would be going with
a Z220-224 shot.
And if he, early on, was familiar
with the tests by Dr. Lattimer, he
would go with a shot at Z221-222.
The Dr. Lattimer tests show a coat
reaches it's maximum movement forward
at least one tenth of a second after
the bullet passes through, so the Z224
coat bulge corresponds to a shot at
Z221-Z222.
>
> Why in the world Dale Myer's excellent
> animation's (key-framed to the Z-Film
> itself) were not able to convince Vince
> of the obviousness of the Z224 SBT
> timing is a mystery to me. I guess Myers
> must've never shown Bugliosi his
> complete animation in motion.
Better than the Myers animation, which is
excellent is just the film itself:
Anthony Marsh
>
> "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" LOGIC:
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley
>
> Upon looking over just a small portion of Pat Speer's JFK
> assassination presentation (linked above), a series of proposed anti-
> SBT problems become readily apparent.
>
> Pat thinks that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the back by a
> bullet at Zapruder Film frame #190, which is also the "SBT" Z-Film
> frame as proposed by the HSCA in the late 1970s, which is a SBT
> timeline that I can only assume author Vincent Bugliosi has revised
> for his 2007 JFK book ("Reclaiming History"), since Vince, too,
> supported such an early SBT hit as of 1986. But better copies of the
> Z-Film (which show more clearly the Z224 SBT hit) have come to light
> since Mr. Bugliosi's support of a Z190 SBT in '86.
>
Some new info there. WHERE did Bugliosi write in 1986 that he accepted the
HSCA's SBT at Z-190? That would seem to imply that he was accepting their
acoustical analysis then.
> Besides the obvious problem of "WHY DOESN'T KENNEDY REACT TO A Z190
> SHOT UNTIL Z225, VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT
> Z226?" -- Pat also believes that the Z190 shot into JFK's back did not
> transit his body, despite the autopsy report claiming it MUST have
> transited. So that's DISAPPEARING BULLET #1.
>
Dr. McCarthy points out that Kennedy was reacting BEFORE Z-225.
> Plus: What the hell STOPPED this bullet?
Why didn't you ask Humes that same question on the night of the autopsy?
>
> And Pat thinks that Connally was hit by a separate shot at Z224 (from
> behind, of course), and, based on the slightly R-to-L angle through
> JBC's body and the downward angle through him, this bullet almost
> certainly had to have come from a window in the Texas School Book
> Depository Building.
>
> Now, since the only known gunman in the TSBD was occupying the
> "Oswald" Sniper's-Nest window in the southeast corner of the building,
> is it reasonable to assume that this bullet DIDN'T come from that
> window?
>
Just because you don't know something does not mean it does not exist.
> In my own opinion, that is not a reasonable thing to believe, per the
> overall evidence. So, based on the reasonable hypothesis that that
> Z224 bullet which went into JBC came from that SN window....I want to
> know HOW on this green Earth Mr. Speer manages to get John F. Kennedy
> OUT OF THE GUNMAN'S way in order for a separate bullet to hit Connally
> in the back where we KNOW Connally was hit?
>
> And then Pat needs a separate bullet to hit JFK in the throat from the
> front...which (coincidentally) Pat thinks ALSO occurs at Z224....the
> EXACT same frame he says Connally is hit (but by a SEPARATE bullet)!
> Here's DISAPPEARING BULLET #2.
>
> And -- What stopped THIS bullet from transiting Kennedy's body? Did
> the mere friction from the bullet going into his neck stop it dead?
> TWO "dud" rounds from TWO separate rifles (to account for the separate
> neck and back missiles not transiting)? Come now! How far into crazy-
> land are people expected to travel?
>
Does he specify which calibers?
> Overall -- That CTer-created version of the shooting amounts to what
> would be an absolutely-miraculous piece of good fortune and great
> (coincidental) marksmanship on the part of the THREE different gunmen
> who must have (per this crazy theory) peppered the two victims with
> three separate bullets in a beautifully-coordinated "SBT"-like
> pattern...with the CORRECT TIMING even (per the Zapruder Film)!
>
> Just how much "coincidence" is too much? How is it even remotely
> possible to believe in such a 3-Shot anti-SBT shooting alternative?
> Which is a scenario that so closely mirrors the SBT in various ways,
> that members of two different Government inquiries FELL FOR THE
> SINGLE-BULLET THEORY??!!
>
> There's also the built-in "CE399" problem for any anti-SBT theory.
> Let's examine that.....
>
> 1.) Bullet CE399 is definitely a bullet from LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUN.
>
> 2.) Oswald's gun was almost certainly being fired from the SN window
> in the TSBD (it was found on that very same floor -- the 6th Floor --
> and the only gunman seen throughout Dealey Plaza was the gunman
> located in the southeast corner window on that TSBD 6th Floor).
>
> 3.) Connally was hit by just ONE single bullet during the shooting
> (per his doctors and per Connally's own beliefs regarding this
> matter).
>
Wrong. Humes and the other doctors proposed a SBT where Connally was hit
by two bullets.
> 4.) Given this approximate "Z224" view of the limo from the SN in the
> TSBD (linked below; via Dale Myers' computer animation, which is based
> almost exclusively on the Zapruder Film), President Kennedy is
> positively in between the gunman and the place on Governor Connally's
> back where he was hit by a bullet at Z224. ....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>
> 5.) CE399 was found inside Parkland Hospital--and was found on a
> stretcher located in a place WHERE PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER WAS LOCATED
> (nor was JFK's stretcher). Which means that Bullet CE399 HAD to be the
> ONE AND ONLY BULLET that struck Governor Connally on 11/22/63. In
> other words, given the place where CE399 was found, that bullet had to
> have fallen out of CONNALLY, not KENNEDY.
>
Sure, sure. Explain exactly HOW your Magic Bullet magically fell out of
Connally.
Andrew Mason
I suspect that Bugliosi was aware of Myers. Since Myers does not provide
evidence of anything useful to Bugliosi, it is not surprising he would
not mention him. Myers shows the trajectory (tries to anyway). But
Bugliosi accepts the trajectory.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
>> Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the
>> best of all -- which is particularly
>> odd, since that is a frame when we
>> can't even see JFK at all, due to
>> the sign obstruction.
>
> Not to mention tree obstruction from
> Oswald's viewpoint. It's possible a
> shot fired at Z190 might not hit any
> twigs and might not get deflected.
> But no one is going to be dumb enough
> to try it.
JFK was not obstructed by the tree at z210. They said that JFK was not
visible until about z210 but their reenactment shows he was visible (in
May 64) at the position the car was in at z207. There are some problems
with this in that the tree is different than it was in November 63 and
the car was different. I have never really understood why this was
treated as so important because the outer tree branches even in May 64
did not really obscure much. In the reenactment you can see the back
bumper which was 8 feet behind JFK. So he would have been quite visible
at z199.
At z190 JFK was obscured by the middle of the tree. At z186 there was a
brief opening. But Betzner, who took his picture at z186 and said the
first shot happened just afterward as he was winding his camera to take
another shot. Phil Willis said the shot occurred as he was taking his
z202 shot. Those observations are consistent with others who put the
first shot around z200.
I think it is a mistake to think that the tree could have deflected a
bullet. It could destabilise it but it would never cause it to change
direction suddenly and miss the car. Bullets go through branches. They
don't deflect off them. Striking multiple branches would deflect it more
but still enough to miss the car. If you disagree, try shooting through
a tree and see how much the bullets deflect.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
<9a66b1fe-929b-473c...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can learn more about Myers' conclusions in these two video
presentations,
http://jfkhistory.com/myersx/myersx.mov
http://jfkhistory.com/silent3/silent3.mov
And the FAA is even worse. This is the 3D image they produced. Notice
that the angle is much flatter than the the 18 degrees back to the
alleged SN.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg
The real angle back to Oswald were much steeper than was consistent with
the wound locations of the two victims. Look at what happened when this
Discovery Channel team tried to play it straight and honestly depict the
trajectory:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgec6oCdIvE
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Then who wrote all the Z-224 crap in his [VB's] book?" <<<
Vince did (of course). He was merely touching all possible "SBT" bases
(and frames). He admits that Myers' "Z223" frame could be correct. But
it's obvious that Vince likes Z210 much better.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a8169329313d11c8
DVP SAID:
>>> "VIA THE SUPER-RAPID ARM RISE WHICH ONLY STARTS AT Z226?" <<<
JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>>> "None of that [post-Z225 JFK arm-raising] is correct." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Nonsense. It's obvious that JFK's hands are very LOW as late as Z225
(much lower than they were in the Z190s when the HSCA claims JFK has
already been hit), and that his arms rise very rapidly only after
Z225, beginning at exactly Z226....2/18ths of a second after the
bullet struck him (or 3/18ths if we want to say that the bullet
technically struck at Z223, which is indeed possible).
>>> "The "super-extension" was referred to by Cecil Kirk as you can reference in the documentary LHO on Trial w/Bugliosi & Spence. It occurs at frame 199. I explain in my book what this is." <<<
Yes. That's the same Cecil Kirk that you (John Fiorentino) were poking
fun at the other day, claiming that he was, in essence, seeing things
that weren't there (i.e., a bullet hitting Jack Kennedy at Z190).
>>> "JFK & JBC were most certainly struck [at] Z- 223-224." <<<
Indeed they were. And JFK's hands don't begin their "rise" to his neck/
mouth area until Z226, which is, of course, perfectly consistent with
such a Z223-224 hit.
==================================
THE S.B.T. IN ACTION:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
==================================
Anthony Marsh
Now you've lost me. Myers shows the trajectory where and to whom? To
Bugliosi in a private meeting? When? If you mean Bugliosi's book, that
trajectory is not from Myers. How can you claim that Bugliosi accepts
the Myers trajectory when HIS diagram shows Z-210 and Myers shows Z-224?
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>
>> I like your tongue-in-cheek reply
>> WhiskyJoe but it does address a very
>> thorny problem for the frontal shot
>> advocates. If you want to frame a
>> lone gunman, why would you shoot JFK
>> from more than one direction?
>
> Of course, they wouldn't use frontal
> shooters. Snipers firing from the
> rear get to fire down the line of
> travel of the limousine, making for
> the easiest possible shot. Any wounds
> can easily be explained as coming
> from Oswald.
>
The frontal shot is just the insurance shot in case something went wrong
with the shot from behind. It's called triangulation of fire.
> The only disadvantage of using only
> snipers from the rear, is if somehow
> at under one hundred yards, firing
> down the line of travel, the sniper
> misses the first shot, JFK could duck
> down and snipers from the rear won't be
> able to see him. But snipers from the
> Grassy Knoll or anywhere else won't
> be able to see him either. So much
> for crossfire.
>
Or if the rifle jams because it's a piece of junk, or some cop or the SS
starts firing back at the sniper.
Anthony Marsh
There's no problem getting the bullet from the sniper's nest to Kennedy.
The problem is getting that same bullet to hit Connally's right armpit.
bigdog
>
> I think it is a mistake to think that the tree could have deflected a
> bullet. It could destabilise it but it would never cause it to change
> direction suddenly and miss the car. Bullets go through branches. They
> don't deflect off them. Striking multiple branches would deflect it more
> but still enough to miss the car. If you disagree, try shooting through
> a tree and see how much the bullets deflect.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
significant deflection. A moving object follows the path of least
resistance. If one side of the bullet meets resistance, the bullet
will move in the opposite direction.
>
bigdog
> On 6/21/2009 11:44 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222."<<<
>
> > Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the best of all -- which is particularly
> > odd, since that is a frame when we can't even see JFK at all, due to
> > the sign obstruction.
>
> Z-210 is a good choice because this was the first frame where a shooter
> from the sniper's nest got a clear line of sight at Kennedy after the tree.
>
This may be splitting hairs, but since it would take a bullet from the SN
almost 1/10 of a second to reach the target, roughly 2 Z-frames, a strike
at Z210 would have to have been fired at Z208 before the target was fully
in view. If he fired at Z210, the strike would have been at Z212. Now I
can't imagine Oswald pulling the trigger the instant his target came into
full view. As a Marine trained shooter, he would likely have begun to
squeeze the trigger at that point. Therefore a shot fired at Z222 reaching
the target Z223-224 seems more reasonable.
Anthony Marsh
Because they can count on people like you to argue away the obvious and
help the cover-up. If people had reported hearing 12 shots then people
like you would cover it up by saying there were only 3 shots and the
rest were echoes. Anything to cover up.
geovulture
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Bob, you were really going good until you got to the part about the shot
> not coming from Oswald. The SN is exactly where two computer animations,
> Failure Analysis and Myers, have said that shot came from. FA created a
> cone indicating where the bullet could have come from based on the data
> they had and the SN was in the center of that cone. Myers was more precise
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reactions to the single bullet theory are an interesting study in bias
regarding researchers. I would say it falls on both sides due to the lack
of real information and data to rely on, but one of the things that stands
out to me is the demand for precision from conpiracy theorists. I very
often hear that the trajectory doesn't work because the bullet exiting
Kennedy should have hit Connally futher to the left. However, when we
look at where they claim the bullet should have hit, we all know that
there was no wound. Instead of looking logically at the situation and
understanding that perhaps their alignment of the bodies, limo and shooter
are wrong, they claim that the bullet glanced off of a vertebrae and
missed the car and its occupants all together.
