"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" By Vincent Bugliosi (Coming May/June 2007)
David Von Pein
AND LOGIC WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TO FIGHT, NO
MATTER HOW LONG THEY'VE EMBRACED THE IDEA OF A CONSPIRACY PLOT WITH
RESPECT TO THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MURDER CASE......
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY"
By:
Vincent T. Bugliosi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Los Angeles, California, Deputy District Attorney Vincent
Bugliosi has believed in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK
assassination for many years. In 1986, Mr. Bugliosi even garnered a
"Guilty" verdict from a sworn-in jury during a 21-hour "mock trial" of
Oswald ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald").
Mr. Bugliosi's soon-to-be-published JFK book, which has now been
re-titled "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy"
(projected release date of May/June 2007), will dive head-first into
all aspects of the Kennedy assassination (per the original 1998
publisher's blurb about the book) and reveal beyond a reasonable doubt
that no conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy, and that
Oswald (alone) murdered JFK. And given Mr. Bugliosi's reputation for
common sense, preparedness, thoroughness, and logic -- such "Lone
Assassin" arguments will be hard for anyone to dismiss (IMHO).
Mr. Bugliosi, whom I have the utmost respect for, has a habit of
getting to the full truth of any subject matter he chooses to tackle.
And I have no reason to believe that the John F. Kennedy assassination
will be any different in this regard. "Reclaiming History", in this
writer's pre-release opinion, is bound to be quite an eye-opener.
Vincent's long-awaited JFK book has been in the works since 1986 (the
year that VB "convicted" Lee Oswald in front of that jury during the TV
"Docu-Trial" in London). The book has evidently gone through three
titles during those 20-plus years as well. It was originally to be
called "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F.
Kennedy". In 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict:
The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK". And now it's apparently been
changed once again, to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of John
F. Kennedy".
But no matter what moniker it eventually is released under, it will be
filled with large amounts of "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic) -- of that
there can be no doubt.
According to comments made by Mr. Bugliosi in late 2005, the book will
actually consist of two hardcover volumes, with the main volume
containing 1,500 pages. A second volume of approximately 600 pages, per
VB, will be filled with endnotes.*
* = Footnote -- As of this writing (in November 2006), it would now
appear as if Mr. Bugliosi's massive JFK tome with contain 1,672 pages.
(I'm not sure at this time whether that includes both volumes or not;
it's possible, however, that it has been reduced to just one volume
altogether.)
That page count of 1,672 comes via this webpage from Amazon.co.uk
(which shows a U.K. release date of June 29, 2007)......
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393045250
The brief "Synopsis" for the book that appears on the above webpage
says the following:
"Takes a fresh look at the events and evidence surrounding the
assassination of President Kennedy, as well as all the conspiracy
theories, to offer a logical argument that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely
responsible."
Vince stated in late 2005 that the manuscript for his mammoth JFK
publication "could easily fill five volumes". But he has been working
hard on condensing it for the last two or three years now.
I've also taken note of some interesting info on the Simon & Schuster
website, which is advertising an Audio-CD version of "Reclaiming
History" -- a 12-Disc set of Compact Discs for $49.95 (as of this
writing). That product, per the Schuster website, is due to come out in
May of 2007.**
** = The book itself, however, is being published by W.W. Norton.
Evidently the multi-hour Audio-CD version is being distributed by a
different publisher, Schuster.
It doesn't matter to this writer who puts out the material, though,
because I'm just thrilled to see as much JFK stuff by Vince B. coming
out as humanly possible -- for, it'll result in just THAT much more
common sense (and "Oswald Did It" verification) being put into
circulation by one of the top lawyers in America, Vincent T. Bugliosi.
I look forward to the entire "Reclaiming History" package....no matter
what the cost will end up being.