Now, if this isn't bias, I don't know what is. What they are essentially
saying is that they are the ones who decide which direction bullets will
ricochet. They are willing to accept that the bullet didn't go in a
straight line only if it turned in a direction that disallows the single
bullet theory. They would never take that same ricochet solution to why
we don't see a bullet wound further to the left on Connally and decide
that the bullet glanced off of a vertebrae and hit Connally in his right
armpit. Why is that?
Andrew Mason
Except that the path of least resistance is to go through the tree branch.
It will only deflect if the branch can exert the force required to deflect
a bullet. The force required to deflect a fast bullet is much, much
greater than the force required to deflect a slow bullet. Work out the
physics to determine how much force is required to deflect a 10 gram 2000
fps (600 m/s) bullet one degree in the time that the bullet is in contact
with a 4 inch diameter tree branch. It is enormous - much greater than the
force required to blast through the tree branch. So the branch just gives
way.
But don't take my word for it. This study (link below) in the Sept. 1968
American Rifleman involved shooting various bullets through a 1/2 inch
diameter hardwood dowling. In all cases, the bullets veered slightly off
course over the ensuing 75 yards by as much as 12 inches. That is 12
inches over 75 yards or 225 feet. The distance from the tree on Elm to the
limo was about 30 feet. So maybe the bullet veered off target by an inch.
This cannot possibly explain a bullet missing the limo. See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Apples and oranges. You are comparing a 1/2 inch dowling to a 2-3 inch
branch.
Anthony Marsh
That's the whole damn point. The WC defenders straight line trajectory
can not hit Connally where we know he was hit.
> understanding that perhaps their alignment of the bodies, limo and shooter
> are wrong, they claim that the bullet glanced off of a vertebrae and
> missed the car and its occupants all together.
>
They? They? Where the Hell you been, Bud? Name one other person other
than me who has made that claim. They? They?
And even Baden talks about the possibility that the bullet glanced off
the T-1 vertebra (singular).
> Now, if this isn't bias, I don't know what is. What they are essentially
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how
seemingly impossible, must be the truth.
> saying is that they are the ones who decide which direction bullets will
> ricochet. They are willing to accept that the bullet didn't go in a
> straight line only if it turned in a direction that disallows the single
> bullet theory. They would never take that same ricochet solution to why
> we don't see a bullet wound further to the left on Connally and decide
> that the bullet glanced off of a vertebrae and hit Connally in his right
> armpit. Why is that?
>
Because that does not follow the WC defender scenario of a perfectly
straight line trajectory, which is what we are criticizing. Sure, if you
want to have all kinds of zigs and zags to wound both men we are open to
that.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 21, 11:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2009 11:44 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Bugliosi does not appear to accept your view that the SBT is clearly shown z224. He thinks the shot occurred between z207 and z222."<<<
>>
>>> Yes, I know. Vince likes Z210 the best of all -- which is particularly
>>> odd, since that is a frame when we can't even see JFK at all, due to
>>> the sign obstruction.
>>
>> Z-210 is a good choice because this was the first frame where a shooter
>> from the sniper's nest got a clear line of sight at Kennedy after the tree.
>>
>
> This may be splitting hairs, but since it would take a bullet from the SN
> almost 1/10 of a second to reach the target, roughly 2 Z-frames, a strike
> at Z210 would have to have been fired at Z208 before the target was fully
> in view. If he fired at Z210, the strike would have been at Z212. Now I
Yes, split away. I have no objections. Also the view might have been
different on 11/22/63 and even more so if the shooter were using the iron
sights rather than the scope as Frazier photographed. But I don't care. I
am just pointing out what many in the WC thought.
> can't imagine Oswald pulling the trigger the instant his target came into
> full view. As a Marine trained shooter, he would likely have begun to
> squeeze the trigger at that point. Therefore a shot fired at Z222 reaching
> the target Z223-224 seems more reasonable.
>
Oswald was not trained to shoot at a moving target.
Anthony Marsh
No, he didn't. Myers wrote it.
Andrew Mason
doesn't matter if it is a 4 inch thick pillow or a 1/2 inch thick
pillow, it just plows through it. If the bullet goes 1/2 an inch into
the 4 inch oak tree, it obviously is not deflecting off it.
The wood is incapable of providing the force required to deflect the
bullet even one degree. Don't take my word for it. Look up the yield
pressure of wood. Then calculate the force required to deflect a 10 gram
2000 fps bullet one degree. Then apply that force over .33 cm^2 (the
cross sectional area of the bullet - the nose is even smaller) and see
what kind of pressure the wood has to apply to the bullet to deflect it
even one degree. then find a piece of wood that can come close to
withstanding that kind of pressure.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
>>> "No, he didn't. Myers wrote it." <<<
Prove it.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think he could figure that out but that is not pertinent to the issues I
raised. Whether shooting at moving or stationary target, a shooter is
going to want a clear view of his target and a trained shooter is not
going to jerk the trigger the instant he gets it. He will squeeze the
trigger. It is a basic fundamental of shooting. You squeeze the trigger
and let the gun fire when it wants to rather than pull the trigger to
force it to fire.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never though these words would come off my keyboard, but Marsh is right.
The resistance to the bullet is a product of several factors, size,
weight, density of both the bullet and the object being struck. These all
effect the capacity for a bullet to move or penetrate through and object.
Another key factor is whether the bullet strikes the object near the
center or strikes on an edge. A bullet striking a glancing blow is going
to meet resistance on just one side which will increase the amount of
deflection as the bullet moves in the direction of least resistance.
I did find one observation extremely interesting. In discussing the
testing techniques the article said, "Bullets fired in the woods may be
subjected to an almost infinite number of combinations of hits with
respect to number, size and density of bushes, and the angle at which the
impacts occurred. It is improbable that the results of even a single shot
fired under these circumstances could be duplicated". For years, critics
of the SBT for years have been demanding that the path of the SB be
duplicated, which is of course virtually impossible. There are far too
many variables and each event is going to be unique. The fact that
experiments have been made which have created similar bullet paths and
bullet deformities as would be the case for the SBT shows the viability of
the theory.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it would be nice to have a clear view, but a highly trained sniper
does not even need a clear view. And even common criminals can shoot
someone through a door.
> going to jerk the trigger the instant he gets it. He will squeeze the
> trigger. It is a basic fundamental of shooting. You squeeze the trigger
> and let the gun fire when it wants to rather than pull the trigger to
> force it to fire.
>
More nonsense from a non-shooter.
John Fiorentino
I'm referring to what Kirk mentioned. Yes, I did make fun of him in a sense.
There is "something" there ok at 199, but it isn't any super-extension, nor
any evidence of a "hit" in the 190's so desperately needed by Blakey's HSCA.
The President and JBC were most definitely hit z-223-224. So, I fail to see
your objection.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c160498d-ae5f-4cfa...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "No, he didn't. Myers wrote it." <<<
>
>
> Prove it.
>
Ok, if you want to go to court, prepare for discovery. Put up or shut up.
bigdog
Oswald was not a highly trained sniper. He had basic Marine training.
Sniper skills are at a whole different level. The armed forces have
special schools for training snipers. A highly trained sniper needs a
clear line of fire and is not going to get that from a target moving
underneath tree branches. It would make no sense to fire then when the
target is going to come into clear view in less than a second. As for
shooting through a door, that is apples to oranges. It has no relevance
here whatsoever.
> > going to jerk the trigger the instant he gets it. He will squeeze the
> > trigger. It is a basic fundamental of shooting. You squeeze the trigger
> > and let the gun fire when it wants to rather than pull the trigger to
> > force it to fire.
>
> More nonsense from a non-shooter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you denying that squeezing the trigger is one of the basic
fundamentals of shooting? If so, you are revealing your own ignorance of
proper shooting techniques. As for me being a non-shooter, I don't know
where you got that idea? I wouldn't win any competitions but I am
reasonably proficient with both handguns and rifles. I would go so far as
to say I could hit a slow moving target at less than 90 yards using my
30-06 with a scope. I am a licensed for concealed carry and was required
to attend basic firearms classes to get that license. Prior to that, I had
attended several classes in basic marksmanship and self defense shooting.
In all of these classes, it was emphasized how important a gradual squeeze
of the trigger is as opposed to a quick pull which will tend to jerk the
barrel off the target. I would be amazed if Oswald's Marine training
didn't teach him the same thing.
Andrew Mason
All true, of course. The question is: how much lateral impulse (force x
time) will the object apply to the bullet? Will it be enough to move the
bullet at a significant lateral speed (force x time = mass x velocity)? It
is the lateral speed (ie the speed perpendicular to the straight
undeflected path) that is important because the ratio of forward to
lateral speed gives you the angle relative to the undeflected path. The
problem with wood is that it cannot apply enough force to the bullet in
the time the bullet is in contact in order to move the bullet at a
significant lateral speed.
>
> I did find one observation extremely interesting. In discussing the
> testing techniques the article said, "Bullets fired in the woods may be
> subjected to an almost infinite number of combinations of hits with
> respect to number, size and density of bushes, and the angle at which the
> impacts occurred. It is improbable that the results of even a single shot
> fired under these circumstances could be duplicated". For years, critics
> of the SBT for years have been demanding that the path of the SB be
> duplicated, which is of course virtually impossible. There are far too
> many variables and each event is going to be unique. The fact that
> experiments have been made which have created similar bullet paths and
> bullet deformities as would be the case for the SBT shows the viability of
> the theory.
True. But that does not mean that the results will be dramatically
different. If they shot 50 bullets into wood and the greatest deflection
over 75 yards was about 12 inches, the comment does not mean that another
bullet might deflect 50 or even 10 feet.
The problem with the SBT reenactments is that they do not duplicate the
wrist strike and they do not adequately take into account the stopping
power of human skin. According to the leading expert on these things,
Martin Fackler, the stopping power of human skin is equivalent to about 6
inches of ballistic gel.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
My objection was when you told me "none of that is correct", referring
to my mentioning that JFK's hands do not begin their journey northward
until Z226.
Incredibly, you seemed to disagree with that observation in your
earlier post.
John Fiorentino
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:89496d84-2f79-4d56...@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Wonderful. I have said the same things myself many times. But again you
ASSuME what you need to prove. I do not ASSuME that Oswald was the
shooter.
> clear line of fire and is not going to get that from a target moving
> underneath tree branches. It would make no sense to fire then when the
> target is going to come into clear view in less than a second. As for
> shooting through a door, that is apples to oranges. It has no relevance
> here whatsoever.
>
There are cases of WWII famous snipers who fired at the location without
being able to clearly see the target and made one shot kills.
>>> going to jerk the trigger the instant he gets it. He will squeeze the
>>> trigger. It is a basic fundamental of shooting. You squeeze the trigger
>>> and let the gun fire when it wants to rather than pull the trigger to
>>> force it to fire.
>>
>> More nonsense from a non-shooter.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you denying that squeezing the trigger is one of the basic
> fundamentals of shooting? If so, you are revealing your own ignorance of
> proper shooting techniques. As for me being a non-shooter, I don't know
I am saying it doesn't take 5 seconds to pull the trigger. If we accept
your stupid argument then the shot at your Z-222 would have been
squeezed off when the sniper could not clearly see Kennedy because the
leaves were in the way back at Z-206.
> where you got that idea? I wouldn't win any competitions but I am
> reasonably proficient with both handguns and rifles. I would go so far as
Well, first of all you DON'T win any competitions. Maybe because it
takes you 5 seconds to squeeze off a shot.
> to say I could hit a slow moving target at less than 90 yards using my
Jeez, I would hazard a guess that you could hit the side of a barn at
160 feet. So how do you have Oswald missing everything on the planet at
that distance? Cat got your tongue again?
> 30-06 with a scope. I am a licensed for concealed carry and was required
> to attend basic firearms classes to get that license. Prior to that, I had
> attended several classes in basic marksmanship and self defense shooting.
> In all of these classes, it was emphasized how important a gradual squeeze
> of the trigger is as opposed to a quick pull which will tend to jerk the
> barrel off the target. I would be amazed if Oswald's Marine training
> didn't teach him the same thing.
>
Apples and oranges again.
bigdog
>
> The problem with the SBT reenactments is that they do not duplicate the
> wrist strike and they do not adequately take into account the stopping
> power of human skin. According to the leading expert on these things,
> Martin Fackler, the stopping power of human skin is equivalent to about 6
> inches of ballistic gel.
>
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is absurd to expect anyone to recreate SBT. The bullet passed through
JFK's torso, JBC's torso, JBC's wrist, before striking him in the left
thigh. To think that any recreation could perfectly recreate that bullet
path makes no sense. There are simply too many variables in play. I know
of no other criminal case in which the prosecution was expected to
recreate a bullet path. Every shot is a unique event. The slightest
variable can significantly alter the path of a bullet. It is total
nonsense to argue that the SBT path needs to be duplicated. It only needed
to happen once to be plausible.
Andrew Mason
I could use the same argument to say that a bullet through JFK's neck
could have struck JBC's thigh only. However, you would insist that it is
not possible.
In the end, these arguments are not really needed. What is necessary is
that the theory fits the evidence. If you have to reject several bodies
of consistent evidence in order to cling to a theory it is time to look
for another theory.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 11:03 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with the SBT reenactments is that they do not duplicate the
>>> wrist strike and they do not adequately take into account the stopping
>>> power of human skin. According to the leading expert on these things,
>>> Martin Fackler, the stopping power of human skin is equivalent to
>>> about 6
>>> inches of ballistic gel.
>>>
>>> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> It is absurd to expect anyone to recreate SBT. The bullet passed
>> through JFK's torso, JBC's torso, JBC's wrist, before striking him in
>> the left thigh. To think that any recreation could perfectly recreate
>> that bullet path makes no sense. There are simply too many variables
>> in play. I know of no other criminal case in which the prosecution was
>> expected to recreate a bullet path. Every shot is a unique event. The
>> slightest variable can significantly alter the path of a bullet. It is
>> total nonsense to argue that the SBT path needs to be duplicated. It
>> only needed to happen once to be plausible.
>>
>
>
> I could use the same argument to say that a bullet through JFK's neck
> could have struck JBC's thigh only. However, you would insist that it is
> not possible.
>
Someone uploaded a photo here which shows that Connally's back would be
in the way of a bullet hitting the left inner thigh.
Anthony Marsh
So in your magical world something can magically happen which can not be
replicated. And you excoriate conspiracy believers for proposing
scenarios which you call impossible.
bigdog
>
> > It is absurd to expect anyone to recreate SBT. The bullet passed through
> > JFK's torso, JBC's torso, JBC's wrist, before striking him in the left
> > thigh. To think that any recreation could perfectly recreate that bullet
> > path makes no sense. There are simply too many variables in play. I know
> > of no other criminal case in which the prosecution was expected to
> > recreate a bullet path. Every shot is a unique event. The slightest
> > variable can significantly alter the path of a bullet. It is total
> > nonsense to argue that the SBT path needs to be duplicated. It only needed
> > to happen once to be plausible.
>
> I could use the same argument to say that a bullet through JFK's neck
> could have struck JBC's thigh only. However, you would insist that it is
> not possible.
>
It is not.
> In the end, these arguments are not really needed. What is necessary is
> that the theory fits the evidence. If you have to reject several bodies
> of consistent evidence in order to cling to a theory it is time to look
> for another theory.
>
Absolutely. When are you going to start looking?
claviger
> Oswald was not trained to shoot at a moving target.
Which is one more reason why he missed the first shot as the Limousine
passed by the front of the TSBD but then put two shots on target as the
Limousine turned left into the curve. The target was then moving directly
away from the SN at that part of the curving street, providing a
stabilized target for a few seconds.
Andrew Mason
Not if he is turned to the right enough. See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Photos/JBC_z200_rear2_reenactment.jpg
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On Jun 27, 10:52 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>> It is absurd to expect anyone to recreate SBT. The bullet passed through
>>> JFK's torso, JBC's torso, JBC's wrist, before striking him in the left
>>> thigh. To think that any recreation could perfectly recreate that bullet
>>> path makes no sense. There are simply too many variables in play. I know
>>> of no other criminal case in which the prosecution was expected to
>>> recreate a bullet path. Every shot is a unique event. The slightest
>>> variable can significantly alter the path of a bullet. It is total
>>> nonsense to argue that the SBT path needs to be duplicated. It only needed
>>> to happen once to be plausible.
>> I could use the same argument to say that a bullet through JFK's neck
>> could have struck JBC's thigh only. However, you would insist that it is
>> not possible.
>>
>
> It is not.
Well, then, prove it. No one has even considered it yet. Not considered
and rejected it. Not even considered it.
The evidence says it happened. The only thing that such a scenario is
inconsistent with is your opinion.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
the first shot.
There are at least 21 witnesses who independently observed this.
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
None said he waved and smiled after the first shot. Witnesses said he
did this immediately before the first shot (eg. Mary Woodward, John Chism).
So the evidence says that Oswald did not miss the first shot. There is
no evidence at all that is inconsistent with the first shot hitting JFK.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> claviger wrote:
>> Anthony,
>>
>>> Oswald was not trained to shoot at a moving target.
>>
>> Which is one more reason why he missed the first shot as the Limousine
>> passed by the front of the TSBD but then put two shots on target as
>> the Limousine turned left into the curve. The target was then moving
>> directly away from the SN at that part of the curving street,
>> providing a stabilized target for a few seconds.
>>
>>
>>
> Nice theory. The only problem is everyone said he reacted immediately to
> the first shot.
>
No, they didn't. You are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence in this
case to push your own wacky theories. Even if you find a small group of
witnesses saying that, there are problems. First you can't quantify what
THEY meant by "immediately." Second, you can't quote which ones actually
used the word "immediately." Third, many of those may not have heard an
earlier shot.
> There are at least 21 witnesses who independently observed this.
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
>
Jeez, 21? That's all you got? Out of 800? That doesn't sound like EVERYONE
to me. 21? 21 is EVERYONE in Dealey Plaza? You misrepresent the evidence
to push your wacky theory.
> None said he waved and smiled after the first shot. Witnesses said he
> did this immediately before the first shot (eg. Mary Woodward, John Chism).
>
How many would be so specific or asked such a specific question? Again,
the first shot they HEARD.
> So the evidence says that Oswald did not miss the first shot. There is
> no evidence at all that is inconsistent with the first shot hitting JFK.
>
The evidence does not even say that Oswald pulled a trigger. If your wacky
theory were correct then the WC would not have included a missed first
shot as one possible scenario. Even the HSCA had the first shot miss. Are
you the only being in this universe who says the first shot did not miss?
Then how do you explain Connally saying that he heard the first shot and
then did not hear the shot which hit him? Seems you'd have to disbelieve
the SBT.
You don't answer my questions because you can't defend your wacky theory.
> Andrew Mason
>
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 10:52 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> It is absurd to expect anyone to recreate SBT. The bullet passed
>>>> through
>>>> JFK's torso, JBC's torso, JBC's wrist, before striking him in the left
>>>> thigh. To think that any recreation could perfectly recreate that
>>>> bullet
>>>> path makes no sense. There are simply too many variables in play. I
>>>> know
>>>> of no other criminal case in which the prosecution was expected to
>>>> recreate a bullet path. Every shot is a unique event. The slightest
>>>> variable can significantly alter the path of a bullet. It is total
>>>> nonsense to argue that the SBT path needs to be duplicated. It only
>>>> needed
>>>> to happen once to be plausible.
>>> I could use the same argument to say that a bullet through JFK's neck
>>> could have struck JBC's thigh only. However, you would insist that it is
>>> not possible.
>>>
>>
>> It is not.
>
> Well, then, prove it. No one has even considered it yet. Not considered
> and rejected it. Not even considered it.
>
Someone proved it here a while back by uploading a photo showing that
the bullet's path to the left inner thigh would be blocked by Connally's
back.
> The evidence says it happened. The only thing that such a scenario is
> inconsistent with is your opinion.
>
Simple facts prove it wrong.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, that is the photo I am talking about. It shows that his back is in
the way of a bullet hitting the left inner thigh. Thanks for proving my
point.
bigdog
>
> So in your magical world something can magically happen which can not be
> replicated. And you excoriate conspiracy believers for proposing
>
Actually, I would be delighted if the CTs would propose any alternative to
the SBT that would provide the same specificity that the SBT does. This
challenge has been made numerous times on this board and others. The
challenge does not even ask for proof, just plausibilty. In other words,
tell us how else it could have happened. Provide us with an alternative to
the SBT that answers four fundamental questions.
1. Where were the bullets fire from?
2. Approximately when (in Z-frames) the bullets were fired?
3. What wounds were caused by each of these shots?
4. Where did each of the bullets end up.
The SBT answers each of these four questions. The WC provided a fairly
loose window of 3/4 of a second when the SB was fired but analysis made
with the benefits of modern technology has closed the window to about a
1/4 second interval or less. Most modern LNs believe the SB struck in the
Z223-224 time frame which is about as tight a window as can be provided
given the limits of the Z-film. I would be amazed if any CT could provide
a scenario with a window as tight as even the WC's scenario which called
for a shot between Z210-Z224.
Now Tony, if you really believe you have a plausible alternative to the
SBT which offers the same level of specificity, please do not fall back on
the "learn to google" crutch for which you are famous. Googling is like
panning for gold. You might find what you are looking for and you might
not. If you believe you have proposed a plausible alternative, you have a
much better idea of where that might be than the rest of us, so if you do
not want to be bothered with reposting it, at least provide us with the
link instead of expecting us to go on a scavenger hunt to find your core
beliefs. I would think that if there is something you strongly believe in,
you would be more than happy to provide the references to it instead of
expecting the rest of us to sift through thousands of threads to find your
needle in a haystack.
Andrew Mason
My wacky theory is that those witnesses actually observed what they said
they observer: JFK reacted to the first shot. ie. after the first shot
and before the second shot.
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>>
>
>
claviger
> claviger wrote:
> > Anthony,
>
> >> Oswald was not trained to shoot at a moving target.
>
> > Which is one more reason why he missed the first shot as the Limousine
> > passed by the front of the TSBD but then put two shots on target as the
> > Limousine turned left into the curve. The target was then moving directly
> > away from the SN at that part of the curving street, providing a
> > stabilized target for a few seconds.
>
> Nice theory. The only problem is everyone said he reacted immediately to
> the first shot.
>
>
> None said he waved and smiled after the first shot. Witnesses said he
> did this immediately before the first shot (eg. Mary Woodward, John Chism).
>
> So the evidence says that Oswald did not miss the first shot. There is
> no evidence at all that is inconsistent with the first shot hitting JFK.
>
> Andrew Mason
Several witnesses report seeing a bullet ricochet off the street pavement.
All of them said it was the first shot. Two of the witnesses were police
officers. Also, there are witnesses who heard a shot right after the
limousine turned the corner onto Elm street which also indicates an early
shot that missed. These witnesses corroborate the timing between shots
using the Z-film to back into the shot sequence, based on the last two
shots being closer together than the first two.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 27, 9:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> So in your magical world something can magically happen which can not be
>> replicated. And you excoriate conspiracy believers for proposing
>> scenarios which you call impossible.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Actually, I would be delighted if the CTs would propose any alternative to
> the SBT that would provide the same specificity that the SBT does. This
> challenge has been made numerous times on this board and others. The
> challenge does not even ask for proof, just plausibilty. In other words,
> tell us how else it could have happened. Provide us with an alternative to
> the SBT that answers four fundamental questions.
>
As usual you ignore the fact that I already answered your challenge.
> 1. Where were the bullets fire from?
>
> 2. Approximately when (in Z-frames) the bullets were fired?
>
> 3. What wounds were caused by each of these shots?
>
> 4. Where did each of the bullets end up.
>
Where did your missed shot end up?
You are quick to ask questions which you dare not answer yourself.
> The SBT answers each of these four questions. The WC provided a fairly
> loose window of 3/4 of a second when the SB was fired but analysis made
> with the benefits of modern technology has closed the window to about a
> 1/4 second interval or less. Most modern LNs believe the SB struck in the
> Z223-224 time frame which is about as tight a window as can be provided
> given the limits of the Z-film. I would be amazed if any CT could provide
> a scenario with a window as tight as even the WC's scenario which called
> for a shot between Z210-Z224.
>
> Now Tony, if you really believe you have a plausible alternative to the
> SBT which offers the same level of specificity, please do not fall back on
> the "learn to google" crutch for which you are famous. Googling is like
> panning for gold. You might find what you are looking for and you might
I know you can't figure out how to use Google. That is why I have
provided the links to my article hundreds of times. Some day you might
gather up the courage to actually read it. But maybe you are afraid that
if you visit my Web site the FBI will put you on the terrorist watch list.
So, instead I'll cut and paste it here for you for about the 100th time:
Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll
(c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh
Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993
As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot
from the
grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect.
However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would indicate
that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at Z-313 came from
the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive proof of a head
shot
from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of circumstantial evidence
which strongly suggest that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Some of
the examples are well known, but need to be reexamined.
The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot.
Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies, such
as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President Kennedy's
head around the time of the head shot. They note that President Kennedy's
head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite that as proof
of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and everyone else has
failed to do is analyze the movements of all the occupants of the rear
compartment of the limousine, including the Connallys. That is what I have
done.
My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is
not, unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film
as used in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements
in 1/60th of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder
frames 312 to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The
Grassy Knoll Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the
center of the window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front
edge of his reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the
reference line to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not
use unadjusted measurements from these prints to calculate precise
positions, but can estimate relative movements. This may be due to a
variety of factors, such as variations in printing and copying each frame,
changes in perspective, mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames
are too blurred to allow accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie
Connally's position is to the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of
John Connally's position is to the front edge of his forehead. Each
measurement of Jackie Kennedy's position is to the front edge of her
pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's position is to the edge of his hair
at the rear of his head. All measurements were lined up against the chrome
strip in the background for better contrast. Be sure to remember that
increasing measurements for the Connallys represent forward motion, while
increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent rearward motion. Notice
the direction and amount of movement of each person listed in Figure 1.
Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear compartment of the
limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all four were hit by
bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement must be caused
by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due to the limousine
having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his study [1] that
the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply
decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that
Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot off
the accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from
an average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head
shot. Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust
forward in relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further
evidence of this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move
forward while President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not
done a similar analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start
of the occupants' forward movement, so I would urge others to do so
themselves, in order to verify my results and observations. Figure 1.
Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z313 145 111 87 38 152
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z314 147 113 88 39 151
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z315 151 113 92 33 157
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z316 148 115 93 34 166
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4
rearward 11
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z317 150 117 100 30 177
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z319 153 122 NA 28 182
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 0 forward 4 forward 3
rearward 14
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z320 153 126 130 25 196
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z321 157 NA NA 26 195
Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my opinion,
the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest entirely on the
acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful for establishing
the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds after the
microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4 shots on the
tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and 145.61
respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and Aschkenasy to be
recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses which was rejected by
HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked at the waveforms more
closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of each shot was recorded,
to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate for each shot is 137.702,
139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can get a general idea of the
spacing between shots by subtracting one time from another. But there is an
additional variable which must be taken into account. BBN found that the
recorder used that day was running about 5% slow, so all times must be
multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore the original spacing. A more
accurate correction factor might be borrowed from the work which W&A did on
the grassy knoll shot. They found that a correction factor of 1.043 produced
the best fit for echo delays compared to their predicted model. Another
possible corroboration for the 1.043 correction factor is the 'bell' sound
found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd Vaughan believes that it is only
electrical interference, if we can determine its true frequency, we can
derive the most accurate correction factor. That holds true for many other
sounds on the tape, such as car horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN
found that the 'bell' sound had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to
the note A, which is usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might
have been tuned to A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was.
Most people have assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train
bell, a ship's bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a
couple of other possible tunings which would produce a correction factor
close to 1.043. If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament
scale, it might have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would
give us a correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an
old English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing
between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle
blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those into
Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames. Figure 2 is
a rough approximation of how many frames there were between all 5 muzzle
blasts.
Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and
depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the
bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as
matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first shot
after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President Kennedy
and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the last shot
with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the head shot came
from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll.
Figure 2.
origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame
TSBD 137.702 162 176
> 1.566 1.633 29.89
TSBD 139.268 192 206
> 1.071 1.117 20.44
TSBD 140.339 212 226
> 4.556 4.752 86.96
Knoll 144.895 299 313
> 0.713 0.744 13.61
TSBD 145.608 313 327
The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the first
shot is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and
clearly President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The
first shot was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at
around Z190- 192. The problem with that is that we can see President
Kennedy in the Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not
yet appear to be reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no
indication that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that
time, nor at about Z- 210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA
rejected.
My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the range
of Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of
Z-226 to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of
the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove
exactly when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their
back wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and
mine, regardless of other evidence.
Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as
matches with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the
TSBD as matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350
shows a crack on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6,
but is seen in Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot
from which direction caused that crack. I believe that I am the first
person to notice something in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you
look carefully at CE350, you will notice that the back of the rearview
mirror is dented, but you can see that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6.
This damage was caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield
from the inside and ricochetted into the rearview mirror. Many people
believe this fragment came from the head shot, which would been fired from
the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to the limousine, consisting
of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview mirror and dented chrome
topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find evidence which
pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show that it came
several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the Zapruder film,
Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the windshield was not
cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the last shot from
the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield. In turn, that
would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. I
seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when
the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered
photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could
only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented
at Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version
or mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA
admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll
shot was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the
impulses to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is
indicated in brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The
jiggle analysis measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To
simply and clarify, I have put the groups into ascending order. The group
with the largest amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B',
etc. I have chosen the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are
usually midway between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran
at 18.3 frames per second on average.
Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2
HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2
The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot
occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy
knoll.
Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot
hit what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last
shot he heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact
had heard the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would
not, in and of itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the
dent could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would
narrow the range during which the chrome topping was dented to between
Z-313 to Z-331 and make it more likely that the chrome topping was dented
at the same time that the windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier
as some have speculated.
On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the
statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the
grassy knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the
direct path of gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that
the head shot came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the
TSBD. Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps leading up to the
pergola, said that the shots sounded as if they came from behind him,
above his head and to his left. That would place the origin near the
fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had come from behind him and
whistled past his right ear. Between these two witnesses and behind them
is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable shockwave at 24 ms.
before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot. Assuming the weapon was
aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough calculation of the velocity of
the bullet and the resultant angle of the shockwave. Although the
calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too difficult for me, a
rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet at about 1564.5
fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on either side
of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within the cone
of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly.
How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If it
had been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have
been outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not
have been recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can
be found in the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he
was shown a very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the
viewpoint was looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary
Moorman's position, the gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In
Moorman 2 we can see the head of a man peering over the fence, about 9
feet from the corner. Interestingly, this is the same spot where W&A
located the origin of the grassy knoll shot, unaware of the existence of
Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side view of any weapon as we
might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever this man was, he
moved from that position very quickly after the head shot. There is no one
there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton photograph, taken
shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has never been
analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were unaware of
its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I found it
at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to properly
analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might reveal the
presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher, Dale
Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a
person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner.
Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films.
Some fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize
the danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the
grassy knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave
whizzing past them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe
their reactions was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can
see Hudson and his two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola.
They do not seem to be reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see
that two of the men are reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men
would not have reacted to the sound of a shockwave coming from so close
behind them. If the grassy knoll shot was the miss before the head shot,
we would expect to see these men react before the head shot. The fact that
they did not react until after the head shot would seem to indicate that
the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is
more likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing
evidence can and should be examined further. More information can be
gleaned from existing data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data
could provide new clues and allow us to verify certain methods, such as
the acoustical studies. I urge other researchers to look for new evidence
and perform new analyses.
------
1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University
Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442.
2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16
Andrew Mason
This is simply quite false. No one saw the bullet ricochet off the
pavement. No one could have. The best one can say about Ellis and Martin
are that they thought they saw something strike the road or curb. But
Martin also saw JFk react to the first shot - and not by smiling and
waving but by leaning forward with a blank expression. Ellis says he saw
something hit the curb - and something probably did: pieces of JFk but it
was not on the first shot. Ellis was 100 feet ahead of the President's car
at the time of the shot and only looked back after hearing a shot or
shots. There were no marks on Elm St. or the curb. The statements of these
officers, long after the event, are equivocal. Moreover they are not
necessarily inconsistent with all the other evidence that the first shot
struck JFK. See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_miss_witnesses_reitzes.PDF
These witnesses DO NOT corroborate the 1....2..3 shot pattern. What does
"these witnesses corroborate the timing between shots using the Z-film to
back into the shot sequence" mean anyway?
Andrew Mason
bigdog
So are you saying that after JFK was hit with that first shot, his
reaction was to lean forward with a blank expression on his face. Is
that what you see in the Z-film?
> Ellis says he saw
> something hit the curb - and something probably did: pieces of JFk but it
> was not on the first shot. Ellis was 100 feet ahead of the President's car
> at the time of the shot and only looked back after hearing a shot or
> shots. There were no marks on Elm St. or the curb. The statements of these
> officers, long after the event, are equivocal. Moreover they are not
> necessarily inconsistent with all the other evidence that the first shot
> struck JFK. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_miss_witnesses_reitzes.PDF
>
> These witnesses DO NOT corroborate the 1....2..3 shot pattern. What does
> "these witnesses corroborate the timing between shots using the Z-film to
> back into the shot sequence" mean anyway?
>
claviger
> > Several witnesses report seeing a bullet ricochet off the street pavement.
> > All of them said it was the first shot. Two of the witnesses were police
> > officers. Also, there are witnesses who heard a shot right after the
> > limousine turned the corner onto Elm street which also indicates an early
> > shot that missed. These witnesses corroborate the timing between shots
> > using the Z-film to back into the shot sequence, based on the last two
> > shots being closer together than the first two.
>
> This is simply quite false. No one saw the bullet ricochet off the
> pavement. No one could have.
What do you mean by no one could have?
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot6.html
> The best one can say about Ellis and Martin are that they thought they
> saw something strike the road or curb. But Martin also saw JFk react to
> the first shot - and not by smiling and waving but by leaning forward with
> a blank expression. Ellis says he saw something hit the curb - and something
> probably did: pieces of JFk but it was not on the first shot.
If you are talking about DPD B J Martin here is what he said:
"Mr. BALL. Did you take any notice of the President after the first
shot?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I looked at the President after I heard the shot
and he was leaning forward - I could see the left side of his face. At
the time he had no expression on his face." Notice he doesn't mention
the President lifting his arms or elbows after the first shot.
> Ellis was 100 feet ahead of the President's car at the time of the shot and
> only looked back after hearing a shot or shots.
Wrong.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html
> There were no marks on Elm St. or the curb.
I would think there were numerous marks on a heavily traveled street.
No marks were found that could be specifically identified as a bullet
mark.
> The statements of these officers, long after the event, are equivocal.
How so?
> Moreover they are not necessarily inconsistent with all the other evidence
> that the first shot struck JFK.
> See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_miss_witnesses_reitzes.PDF
>
> These witnesses DO NOT corroborate the 1....2..3 shot pattern. What does
> "these witnesses corroborate the timing between shots using the Z-film to
> back into the shot sequence" mean anyway?
If we assume the witnesses who remember the auricular perception of
the last two shots being closer together are correct, and using the Z-
film to measure the timing between those two shots, then it tells us
where to look for the first shot, which must be an even longer time
sequence as you illustrate above. That's why you're trying so hard to
find a shot to insert between z225 and z313.
Anthony Marsh
Where do you see the forward lean? Specify which frames.
Andrew Mason
Where do you see him lifting his arms or elbows? I see his left arm
coming down sometime between z200 and z224. I also don't see a blank
expression on his face or see him leaning forward before z200. Besides,
what does the fact that Martin did not describe his hand positions mean?
Others described the hand positions after the first shot.
>
>> Ellis was 100 feet ahead of the President's car at the time of the shot and
>> only looked back after hearing a shot or shots.
> Wrong.
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html
>
>> There were no marks on Elm St. or the curb.
> I would think there were numerous marks on a heavily traveled street.
> No marks were found that could be specifically identified as a bullet
> mark.
Speculation. What evidence is there that there were any marks on this
street that could possibly be from bullet strikes? If you want us to
believe that a 2000 fps jacketed bullet, which deposits 1860 joules of
energy into whatever stops it, would not leave an identifiable mark on
asphalt or concrete you need some evidence. An unjacketed fragment,
having 1/100th of the original bullet energy, left a visible mark on the
concrete that it struck near Tague.
>
>> The statements of these officers, long after the event, are equivocal.
> How so?
What they describe is not inconsistent with the bullets striking someone
in the car first.
>
>> Moreover they are not necessarily inconsistent with all the other evidence
>> that the first shot struck JFK.
>> See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_miss_witnesses_reitzes.PDF
>>
>> These witnesses DO NOT corroborate the 1....2..3 shot pattern. What does
>> "these witnesses corroborate the timing between shots using the Z-film to
>> back into the shot sequence" mean anyway?
> If we assume the witnesses who remember the auricular perception of
> the last two shots being closer together are correct, and using the Z-
> film to measure the timing between those two shots, then it tells us
> where to look for the first shot, which must be an even longer time
> sequence as you illustrate above. That's why you're trying so hard to
> find a shot to insert between z225 and z313.
Partially correct. If the second shot was at or before z224 (ie. 5
seconds before z313), for there to be a noticeably longer period between
the first and second shot the first shot would have have to have
occurred at least 8 seconds before z224. 8 seconds before 224 puts it
well before Zapruder started filming - while the VP car was still on
Houston.
It is only partially correct because an 8 second/5 second spacing still
would not explain what the witnesses said they heard: the last two shots
in rapid succession, which is what dozens of witnesses said. 5 seconds
is an awfully long time to be called "real rapid" (Dep. Sheriff Roger
Craig: 6 H 263). Mary Woodward specifically recalled that the echo of
the second had not died out when the third shot was fired(“and then the
third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”. “The
second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo
of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease
until the second shot.” … from her interview in "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy).
>
>
Andrew Mason
I don't see anything that conflicts with that description. It depends on
when Martin looked. Martin certainly wasn't describing a big smile. I
can't see JFK's face between z200 and z225. He may have had a blank
expression on his face at that time. His face is rather expressionless in
z225 and becomes more animated from z226 for several frames. It looks
rather blank from z235 on. Jackie described JFK's face as having a "sort
of quizzical look" after the first shot.