The W.W. Norton website has revised its page for VB's book too --
adjusting the price (upward) for the tome, which was previously going
to be released in 1998 at 992 pages. That page count has obviously
increased greatly since '98. Norton's previous listing had the 992-page
volume at $35.00 (US$); it's now listed at $49.95 (US$):
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
And here's the Schuster webpage re. the 12-Disc Audio-CD package:
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
-------------------------------------------
V.B. QUOTE TIME......
The following quotes were spoken by Vincent Bugliosi himself (over a
period of several years), and they give an indication, in brief
"snippet" form, as to what Vincent's general opinions are regarding the
JFK murder and who was responsible for the crime. Not surprisingly,
there's not a single mention in these quotes of how "Badge Man" on the
Grassy Knoll fired the fatal shot......
-----------------------
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his
sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986
-----------------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince
the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
-----------------------
"Right now I'm working around the clock, almost literally, because I'm
reliving the JFK trial in my dreams." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 2005
-----------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vincent
T. Bugliosi (via a portion of his Opening Statement to the jury during
the 1986 televised Docu-Trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
-----------------------
Vincent T. Bugliosi (while questioning Dr. Vincent Guinn during the
1986 TV Docu-Trial) -- "There may have been fifty people firing at
President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they ALL missed; only
bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President; is that
correct?"
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn -- "That's a correct statement; yes."
-----------------------
"I am at work writing an in-depth book on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, one that I'm confident will shed a different
light on the tragedy that altered the course of American history." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1991
-----------------------
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
January 1988
-----------------------
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has not
been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but
Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
-----------------------
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 2001
-----------------------
"I'm 95% sure he {Oswald} acted alone; and if you threw 85% of the
evidence out the window there would still be enough to prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; January 1988
-----------------------
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just theories
and motives." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; January 1988
-----------------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
-----------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1998
-----------------------
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked
for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was an
enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of the
story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I asked
how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their hands.
Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
-----------------------
Original Publisher's Blurb For Mr. Bugliosi's JFK Book;
Via W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. (Spring 1998):
"It was the crime of the century, the most shattering public event most
of us will ever live through. Much has been written about that day in
Dallas, but never an account that laid all questions to rest - until
now.
At 1:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was
pronounced dead, the victim of a sniper attack during his motorcade
through Dallas. That may be the only fact generally agreed upon in the
vast literature spawned by the assassination. Polls reveal that 85
percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey
Oswald -- some even believe Oswald had nothing to do with it -- and in
this astonishingly-encyclopedic and readable book, Vincent Bugliosi
shows how we have come to believe such lies.
Bugliosi, brillant prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author
of the book, "Outrage", that hammered a chain of circumstantial guilt
around O.J. Simpson, is perhaps the only man in America capable of
"prosecuting" Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
His book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic evidence,
re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common sense. Every
detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as
a fraud upon the American public. While reading it we have the eerie
feeling that we are in Dallas the day a lone gunman changed the course
of history. Mr. Bugliosi's irresistible logic and absolute command of
the evidence shed fresh light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At
last we know what really happened; at last it all makes sense."
-------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL RELATED LINKS......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
http://www.nndb.com/people/807/000023738/
-----------------------
David Von Pein
March 2005
November 2005
November 2006
pjsp...@aol.com
of what appears to be a one-sided examination of the evidence. Yes,
he'll do a better job than Posner. But is he gonna have the huevos to
tell the American people the truth about some of the stickier aspects
of the case? Will he discuss why the Clark Panel reinterpreted the
head wounds? Will he discuss why the HSCA exhibits contradict each
other? Will he discuss why the HSCA trajectory expert blew massive
amounts of smoke to hide the fact that the trajectories didn't add up?
Or will he try to pass this all off as conspiracist paranoia? I must
admit I'm curious.
Ray
On Nov 26, 10:42 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY"
By:
> Vincent T. Bugliosi
> It was originally called "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F.
> Kennedy". In 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict:
> The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK".
> David Von Pein
Good thing he changed the sub-title. As Oscar Wilde said:
The tuth is
seldom pure
and it is
never simple
Gerry Simone (O)
I look forward to his book too. Thanks for this announcement.
p.s. Is it not CS&L that two shots close together, as substantiated by
reputable earwitnesses, could not possibly have been fired from the MC?
Is it not CS&L that a second and professional shooter might have
gotten away leaving no trace (history has recorded unkown assassins - they
don't always get caught)
Is it not CS&L that the Posner lapel flip can't reconcile to a SBT when
JFK's already reacting as he emerges from the sign (Jackie has been
curiously watching him for several frames up to that point and thereafter
with the same look and position, and your reasoning from one of your book
reviews on Amazon that the lapel has momentum and flips after the fact seems
nonsensical given that the mass of a lapel is relatively miniscule - maybe
so if a WCC round hits a medicine ball!).
gary...@yahoo.com
looks into. Do you agree with him that there was a conspiracy in the
Bobby Kennedy assassination?
Anthony Marsh
> Speak for yourself :-)
>
> I look forward to his book too. Thanks for this announcement.
>
> p.s. Is it not CS&L that two shots close together, as substantiated by
> reputable earwitnesses, could not possibly have been fired from the MC?
>
Nope. You have to quantify what you mean.
I happen to think that 1.05 sec. is too fast for one person to fire both
shots with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. Blakey could do it if he needed to.
David Von Pein
reputable earwitnesses, could not possibly have been fired from the MC?"
<<<
What makes some witnesses MORE "reputable" than others in this "Shots
Fired Close Together" regard?
Yes, I fully realize the problems of ear/eyewitness testimony and
faulty/skewed recollection....but so should you.
Here are several instances of witnesses NOT hearing the shots "close
together". (Are these witnesses to be discounted entirely?)......
===================================
James Romack (via Warren Commission testimony):
Mr. BELIN. How many did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They
rang out pretty fast.
-------------------
Officer Marrion L. Baker (to WC):
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle,
I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.
-------------------
Tom Dillard (to WC):
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
-------------------
Mal Couch (to WC):
Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second
shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have
been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.
-------------------
Nellie Connally (to WC):
Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.
-------------------
Emmett Hudson (to WC):
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
-------------------
Harold Norman (Via his re-creations of what he heard):
Mr. NORMAN - Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom.
Norman always "re-created" his "Booms-Clicks-Clicks" in a
PERFECTLY-EVEN distribution of the gunshots.
==================================
Here's an extension of the above topic re. "The Evenly-Spaced Seven
(Witnesses)"......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/713f675e7d57aa0e
==================================
>>> "Is it not CS&L that a second and professional shooter might have
gotten away leaving no trace?" <<<
Only if he missed the whole limo and everyone (and everything) else in
Dealey Plaza with his shot(s).
Is it likely that a "professional" completely missed the whole darn car
with his ONE single shot? (And an even LESS likely scenario would have
such a "professional" totally missing everything in sight with MORE
than one shot that he may have fired at the President.)
Think up another theory. This one's worn out its welcome (43 years'
worth).
>>> "Is it not CS&L that the Posner lapel flip can't reconcile to a SBT
when JFK's already reacting as he emerges from the sign?..." <<<
Because of the damn sign, I'll admit we can't even SEE Mr. Kennedy at
the exact moment he's struck at Z224. But please tell me why JFK's
hands are in this (low) position at Z225 if he'd been shot much
earlier?.....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/z225%204.jpg
We KNOW that John Connally, as evidenced by watching the clip provided
below, was "reacting" (involuntarily) very, very rapidly after being
shot (within just ONE FRAME, IMO)....so why couldn't JFK be reacting
just as quickly between the "strike" frame (Z224) and the very FIRST
frame when we can fully see what JFK is doing (Z225)? I say he CAN be
reacting that quickly (Connally's Z225 expression proves this to my
satisfaction, although all "humans" are different and therefore can
react differently, I'll grant you).
Therefore, to make the statement that JFK was already "reacting" during
the "Behind The Sign" Z-Frames seems disingenuous to me, and shows bias
toward WANTING John Kennedy hit by a separate non-SBT bullet.