Andrew Mason
claviger
> >> The best one can say about Ellis and Martin are that they thought they
> >> saw something strike the road or curb. But Martin also saw JFk react to
> >> the first shot - and not by smiling and waving but by leaning forward with
> >> a blank expression. Ellis says he saw something hit the curb - and something
> >> probably did: pieces of JFk but it was not on the first shot.
> > If you are talking about DPD B J Martin here is what he said:
> > "Mr. BALL. Did you take any notice of the President after the first
> > shot?
> > Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I looked at the President after I heard the shot
> > and he was leaning forward - I could see the left side of his face. At
> > the time he had no expression on his face." Notice he doesn't mention
> > the President lifting his arms or elbows after the first shot.
>
> Where do you see him lifting his arms or elbows? I see his left arm
> coming down sometime between z200 and z224. I also don't see a blank
> expression on his face or see him leaning forward before z200. Besides,
> what does the fact that Martin did not describe his hand positions mean?
> Others described the hand positions after the first shot.
As I understand your theory: the first shot took place at z224, the
second shot at z270, and the third shot at z313, correct? If indeed
z224 was the first shot and DPD Martin looked at the President he
should have seen a major change in body posture as the President
lifted his arms and clenched his fists. That is not what Martin saw.
Instead he saw the President leaning forward with no expression on his
face. Martin could see the President's profile but makes no mention of
his arms raised as we can see from the Zapruder film. What Martin saw
is consistent with a first shot miss. At least six other witnesses
heard the noise and saw something hit the street on the first shot.
Martin's testimony is what we would expect from a first shot miss. He
was very close to the Limousine and could not miss seeing the
President lift his arms in reaction to a bullet striking him in the
back. The fact that Martin describes a completely different physical
reaction is indicative of a first shot miss, not wound.
> Speculation. What evidence is there that there were any marks on this
> street that could possibly be from bullet strikes? If you want us to
> believe that a 2000 fps jacketed bullet, which deposits 1860 joules of
> energy into whatever stops it, would not leave an identifiable mark on
> asphalt or concrete you need some evidence. An unjacketed fragment,
> having 1/100th of the original bullet energy, left a visible mark on the
> concrete that it struck near Tague.
I've never seen an explanation of who looked for bullet marks or what
part of Elm Street they searched. We have no idea of how thorough and
careful that search was. We are talking about a major city
thoroughfare so we should expect to see all kinds of marks along the
street, so it's possible someone saw the mark but did not recognize it
as a bullet ricochet.
> >> The statements of these officers, long after the event, are equivocal.
> > How so?
>
> What they describe is not inconsistent with the bullets striking someone
> in the car first.
You need to explain that in more detail. Rosemary Willis, Tina Towner,
et al, describe an early shot when the Limousine was in front of the
TSBD.
> Partially correct. If the second shot was at or before z224 (ie. 5
> seconds before z313), for there to be a noticeably longer period between
> the first and second shot the first shot would have have to have
> occurred at least 8 seconds before z224. 8 seconds before 224 puts it
> well before Zapruder started filming - while the VP car was still on
> Houston.
Which is consistent with the Max Holland theory.
> It is only partially correct because an 8 second/5 second spacing still
> would not explain what the witnesses said they heard: the last two shots
> in rapid succession, which is what dozens of witnesses said. 5 seconds
> is an awfully long time to be called "real rapid" (Dep. Sheriff Roger
> Craig: 6 H 263). Mary Woodward specifically recalled that the echo of
> the second had not died out when the third shot was fired(“and then the
> third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”. “The
> second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo
> of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease
> until the second shot.” … from her interview in "The Men Who Killed
> Kennedy).
Ballistic experts know one bullet will create multiple sounds: the
sonic shock wave of the missile, the explosion out the barrel, the
sound of a ricochet, and echoes / reverberations from those sounds.
These multiple sounds create different auricular perceptions depending
on where one is standing in relation to the trajectory. Jean Hill
heard six shots. She probably heard 3 shots / 3 echoes. Other
witnesses mention a flurry of shots. They may have heard numerous
sounds created by 3 actual shots. With many witnesses the first shot
didn't register as a gunshot. They thought they heard a more familiar
sound, a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. It was the second shot
when they made the horrifying realization someone was shooting at the
Presidential Limousine, and some spectators didn't make that
connection even on the 2nd shot.
Assuming there were two shots so close together a bolt action rifle
could not have fired both, then there must be a second weapon
involved. Many people believe in the mystery sniper on the Grassy
Knoll, but there is no proof whatsoever there was a weapon fired from
that position. That only leaves the Donahue Theory to explain two
shots that close together. We must keep in mind the shooting happened
in 6.5 - 11 seconds. Either way that is a compressed time frame in
which to determine relative intervals of three shots. As we might
expect various witnesses had differing impressions of the sound
intervals.
bigdog
> On 6/21/2009 3:11 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 12:01 am, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> From David Von Pein:
>
> >> * Plus: What the hell STOPPED this bullet?
> >> (from the back)
>
> >> * And then Pat needs a separate bullet to
> >> hit JFK in the throat from the front...
>
> >> * And -- What stopped THIS bullet from
> >> transiting Kennedy's body?
>
> >> From WhiskyJoe:
>
> >> And another coincidence, how is it the
> >> bullet from the back and the bullet from
> >> the front just happen to hit on opposite
> >> sides of JFK's body, on opposite sides of
> >> his neck, making it easy for attribute the
> >> wounds to one bullet?
>
> >> And why would the conspirators risk firing
> >> from the front which could cause a wound,
> >> like to the neck, that they can't account
> >> for with a shooter from the back, unless
> >> they get lucky?
>
> >> *****************************************
>
> >> The answer is obvious.
>
> >> They must of used magnetic bullets.
> >> If the rear shooter only used N-S bullets
> >> and the frontal shooter only used
> >> S-N bullets, then the bullets would
> >> naturally attract and will always hit
> >> on opposite sides of the body.
> >> So as long as they were careful to
> >> coordinate their fire, any wound in the
> >> back will always have a wound in the
> >> front, right where it needs to be.
>
> >> Once the bullets merge their magnetism
> >> would cancel each other out and they
> >> would become like a single non magnetic
> >> bullet. Actually, I don't think it works
> >> that way.
>
> >> But, if they used one bullet of ordinary
> >> matter and the other bullet of anti matter,
> >> they would tend to attract each other,
> >> hit on opposite sides of a body and
> >> they will annihilate each other and
> >> so no bullets will be found accept for
> >> those they plant, making certain they
> >> don't plant an anti matter bullet by
> >> mistake. Actually, if one did try to
> >> plant an anti matter bullet, one would
> >> discover one's mistake immediately.
>
> > I like your tongue-in-cheek reply WhiskyJoe but it does address a very
> > thorny problem for the frontal shot advocates. If you want to frame a
> > lone gunman, why would you shoot JFK from more than one direction?
>
> Because they can count on people like you to argue away the obvious and
> help the cover-up. If people had reported hearing 12 shots then people
> like you would cover it up by saying there were only 3 shots and the
> rest were echoes. Anything to cover up.- Hide quoted text -
>
Damn, it's been at least a couple of days since I read that someone
has accused "they" of engineering a cover up. If you guys ever find
your smoking gun, do you think you will get an indictment against
"they".
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
>>>> The best one can say about Ellis and Martin are that they thought they
>>>> saw something strike the road or curb. But Martin also saw JFk react to
>>>> the first shot - and not by smiling and waving but by leaning forward with
>>>> a blank expression. Ellis says he saw something hit the curb - and something
>>>> probably did: pieces of JFk but it was not on the first shot.
>>> If you are talking about DPD B J Martin here is what he said:
>>> "Mr. BALL. Did you take any notice of the President after the first
>>> shot?
>>> Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I looked at the President after I heard the shot
>>> and he was leaning forward - I could see the left side of his face. At
>>> the time he had no expression on his face." Notice he doesn't mention
>>> the President lifting his arms or elbows after the first shot.
>> Where do you see him lifting his arms or elbows? I see his left arm
>> coming down sometime between z200 and z224. I also don't see a blank
>> expression on his face or see him leaning forward before z200. Besides,
>> what does the fact that Martin did not describe his hand positions mean?
>> Others described the hand positions after the first shot.
> As I understand your theory: the first shot took place at z224, the
> second shot at z270, and the third shot at z313, correct?
Not quite. The evidence of a first converges around z200 (z195-202) and
no later than z202. The second occurred at between z270-271.
> If indeed
> z224 was the first shot and DPD Martin looked at the President he
> should have seen a major change in body posture as the President
> lifted his arms and clenched his fists. That is not what Martin saw.
How do you know that is not what Martin saw? He did not tell us what he
did not see.
Besides, where did JFK lift his arms? He lowered his right arm from
where it had been.
> Instead he saw the President leaning forward with no expression on his
> face. Martin could see the President's profile but makes no mention of
> his arms raised as we can see from the Zapruder film. What Martin saw
> is consistent with a first shot miss.
It may be. But I don't see JFK leaning forward with a blank expression
prior to z224.
> At least six other witnesses
> heard the noise and saw something hit the street on the first shot.
Are you including Virgie Baker/Rackley? If so, it was so far down Elm
that it hardly qualifies as an early first shot. She said she thought
she saw something hit behind the car, so the car was past that point.
Are you including Royce Skelton? He said he heard two shots before he
saw "smoke". Are you including TE Moore? He said the first shot occurred
when JFK had reached the Thornton Expressway sign (about z200). Who else
are you relying on?
> Martin's testimony is what we would expect from a first shot miss. He
> was very close to the Limousine and could not miss seeing the
> President lift his arms in reaction to a bullet striking him in the
> back. The fact that Martin describes a completely different physical
> reaction is indicative of a first shot miss, not wound.
Unless you can point to a place where JFK leans forward with a blank
expression prior to z200, this is not a very persuasive argument -
Especially when you have 21 witnesses who said that JFK reacted by
leaning forward and left in response to the first shot.
>
>> Speculation. What evidence is there that there were any marks on this
>> street that could possibly be from bullet strikes? If you want us to
>> believe that a 2000 fps jacketed bullet, which deposits 1860 joules of
>> energy into whatever stops it, would not leave an identifiable mark on
>> asphalt or concrete you need some evidence. An unjacketed fragment,
>> having 1/100th of the original bullet energy, left a visible mark on the
>> concrete that it struck near Tague.
> I've never seen an explanation of who looked for bullet marks or what
> part of Elm Street they searched. We have no idea of how thorough and
> careful that search was. We are talking about a major city
> thoroughfare so we should expect to see all kinds of marks along the
> street, so it's possible someone saw the mark but did not recognize it
> as a bullet ricochet.
The FBI scoured the curbs on Main Street and found a small mark near
where Tague was standing. It would be astounding if that was the only
place they looked, especially after they suspected a missed shot.
>
>>>> The statements of these officers, long after the event, are equivocal.
>>> How so?
>> What they describe is not inconsistent with the bullets striking someone
>> in the car first.
> You need to explain that in more detail. Rosemary Willis, Tina Towner,
> et al, describe an early shot when the Limousine was in front of the
> TSBD.
No they do not. Rosemary Willis gave no evidence as far as I can tell.
She turns her head at z204 around to the right. Tina Towner said she
stopped filming, turned and walked back to the corner after the car had
gone well out of range. According to Gary Mack, she gave a written
statement to the 6th Floor Museum stating that the first shot occurred
about 5-6 seconds after she stopped filming. Work out where that puts
the first shot (she stopped filming about half a second before Zapruder
started filming).
>
>> Partially correct. If the second shot was at or before z224 (ie. 5
>> seconds before z313), for there to be a noticeably longer period between
>> the first and second shot the first shot would have have to have
>> occurred at least 8 seconds before z224. 8 seconds before 224 puts it
>> well before Zapruder started filming - while the VP car was still on
>> Houston.
> Which is consistent with the Max Holland theory.
Ok. But Max Holland's theory is obviously wrong.
Yes. But that is not what the witnesses said. They said that there was
separation between all the shots. Several witnesses said there was
sufficient time between the last two for a bolt-action rifle.
There is nothing in that evidence that is inconsistent with a second
shot at z271. That is just before JFK's hair flies up (seen by Hickey
and by Kinney), exactly where the appearance of his cuff changes,
exactly where JBC starts moving forward in the car, exactly where the
sun visor moves forward momentarily, just before Greer turns around
(which he said he did immediately after the second shot) and just before
Nellie pulls JBC down (which she said she did immediately after the
second shot). Why do we need to consider a spacing closer than 271-313?
> Many people believe in the mystery sniper on the Grassy
> Knoll, but there is no proof whatsoever there was a weapon fired from
> that position.
I agree completely.
> That only leaves the Donahue Theory to explain two
> shots that close together. We must keep in mind the shooting happened
> in 6.5 - 11 seconds. Either way that is a compressed time frame in
> which to determine relative intervals of three shots. As we might
> expect various witnesses had differing impressions of the sound
> intervals.
NO one said it took 11 seconds. The evidence shows that the first shot
was after z191 and the last was at z313. That is at most 6.7 seconds.
Andrew Mason
claviger
Here is more information you need to consider:
Phillip L. Willis took two key photos, Willis 4 in front of the TSBD
and Willis 5 in front of the Stemmons Fwy sign, which was the second
shot according to him. He saw Jackie turn her head and look at her
husband after the first shot. We can see Jackie is turned toward the
President in photo No 5.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5
DPD James M. Chaney, one of the Presidential motorcycle officers in
the motorcade:
11/24/63 "Houston Chronicle" [see also 2 H 43-45]---quoted as stating
that the first shot missed entirely and that the Presidential
limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot; f) "Crossfire" by
Jim Marrs (1989), p. 14---Chaney "told newsmen the next day that the
first shot missed.";
DPD Douglas L. Jackson, another Presidential motorcycle officer:
"Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the
second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was
shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit---
because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind
of back toward me and…just kind of flinched."
In the Zapruder film we see Governor Connally having an obvious
physical reaction at the same time as President Kennedy when the
Limousine is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign but no flinching
reaction after that.
Anthony Marsh
> Andrew,
>
> Here is more information you need to consider:
>
> Phillip L. Willis took two key photos, Willis 4 in front of the TSBD
> and Willis 5 in front of the Stemmons Fwy sign, which was the second
> shot according to him. He saw Jackie turn her head and look at her
> husband after the first shot. We can see Jackie is turned toward the
> President in photo No 5.
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5
>
> DPD James M. Chaney, one of the Presidential motorcycle officers in
> the motorcade:
> 11/24/63 "Houston Chronicle" [see also 2 H 43-45]---quoted as stating
> that the first shot missed entirely and that the Presidential
> limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot; f) "Crossfire" by
> Jim Marrs (1989), p. 14---Chaney "told newsmen the next day that the
> first shot missed.";
>
> DPD Douglas L. Jackson, another Presidential motorcycle officer:
> "Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the
> second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was
> shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit---
> of back toward me and�just kind of flinched."
>
But Andrew does not believe THOSE witnesses. He only believes the
witnesses he cherry picks to support his wacky theory.
> In the Zapruder film we see Governor Connally having an obvious
> physical reaction at the same time as President Kennedy when the
> Limousine is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign but no flinching
> reaction after that.
>
>
The Zapruder film shows that Kennedy had already been hit and was in the
process of reaction when he emerges from behind the sign while Connally
has not yet been hit.
bigdog
> Andrew,
>
> Here is more information you need to consider:
>
> Phillip L. Willis took two key photos, Willis 4 in front of the TSBD
> and Willis 5 in front of the Stemmons Fwy sign, which was the second
> shot according to him. He saw Jackie turn her head and look at her
> husband after the first shot. We can see Jackie is turned toward the
> President in photo No 5.http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5
>
Strange that I never noticed this before but if you look into the
background of this photo, you can see the top of the picket fence and
there are clearly no heads sticking up above that fence. It seems kind of
odd that if there was a shooter in that location who was going to be
firing a shot just seconds later, he would at least poked his head above
the fence to get a bearing on his target.
Anthony Marsh
>> third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one�. �The
>> second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo
>> of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease
>> Kennedy).
> Ballistic experts know one bullet will create multiple sounds: the
> sonic shock wave of the missile, the explosion out the barrel, the
Real ballistics experts know that the shock wave will not be heard by
all spectators. It depends on where they are standing and in which
direction the rifle is aimed. On the DPD tape the shock waves of the
first two shots were not recorded because the cycle was then still on
Houston Street, just outside the cone of the shock wave with the rifle
aimed at the limousine.
> sound of a ricochet, and echoes / reverberations from those sounds.
> These multiple sounds create different auricular perceptions depending
> on where one is standing in relation to the trajectory. Jean Hill
> heard six shots. She probably heard 3 shots / 3 echoes. Other
Utter rubbish.
Want to borrow my mock theory that the pergola acted as a parabola to
intensify the echo?
> witnesses mention a flurry of shots. They may have heard numerous
> sounds created by 3 actual shots. With many witnesses the first shot
Yeah, they may have heard the trigger hitting the shell, the ignition of
the primer, the blowby as well.
> didn't register as a gunshot. They thought they heard a more familiar
> sound, a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. It was the second shot
> when they made the horrifying realization someone was shooting at the
> Presidential Limousine, and some spectators didn't make that
> connection even on the 2nd shot.
>
Not my theory, but some have a theory that the first shot was a dud,
causing the unusual sound and the miss.
> Assuming there were two shots so close together a bolt action rifle
> could not have fired both, then there must be a second weapon
> involved. Many people believe in the mystery sniper on the Grassy
Ya think? But don't be fooled. Whenever any fact puts the shots too
close together some wag comes out of the woodwork to fire a rifle
quickly enough. Penn Gillette got off 3 shots in 3 seconds.
Blakey got off 2 shots in 1.66 seconds.
> Knoll, but there is no proof whatsoever there was a weapon fired from
> that position. That only leaves the Donahue Theory to explain two
The acoustical evidence proves the shot from the grassy knoll.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
> Here is more information you need to consider:
>
> Phillip L. Willis took two key photos, Willis 4 in front of the TSBD
> and Willis 5 in front of the Stemmons Fwy sign, which was the second
> shot according to him. He saw Jackie turn her head and look at her
> husband after the first shot. We can see Jackie is turned toward the
> President in photo No 5.
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5
If Willis actually meant that Jackie did a dramatic left to right turn
after the first shot, that is inconsistent with the rest of his evidence.
Up to about z167 she is looking to the left. From about z180 she appears
to be looking at the same thing that JFK is looking at on the right.
Around z235 she turns to face JFK and begins to reach for his left arm.
At z252 she turns to look at JBC (probably because he is shouting "oh,
no, no, no").
Willis said that the first shot occurred just as he was pressing the
shutter on his z202 photo. He said he immediately recognized it as a
rifle shot and was immediately concerned about his daughters. What he
may have seen was Jackie turning to face JFK at z235. Or he may have
thought she was turned to the left prior to taking his z202 photo (as
she had been when she passed in front of him about 2 seconds before) and
noticed that she was turned to the right immediately afterward (indeed
at the time of his photo. This was never really explained very well (eg.
no one pointed out that Jackie is turned toward the right in his photo
and asked him to explain how he saw Jackie turn to the right after his
photo was taken).
In any event, Willis is only one witness. You cannot rely on only one
witness. You have to see how that witness' evidence fits with the rest
of the evidence.
In this case, we have 21 witnesses, at least, who said that JFK reacted
to the first shot by leaning left and/or forward and/or bringing his his
hands to his neck. That does not occur before z200. We have Betzner and
Croft who said that the first shot was after they took their z186 and
z162 photos, respectively. We also have another 20 or so witnesses whose
evidence puts the first shot after z191 (after the VP and VP followup
car have turned), when the President was at the Thornton Freeway sign,
or otherwise around z200 (the position of the President in relation to
where they were standing when the first shot occurred). They all have a
remarkable consistentcy that is entirely inconsistent with a first shot
much before z200.
>
> DPD James M. Chaney, one of the Presidential motorcycle officers in
> the motorcade:
> 11/24/63 "Houston Chronicle" [see also 2 H 43-45]---quoted as stating
> that the first shot missed entirely and that the Presidential
> limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot; f) "Crossfire" by
> Jim Marrs (1989), p. 14---Chaney "told newsmen the next day that the
> first shot missed.";
Chaney
>
> DPD Douglas L. Jackson, another Presidential motorcycle officer:
> "Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the
> second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was
> shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit---
> because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind
> of back toward me and…just kind of flinched."
This is actually a very good argument in favour of JBC being hit while
he was turned around to the right from z235-280. Jackson was on the
right side to the rear. The only way JBC could have been looking at him
at the time of the second shot would be if he was shot from z235-280.
>
> In the Zapruder film we see Governor Connally having an obvious
> physical reaction at the same time as President Kennedy when the
> Limousine is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign but no flinching
> reaction after that.
One can certainly see JBC suddenly sail forward beginning at about
z272-278. It is measurable. This could be the "jerk" that Jackson saw.
It is a very sudden change in motion. See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/272_278_2.PDF
Andrew Mason
>
>
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
> Here is more information you need to consider:
>
> DPD James M. Chaney, one of the Presidential motorcycle officers in
> the motorcade:
> 11/24/63 "Houston Chronicle" [see also 2 H 43-45]---quoted as stating
> that the first shot missed entirely and that the Presidential
> limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot; f) "Crossfire" by
> Jim Marrs (1989), p. 14---Chaney "told newsmen the next day that the
> first shot missed.";
>
>
Mary Woodward thought the first shot may have missed as well. But the rest
of her evidence - particularly her recollection that the last two shots
were close together - precludes the first shot missing. She said that the
first "horrible ear-shattering noise" occurred after JFK and Jackie
turned, smiled and waved to her and turned forward as they passed by. That
occurred at about z200. It is obvious that JFK is shot by z225.
I don't know the circumstances of Chaney's evidence. I don't know why he
said the first shot missed. It may not be so easy to observe that a person
is not hit. All I can say is that at least 91 witnesses gave evidence that
is completely inconsistent with the first shot missing. (48 witnesses to
the 1.....2..3 shot pattern, 21 to JFK reacting to shot #1, and 22 to the
first shot being after z191).
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
>> In the Zapruder film we see Governor
>> Connally having an obvious physical
>> reaction at the same time as President
>> Kennedy when the Limousine is emerging
>> from behind the Stemmons sign but no
>> flinching reaction after that.
> The Zapruder film shows that Kennedy
> had already been hit and was in the
> process of reaction when he emerges
> from behind the sign while Connally
> has not yet been hit.
Yes, JFK was hit well before Z225.
And it's just a coincidence that
he started to raise his arms up
high at Z226 and held them there
until shot in the head.
JFK's reaction was really a two
stage reaction. He first reacted
subtly, with his arms held low,
then the second stage, where he
raised his arms high. And by
coincidence, this second stage started
right when Connally seems to start
reacting to a bullet hit.
claviger
While your comment may be TIC, interesting you should say that because
Howard Donahue believed the President reacted first to a fragment from
the missed shot. The second stage reaction was to his back wound.
Anthony Marsh
I forget, are you the ONLY being in this universe who believes Donahue's
theory?
claviger
> No they do not. Rosemary Willis gave no evidence as far as I can tell.
> She turns her head at z204 around to the right. Tina Towner said she
> stopped filming, turned and walked back to the corner after the car had
> gone well out of range. According to Gary Mack, she gave a written
> statement to the 6th Floor Museum stating that the first shot occurred
> about 5-6 seconds after she stopped filming. Work out where that puts
> the first shot (she stopped filming about half a second before Zapruder
> started filming).
Texas Monthly Interview
Rosemary: As they made the turn from Houston to Elm Street, they'd just
gone a few feet when the first shot rang out, and upon hearing the sound,
my normal body reaction was to look up and follow the sound that I heard,
it was so abrupt. I didn't know what it was, but I was looking for what I
heard. And the pigeons immediately ascended off that roof of the school
book depository building and that's what caught my eye. My eyes were
searching for what I heard and I see the pigeons, you know, they're scared
to death, and take off in abrupt flight.
Next thing I know, right after that, there's another shot. And after that,
there's another shot and another shot. We disagree, between me and her
(nodding towards her mom and sister). My ears heard four shots. If you ask
me how many I think there were, I really think that there were six, but I
heard four and I'll tell you why: the first one, you know I'm right across
from Zapruder. I'm wherever the limousine is. It's almost like I
could...I'm right there. Anyway, the first shot rang out. It was to the
front of me, and to the right of me, up high.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> In the Zapruder film we see Governor
>>> Connally having an obvious physical
>>> reaction at the same time as President
>>> Kennedy when the Limousine is emerging
>>> from behind the Stemmons sign but no
>>> flinching reaction after that.
>
>
>> The Zapruder film shows that Kennedy
>> had already been hit and was in the
>> process of reaction when he emerges
>> from behind the sign while Connally
>> has not yet been hit.
>
> Yes, JFK was hit well before Z225.
> And it's just a coincidence that
> he started to raise his arms up
> high at Z226 and held them there
> until shot in the head.
>
Not STARTED. Already had.
> JFK's reaction was really a two
> stage reaction. He first reacted
> subtly, with his arms held low,
There is nothing subtle about a reflex reaction.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 3, 9:58 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Here is more information you need to consider:
>>
>> Phillip L. Willis took two key photos, Willis 4 in front of the TSBD
>> and Willis 5 in front of the Stemmons Fwy sign, which was the second
>> shot according to him. He saw Jackie turn her head and look at her
>> husband after the first shot. We can see Jackie is turned toward the
>> President in photo No 5.http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5
>>
>
> Strange that I never noticed this before but if you look into the
Strange that you looked at the Moorman photo and never noticed the
man's head sticking up above the fence. But then again you never read
Six Seconds in Dallas. Only conspiracy nuts read books like that.
Andrew Mason
I have difficulty understanding why anyone would think that such
speculation has any value. Anyone can come up with a theory. Making it fit
the evidence is the challenge. Is the purpose of this exercise to see who
can come up with the neatest theory or is it to come up with an
explanation that fits the evidence?