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3084.gif
>>> "...and your reasoning from one of your book reviews on Amazon that
the lapel has momentum and flips after the fact seems nonsensical..." <<<
When did I ever write that? Please provide the review text.
I've said that I now have doubts that the bullet caused ALL of the
lapel movement (seeing as how it does appear that the lapel is moving
around in the pre-Z224 frames, as seen here)....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4107.gif
....but I don't think I worded any text in a review the way you have
suggested above. (In fact, that sounds more like WhiskyJoe's theory to
me, in which he thinks that the SBT shot occurs at circa Z221, with the
lapel moving somewhat later than that...per Mr. Sturdivan's scenario
btw. But that's not my specific theory.)
David Von Pein
looks into. Do you agree with him that there was a conspiracy in the Bobby
Kennedy assassination?" <<<
I'll admit straight away that I have very little knowledge about the RFK
case. But, if memory serves, I believe that Vince has changed his tune re.
conspiracy in the RFK murder. I believe he did think some type of plot
might have existed at one point in time, but after researching it, he
changed his mind and found no credible evidence for such a belief.
I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the case.
Mel Ayton
David,
You are correct, to a point. In the 1970s he became involved in the
particular issues of statements by LAPD officers who purportedly
reported bullet holes in the Ambassador Hotel pantry doors. He was
interviewed by Dan Moldea for Moldea's 'The Killing of Robert F
Kennedy' which was published in 1995. When Dan asked Bugliosi in 1993
if he believed there was a conspiracy in the Robert Kennedy murder ,
Bugliosi replied, "I've never had any doubt about Sirhan's guilt, but,
on the issue of conspiracy, I don't have a strong feeling one way or
the other. If I were pressed to the wall, I'd probably say there was
not - that there is an explanation for everything." Bugliosi believed
the HSCA should have investigated the murder. I have attempted to find
out if Bugliosi has made any further statements on the RFK
assassination, without success.
David Von Pein
Gerry Simone (O)
time element between them'...you know what I mean Tony :-)
I read that Blakey did it in 1.66 seconds or so without aiming...still too
fast.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xuidnUG6oov-6_bY...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
some have opined that he was shielding his face perhaps from a missed shot
that blew flying debris in the air,
"Gerry Simone (O)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:456c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> David,
>
> Thank you very much for your very detailed response and the time taken to
> reply.
>
> Some of your slow motion gif image files are excellent for reference
> purposes.
>
> My replies are below and include one html link and 3 jpeg attachments
> herewith.
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164671920.2...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> "Is it not CS&L that two shots close together, as substantiated by
> > reputable earwitnesses, could not possibly have been fired from the MC?"
> > <<<
> >
> >
> > What makes some witnesses MORE "reputable" than others in this "Shots
> > Fired Close Together" regard?
>
> SSA and veterans for instance over lay persons - Bob Harris has compiled a
> good list.
>
> >
> > Yes, I fully realize the problems of ear/eyewitness testimony and
> > faulty/skewed recollection....but so should you.
> >
> > Here are several instances of witnesses NOT hearing the shots "close
> > together". (Are these witnesses to be discounted entirely?)......
>
> Yes, I've noted your select examples below but you do realize that the
> comment by Mr. Dulles that a majority (if not vast majority) of
> earwitnesses said that the last two shots were spaced much closer together
> than the 1st two, trumps yours?
> The 'snowflake' metallic pattern on the skull X-Rays is indicative of a
> frangible bullet shot from the front, not a FMJ WCC round. The Fox News
> Special suggested that further tests might have shed light on this.
>
> Check out the attached Z335, Z337 and you'll notice what looks like an
> avulsion to the BOH.