I am criticised for my "wacky" theory, which is simply that the well
corroborated bodies of witness evidence are correct. How wacky is it to
speculate first that the first shot missed (despite overwhelming evidence
that it hit JFK) and then to speculate that a fragment from that first
shot that hit no one else and left no trace anywhere, struck the very
target that the shooter was trying to hit but wildly missed?
Andrew Mason
claviger
> I forget, are you the ONLY being in this universe who believes Donahue's
> theory?
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
Mohandas Gandhi
claviger
That's not my quote. Careful photo analysis of the picket fence shows
no head. I already knew that.
claviger
> If Willis actually meant that Jackie did a dramatic left to right turn
> after the first shot, that is inconsistent with the rest of his evidence.
> Up to about z167 she is looking to the left. From about z180 she appears
> to be looking at the same thing that JFK is looking at on the right.
> Around z235 she turns to face JFK and begins to reach for his left arm.
> At z252 she turns to look at JBC (probably because he is shouting "oh,
> no, no, no").
From what I see Jackie does a sudden turn to the right z173-190. That
is less than a second.
> Willis said that the first shot occurred just as he was pressing the
> shutter on his z202 photo. He said he immediately recognized it as a
> rifle shot and was immediately concerned about his daughters. What he
> may have seen was Jackie turning to face JFK at z235. Or he may have
> thought she was turned to the left prior to taking his z202 photo (as
> she had been when she passed in front of him about 2 seconds before) and
> noticed that she was turned to the right immediately afterward (indeed
> at the time of his photo. This was never really explained very well (eg.
> no one pointed out that Jackie is turned toward the right in his photo
> and asked him to explain how he saw Jackie turn to the right after his
> photo was taken).
Interestingly enough, his daughter Rosemary tells a much different
story.
> In any event, Willis is only one witness. You cannot rely on only one
> witness. You have to see how that witness' evidence fits with the rest
> of the evidence.
Agreed. The Willis family all had different impressions.
> In this case, we have 21 witnesses, at least, who said that JFK reacted
> to the first shot by leaning left and/or forward and/or bringing his his
> hands to his neck. That does not occur before z200. We have Betzner and
> Croft who said that the first shot was after they took their z186 and
> z162 photos, respectively. We also have another 20 or so witnesses whose
> evidence puts the first shot after z191 (after the VP and VP followup
> car have turned), when the President was at the Thornton Freeway sign,
> or otherwise around z200 (the position of the President in relation to
> where they were standing when the first shot occurred). They all have a
> remarkable consistentcy that is entirely inconsistent with a first shot
> much before z200.
With so many witnesses it is not surprising they have different, and
sometimes contradictory, perceptions of what happened. The four
members of the motorcycle escort had different sights and sounds they
distinctly remember. How does one interpret the testimony of each
witness? They see different things, hear different sounds, and have
different ways of expressing what they remember. Some of the closest
witness were traumatized by what they saw. Jean Hill heard 6 shots
while Charles Brehm standing only a few feet away distinctly heard
only three. Is there a way to compare, collate, and evaluate what they
thought they saw? With the help of the Z-film and some understanding
of human nature perhaps there is. We must keep in mind witnesses were
stunned by a sudden flood of gruesome sights and cacophonous sounds
that took place in only a fraction of a minute. Age, gender,
experience, proximity, elevation, awareness and familiarity with
surroundings all play a part. So does timing and consistency in
retelling the same story. Most of all, honesty and sobriety.
> > DPD Douglas L. Jackson, another Presidential motorcycle officer:
> > "Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the
> > second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was
> > shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit---
> > because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind
> > of back toward me and…just kind of flinched."
> This is actually a very good argument in favour of JBC being hit while
> he was turned around to the right from z235-280. Jackson was on the
> right side to the rear. The only way JBC could have been looking at him
> at the time of the second shot would be if he was shot from z235-280.
In z200-204 Gov.Connally is turned hard to the right. In fact, he's
been in that position since z166.
> > In the Zapruder film we see Governor Connally having an obvious
> > physical reaction at the same time as President Kennedy when the
> > Limousine is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign but no flinching
> > reaction after that.
> One can certainly see JBC suddenly sail forward beginning at about
> z272-278. It is measurable. This could be the "jerk" that Jackson saw.
> It is a very sudden change in motion. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/272_278_2.PDF
I can't seem to locate that sudden motion. Can you be more specific?
claviger
Here are some interesting reactions bunched together:
z150 Hickey looks down at the pavement to his left.
z160 JFK turns to his right,
z165 Rosemary Willis turns to her right and slows down.
z166 Governor Connally turns to his right.
z173 Jackie turns to her right.
z190 DPD Martin appears to turn his head to look at the Limousine.
All this takes place in two seconds.
claviger
Andrew,
I think your theory is interesting for several reasons. You present a
fascinating alternative to consider and obviously studied in great
detail different aspects of the case. You make a cogent argument based
on the pattern you discern from analyzing groups of witnesses. Beyond
these groupings there is a lack of corroboration by the Z-film and
hard evidence. At last count six police officers in their testimony
and interviews indicate a first shot miss. As such you need to take
them seriously as a group rather than try to refute each and every
one. Howard Donahue spent years studying the evidence from every
possible perspective. After doing that much research his instincts
kept telling him this looks more and more like is a friendly fire
incident mixed in with an attempt to assassinate the President.
Donahue was familiar with this phenomena from past experience. His
research led him to the conclusion there was a first shot miss where
the President suffered superficial wounds from a fragment and cement
particles while the main part of the bullet ended up inside the
Limousine. The bullet did not shatter into numerous tiny pieces but
was completely deformed by impact with the street. He did not believe
the skull would have caused such massive deformation of a 6.5 FMJ
bullet. Nor did he believe that bullet would disintegrate into a lead
snowstorm inside the skull. Donahue had valid reasons for the
conclusion he felt obligated to accept based on numerous indications
all pointing in the same direction.
Andrew Mason
Not true at all. There is corroboration in the zfilm but you have to
look at the rest of the evidence. Furthermore, the zfilm is consistent
with a second shot at z271.
Some of the corroboration:
1. Greer turning at z280 which he said was immediately after the second
shot, not 3 seconds after.
2. Change in motion of JBC at z272.
3. Hair flies up on JFK (as Hickey observed at the time of the first shot.
It flies up no where else.
4. Change in appearance of JBC's wrist appears in z271.
There are no facts that conflict with a second shot at z271 and the zfilm.
It is consistent with:
1. Mary Woodward recalling that JFK and Jackie turned before the first
shot.
2. JBC saying "Oh, no, no" before the second shot.
3. Nellie looking at JBC at the time of the second shot.
4. JBC moving forward (recoiling) in response to the second shot.
5. JBC reacting to the first shot by turning around to try to face JFK.
6. Power's evidence that JFK moved left on the first shot, JBC disappeared
on the second.
7. All the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot. (at
least 22).
8. All the witnesses who recalled the 1....2..3 pattern.(at least 48)
9. All the witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (22 at least).
The only thing it is inconsistent with are opinions about when JBC had to
have been hit by or what is happening in z223-225 of the zfilm.
> At last count six police officers in their testimony
> and interviews indicate a first shot miss.
> As such you need to take
> them seriously as a group rather than try to refute each and every
> one.
Ok. For starters, name them. I have already shown that since Martin said
JFK leaned forward and had a blank expression after the first shot he is
not exactly a "first shot miss" witness. Ellis did not give evidence until
15 years later and saw something hit the curb. No mark was found on the
curb and they were inspected. Jackson actually confirms that JBC was
facing him when he was shot. Chaney never gave evidence. Who else are we
talking about?
I have taken them much more seriously than you seem to take :
-All the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot. (at least
22).
-All the witnesses who recalled the 1....2..3 pattern.(at least 48)
-All the witnesses who put the first shot after z186 (22 at least).
> Howard Donahue spent years studying the evidence from every
> possible perspective. After doing that much research his instincts
> kept telling him this looks more and more like is a friendly fire
> incident mixed in with an attempt to assassinate the President.
> Donahue was familiar with this phenomena from past experience. His
> research led him to the conclusion there was a first shot miss where
> the President suffered superficial wounds from a fragment and cement
> particles while the main part of the bullet ended up inside the
> Limousine. The bullet did not shatter into numerous tiny pieces but
> was completely deformed by impact with the street. He did not believe
> the skull would have caused such massive deformation of a 6.5 FMJ
> bullet. Nor did he believe that bullet would disintegrate into a lead
> snowstorm inside the skull. Donahue had valid reasons for the
> conclusion he felt obligated to accept based on numerous indications
> all pointing in the same direction.
Donahue makes no attempt to find evidence to support his theory. It is
inconsistent with an enormous amount of evidence. In the real world, the
evidence tells you what happened.
Also, Donahue's theory is not shown to be even physically plausible.
Donahue never fired a 6.5 mm 2000 fps bullet into asphalt. He did not find
any marks on the pavement. He never found any physical evidence that JFK
was struck by a fragment anywhere. He did not show that a fragment from a
"bouncing" MC bullet could possibly bounce off asphalt and, if so, that it
would bounce up with so little energy that it would just fall into the car
but one fragment would have enough energy to strike JFk and cause him to
react but not leave any mark on his clothing or body.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
> Here are some interesting reactions bunched together:
>
> z150 Hickey looks down at the pavement to his left.
How can you tell he is looking down at the pavement? He
>
> z160 JFK turns to his right,
As do Jackie and JBC around there.
Mary Woodward said he did that (before she even knew about let alone had
seen the zfilm) in response to her group shouting and waving at him BEFORE
the first shot. Another 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first
shot - not by smiling and waving. 22 witnesses said the first shot was
after z186 (Betzner) - after z191 (occupants of the VP follow up car who
said the car was just finishing its turn and occupants of the VP car who
said it had completed its turn and was going down Elm) - at about z202
(Willis). Of the many people lining Elm St. who said where JFK was when
the first shot occurred NONE said it happened anywhere close to z150. They
all converge on z200.
I am not sure why you think that evidence can possibly be so consistent
and wrong.
>
> z165 Rosemary Willis turns to her right and slows down.
She stops at z199. She turns her hood dramatically at z204 to her right.
Until then, her hood follows the President.
>
> z166 Governor Connally turns to his right.
As do JFK and Jackie - because Mary Woodward had just shouted to them.
Do you think that Woodward just made that up?
>
> z173 Jackie turns to her right.
As do JBC and JFK.
>
> z190 DPD Martin appears to turn his head to look at the Limousine.
As he is supposed to do. Where do you expect him to look?
>
> All this takes place in two seconds.
So what is your point? How is that not consistent with Mary Woodward's
group getting their attention? (there is, after all, evidence of exactly
that).
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
>> If Willis actually meant that Jackie did a dramatic left to right turn
>> after the first shot, that is inconsistent with the rest of his evidence.
>> Up to about z167 she is looking to the left. From about z180 she appears
>> to be looking at the same thing that JFK is looking at on the right.
>> Around z235 she turns to face JFK and begins to reach for his left arm.
>> At z252 she turns to look at JBC (probably because he is shouting "oh,
>> no, no, no").
> From what I see Jackie does a sudden turn to the right z173-190. That
> is less than a second.
How long does a turn of the head usually take? Some might think a second
is a long time. Besides, why is that not a turn in response to Mary
Woodward's shouting? If it was a shot, why would they all look in the
same direction - exactly at Mary Woodward, BTW - and not look around in
all directions or, perhaps, the direction from which the sound came?
>
>> Willis said that the first shot occurred just as he was pressing the
>> shutter on his z202 photo. He said he immediately recognized it as a
>> rifle shot and was immediately concerned about his daughters. What he
>> may have seen was Jackie turning to face JFK at z235. Or he may have
>> thought she was turned to the left prior to taking his z202 photo (as
>> she had been when she passed in front of him about 2 seconds before) and
>> noticed that she was turned to the right immediately afterward (indeed
>> at the time of his photo. This was never really explained very well (eg.
>> no one pointed out that Jackie is turned toward the right in his photo
>> and asked him to explain how he saw Jackie turn to the right after his
>> photo was taken).
> Interestingly enough, his daughter Rosemary tells a much different
> story.
Well you have to be careful. Rosemary never gave evidence. She gave an
interview many many years later. That is not the best way to find
reliable evidence. She also said she thought there were at least 4 shots
and really thought there were six.
>
>> In any event, Willis is only one witness. You cannot rely on only one
>> witness. You have to see how that witness' evidence fits with the rest
>> of the evidence.
> Agreed. The Willis family all had different impressions.
There is corroboration for Linda's evidence (as to where the first shot
occurred - as the limo was passing between her and the Stemmons sign
which fits with her father's evidence on that - and that JFK reacted to
it - another 20 or so witnesses observed the same thing). There is also
corroboration for Willis' evidence as to when the first shot occurred
(Betzner, motorcade witnesses, Elm St. witnesses).
>
>> In this case, we have 21 witnesses, at least, who said that JFK reacted
>> to the first shot by leaning left and/or forward and/or bringing his his
>> hands to his neck. That does not occur before z200. We have Betzner and
>> Croft who said that the first shot was after they took their z186 and
>> z162 photos, respectively. We also have another 20 or so witnesses whose
>> evidence puts the first shot after z191 (after the VP and VP followup
>> car have turned), when the President was at the Thornton Freeway sign,
>> or otherwise around z200 (the position of the President in relation to
>> where they were standing when the first shot occurred). They all have a
>> remarkable consistentcy that is entirely inconsistent with a first shot
>> much before z200.
> With so many witnesses it is not surprising they have different, and
> sometimes contradictory, perceptions of what happened. The four
> members of the motorcycle escort had different sights and sounds they
> distinctly remember. How does one interpret the testimony of each
> witness?
You apply common sense. Look at the essential facts that they recall and
see if they say essentially the same thing. They may describe how JFK
reacted slightly differently, but the thing that is common is the
general reaction they describe. It was not smiling and waving. They
describe a movement of the body and hands.
> They see different things, hear different sounds, and have
> different ways of expressing what they remember. Some of the closest
> witness were traumatized by what they saw. Jean Hill heard 6 shots
> while Charles Brehm standing only a few feet away distinctly heard
> only three. Is there a way to compare, collate, and evaluate what they
> thought they saw? With the help of the Z-film and some understanding
> of human nature perhaps there is. We must keep in mind witnesses were
> stunned by a sudden flood of gruesome sights and cacophonous sounds
> that took place in only a fraction of a minute. Age, gender,
> experience, proximity, elevation, awareness and familiarity with
> surroundings all play a part. So does timing and consistency in
> retelling the same story. Most of all, honesty and sobriety.
>
>>> DPD Douglas L. Jackson, another Presidential motorcycle officer:
>>> "Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the
>>> second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was
>>> shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit---
>>> because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind
>>> of back toward me and…just kind of flinched."
>> This is actually a very good argument in favour of JBC being hit while
>> he was turned around to the right from z235-280. Jackson was on the
>> right side to the rear. The only way JBC could have been looking at him
>> at the time of the second shot would be if he was shot from z235-280.
> In z200-204 Gov.Connally is turned hard to the right. In fact, he's
> been in that position since z166.
Yes. And that would explain why the right to left bullet through JFK
missed his left shoulder.
>
>>> In the Zapruder film we see Governor Connally having an obvious
>>> physical reaction at the same time as President Kennedy when the
>>> Limousine is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign but no flinching
>>> reaction after that.
>> One can certainly see JBC suddenly sail forward beginning at about
>> z272-278. It is measurable. This could be the "jerk" that Jackson saw.
>> It is a very sudden change in motion. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/272_278_2.PDF
> I can't seem to locate that sudden motion. Can you be more specific?
Look at the positions of JBC in each frame relative to Jackie/JFK/the
car. The vertical lines show are fixed on Jackie's/JFK's position which
does not change. You can see that in each frame JBC moves forward by the
distance between the successive vertical lines. You can also see this by
looking at a point on the car behind JBC. That pink light immediately
behind him on the far side wall is very useful.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
I can relate to that.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas shows the head. You are only 40
years behind.
Anthony Marsh
I take that as a YES.
claviger
More timing issues:
Rosemary Willis stops completely by z189. Assuming she took one second
to stop, the sound she heard came at z170.9. If she took two seconds
slowing down to a stop the first sound came at z152.6.
Tina Towner stopped filming about the time Zapruder started his camera
a second time at z133. She said the shots came two or three seconds
after she stopped her camera. Therefore, one second later is z150.3,
two seconds is z168.6, and three seconds is z186.9.
As you can see [RW] z152.6 - [TT] z150.3 are almost a match, as well
as [RW] z170.9 - [TT] z168.6.
These two witnesses appear to corroborate each other.
Then a third witness, Governor Connally, testified he instinctively
looked to his right at the first loud sound which immediately got his
attention. He is definitely staring to his right by z166 and probably
turned to the sound even sooner. If his head snapped to the right in
half a second then the sound came at approximately z157.
These three witnesses indicate the first shot miss came somewhere
between z150 - z170, split the difference = z160. That allows 3.5
seconds between z160 - z224.
claviger
Governor Connally only heard the first and third shots. He did not hear
the shot that wounded him, because as we all know the bullet arrives
before the sound wave. The Governor was shown the Z-film and believes he
was wounded by the second shot between z231-234 based on his bodily
reactions. Therefore according to his testimony the first shot occurred
before z231: two seconds before z231 would be z194, three seconds z176,
and four seconds 158, close to the z160 indicated not only by two other
witnesses, but Connally's own testimony about when he looked sharply to
his right after hearing a rifle shot.
claviger
> claviger wrote:
> > Andrew,
>
> > Here are some interesting reactions bunched together:
> > z150 Hickey looks down at the pavement to his left.
> How can you tell he is looking down at the pavement? He
Hickey is leaning to his left looking down at the street from
z150-154. He seems to be looking at the back of the motorcycles.
Perhaps he thought they made a backfire.
> > z160 JFK turns to his right,
> As do Jackie and JBC around there.
Yes they do. Both Jackie and JBC said they looked to the right when
they heard a loud sound.
> Mary Woodward said he did that (before she even knew about let alone had
> seen the zfilm) in response to her group shouting and waving at him BEFORE
> the first shot. Another 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first
> shot - not by smiling and waving. 22 witnesses said the first shot was
> after z186 (Betzner) - after z191 (occupants of the VP follow up car who
> said the car was just finishing its turn and occupants of the VP car who
> said it had completed its turn and was going down Elm) - at about z202
> (Willis). Of the many people lining Elm St. who said where JFK was when
> the first shot occurred NONE said it happened anywhere close to z150. They
> all converge on z200.
> I am not sure why you think that evidence can possibly be so consistent
> and wrong.
What evidence? Do you mean witness statements? Rosemary Willis stops
running and looks back before the Limousine passed the light pole.
Woodward is somewhat vague about where she was standing but said it was
near the second light pole.
> > z165 Rosemary Willis turns to her right and slows down.
> She stops at z199. She turns her hood dramatically at z204 to her right.
> Until then, her hood follows the President.
Actually she stops at z189 but her hood is looking behind the
Limousine even earlier at z179.
> > z166 Governor Connally turns to his right.
> As do JFK and Jackie - because Mary Woodward had just shouted to them.
> Do you think that Woodward just made that up?
Both Jackie and JBC explain why they looked to the right. Do you think
they just made it up?
> > z173 Jackie turns to her right.
> As do JBC and JFK.
Yes they do.
> > z190 DPD Martin appears to turn his head to look at the Limousine.
> As he is supposed to do. Where do you expect him to look?
Most of the time he's been looking forward at the people along the
curb, trying to not run over the picture takers who step into the
street.
> > All this takes place in two seconds.
> So what is your point? How is that not consistent with Mary Woodward's
> group getting their attention? (there is, after all, evidence of exactly
> that).
What evidence? Can you pick out Mary Woodward in the Z-film?
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
> More timing issues:
>
> Rosemary Willis stops completely by z189.
You must not be looking at the same Zfilm that I am. Her feet keep
moving until z199. Until z199 she is moving her feet. At z199 the right
foot has moved forward and is even with her left. At z204 she turns her
head sharply to the right.
> Assuming she took one second
> to stop, the sound she heard came at z170.9. If she took two seconds
> slowing down to a stop the first sound came at z152.6.
You are assuming she was stopping because of the shot. People can stop
running for any number of reasons. Besides, she does not stop until z199.
>
> Tina Towner stopped filming about the time Zapruder started his camera
> a second time at z133. She said the shots came two or three seconds
> after she stopped her camera. Therefore, one second later is z150.3,
> two seconds is z168.6, and three seconds is z186.9.
She actually stopped when the limo was about a bit less than a car
length behind where it is first seen in the zfilm. That puts it about
z115. She never said 2 or 3 seconds. The only evidence we have from
Towner is from interviews in the 60s and in a statement provided to the
sixth floor museum. In her interviews says that she finished filming and
turned around and was walking back to the corner and was putting away
the camera when the first shot sounded. This is consistent with her
sixth floor museum statement - according to Gary Mack - the first shot
was 5-6 seconds after she finished filming.
>
> As you can see [RW] z152.6 - [TT] z150.3 are almost a match, as well
> as [RW] z170.9 - [TT] z168.6.
>
> These two witnesses appear to corroborate each other.
yes they do. The only problem is that they both corroborate a first shot
well after z160 (as do Betzner, Willis and about 20 others).
>
> Then a third witness, Governor Connally, testified he instinctively
> looked to his right at the first loud sound which immediately got his
> attention. He is definitely staring to his right by z166 and probably
> turned to the sound even sooner. If his head snapped to the right in
> half a second then the sound came at approximately z157.
The only problem with that is that he said he turned to the right and
tried to see JFK. You have to admit he never looks like he is doing that
before z200.
Andrew Mason
You are right that JBC's opinion about where he was shot is inconsistent
with his own testimony about turning around to see JFK. It is also
inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of witnesses who heard the
last two shots closer together. Nellies' opinion was the same as JBC's
but she also saw JFK reacting before the second shot.
All I can say is I wished I had an opportunity to ask them some
questions like: where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK? Where do
you look at JFK before the second shot? It is not unusual for opinions
not to fit facts. It may be that they would have changed their opinion
if some questions had been asked.
Andrew Mason
>
Andrew Mason
> On Jul 5, 6:18 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>> claviger wrote:
>>> Andrew,
>>> Here are some interesting reactions bunched together:
>>> z150 Hickey looks down at the pavement to his left.
>> How can you tell he is looking down at the pavement? He
>
> Hickey is leaning to his left looking down at the street from
> z150-154. He seems to be looking at the back of the motorcycles.
> Perhaps he thought they made a backfire.
Or maybe he was making sure people were not on the street - that is if
he actually was looking down. The film is not very clear.
>
>>> z160 JFK turns to his right,
>> As do Jackie and JBC around there.
>
> Yes they do. Both Jackie and JBC said they looked to the right when
> they heard a loud sound.
>> Mary Woodward said he did that (before she even knew about let alone had
>> seen the zfilm) in response to her group shouting and waving at him BEFORE
>> the first shot. Another 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first
>> shot - not by smiling and waving. 22 witnesses said the first shot was
>> after z186 (Betzner) - after z191 (occupants of the VP follow up car who
>> said the car was just finishing its turn and occupants of the VP car who
>> said it had completed its turn and was going down Elm) - at about z202
>> (Willis). Of the many people lining Elm St. who said where JFK was when
>> the first shot occurred NONE said it happened anywhere close to z150. They
>> all converge on z200.
>> I am not sure why you think that evidence can possibly be so consistent
>> and wrong.
>
> What evidence? Do you mean witness statements?
Yes.
> Rosemary Willis stops
> running and looks back before the Limousine passed the light pole.
> Woodward is somewhat vague about where she was standing but said it was
> near the second light pole.
Woodward is seen in the Altgens photo and in the zfilm. She is the third
person west of the light pole, just to the right of the woman to the
right of the man with the hard hat who is standing beside the light pole
(AJ Millican). She was opposite JFK at about z195.
>
>>> z165 Rosemary Willis turns to her right and slows down.
>> She stops at z199. She turns her hood dramatically at z204 to her right.
>> Until then, her hood follows the President.
>
> Actually she stops at z189 but her hood is looking behind the
> Limousine even earlier at z179.
Not in my copy of the zfilm. Her feet keep moving until z199 when they
stop with them together. In z198 she is bringing her right foot forward.
>
>>> z166 Governor Connally turns to his right.
>> As do JFK and Jackie - because Mary Woodward had just shouted to them.
>> Do you think that Woodward just made that up?
>
> Both Jackie and JBC explain why they looked to the right. Do you think
> they just made it up?
Not at all. But they looked right more than once. Woodward and others
said they turned in response to shouts from the north side of Elm
(Woodward and her friends). Woodward is much more likely to remember
that than JBC or Jackie as it was a much more significant event to them.
>
>>> z173 Jackie turns to her right.
>> As do JBC and JFK.
> Yes they do.
>
>>> z190 DPD Martin appears to turn his head to look at the Limousine.
>> As he is supposed to do. Where do you expect him to look?
>
> Most of the time he's been looking forward at the people along the
> curb, trying to not run over the picture takers who step into the
> street.
>
>>> All this takes place in two seconds.
>> So what is your point? How is that not consistent with Mary Woodward's
>> group getting their attention? (there is, after all, evidence of exactly
>> that).
>
> What evidence?
From Woodward, the Chisms, for example. That is evidence.Woodward
described in impeccable detail the turn of JFK, Jackie, their smile and
waves just before the first shot. Her recollection - written from memory
immediately after the events - fits the zfilm events perfectly.
> Can you pick out Mary Woodward in the Z-film?
Yes. See above. Also see Roberdeau's map of the witnesses in DP
Andrew Mason
tomnln
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@spmlaw.ca> wrote in message
news:QvKdnUZT1eRTo8XX...@posted.sasktel...
JBC studied the Zapruder film "Frame by Frame".