>
> Also, and ignoring the picture on picture effect of an alleged behind the
> fence shooter, there appears to be a notch or indentation at the back of
> Kennedy's head in this good copy of the Moorman photo attached herewith,
> that looks like an exit wound.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >>> "Is it not CS&L that the Posner lapel flip can't reconcile to a SBT
> > when JFK's already reacting as he emerges from the sign?..." <<<
> >
> >
> > Because of the damn sign, I'll admit we can't even SEE Mr. Kennedy at
> > the exact moment he's struck at Z224. But please tell me why JFK's
> > hands are in this (low) position at Z225 if he'd been shot much
> > earlier?.....
>
> His left hand has already RISEN from resting on top of the limo side
> panel, and his right hand has descended after waving from earlier frames.
>
> Some say he raises his right hand after being shot again; maybe he's
> beginning to choke and reacts to that. After all, they did have to perform
> a tracheostomy.
>
> >
> > http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/z225%204.jpg
> >
> > We KNOW that John Connally, as evidenced by watching the clip provided
> > below, was "reacting" (involuntarily) very, very rapidly after being
> > shot (within just ONE FRAME, IMO)....so why couldn't JFK be reacting
> > just as quickly between the "strike" frame (Z224) and the very FIRST
> > frame when we can fully see what JFK is doing (Z225)? I say he CAN be
> > reacting that quickly (Connally's Z225 expression proves this to my
> > satisfaction, although all "humans" are different and therefore can
> > react differently, I'll grant you).
>
> You can't be sure that there's a reaction by Connally at Z224/Z225.
> (Even Connally says he wasn't hit at that point). I know you think that
> he grimaced and opened his mouth but it depends on the clarity or
> resolution of the photo. I think he's tight lipped. Consider this - why
> would he open his mouth at Z225 and then close it 1/18th of a second
> later? Kennedy is open-mouthed for several frames. Would the Prosecution
> explain that Connally is a tough, big Texan and therefore reacts slightly
> and momentarily only to react greater later? I think that Connally's
> shoulder begins to drop at Z230 and therefore I feel he was hit later
> (didn't the WC say this?). Bugliosi would have a hell of a time convincing
> any jury that Kennedy's alleged soft tissue injury causes him to exhibit a
> full reaction at Z225 when Connally allegedly has had two broken bones and
> looks relatively tight lipped.
>
> >
> > Therefore, to make the statement that JFK was already "reacting" during
> > the "Behind The Sign" Z-Frames seems disingenuous to me, and shows bias
> > toward WANTING John Kennedy hit by a separate non-SBT bullet.
> >
> > http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3084.gif
>
> It's not disingenuous because even the HSCA thought JFK was hit around
> Z190 and before he emerges from the Stemmons Freeway sign according to
> some researchers as well, one example being here:
>
>
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Junkkarinen--first_shot1.html
>
> Some doctors have opined that JFK's reaction is indicative of a shot no
> later than Z221-2 tops.
>
> >
> >
> > >>> "...and your reasoning from one of your book reviews on Amazon that
> > the lapel has momentum and flips after the fact seems nonsensical..."
<<<
> >
> >
> > When did I ever write that? Please provide the review text.
> >
> > I've said that I now have doubts that the bullet caused ALL of the
> > lapel movement (seeing as how it does appear that the lapel is moving
> > around in the pre-Z224 frames, as seen here)....
> >
> > http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4107.gif
>
> Excellent gif image - I noticed the right shirt cuff appear at the bottom
> of the lapel with a concomitant movement of the hat brim - maybe he pushed
> his jacket/lapel a bit.
>
> >
> > ....but I don't think I worded any text in a review the way you have
> > suggested above. (In fact, that sounds more like WhiskyJoe's theory to
> > me, in which he thinks that the SBT shot occurs at circa Z221, with the
> > lapel moving somewhat later than that...per Mr. Sturdivan's scenario
> > btw. But that's not my specific theory.)
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1413475221&store=yourstore&reviewID=RL0C7XHOJKVR7&iid=1413475221&displayType=ReviewDetail
> >
>
> Sorry David, maybe it was Whisky Joe's theory :-) I can't recall the book
> but I do remember you had a detailed review and then Whisky Joe had one
> too. It probably was Whisky Joe then.
>
>
>
>
>