Enduring Mystery

claviger

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 2:18:24 PM8/10/12

to

Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of eyewitnesses
heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
backfire, or tire blowout.

Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President to the
next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard three loud
sounds. We know there was a shot at z224 and z313 as recorded on the
Zapruders film. The gap between those two shots is approximately 4.86 -
5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of Zapruder's Model 414 PD
Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. That is plenty of time to
re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR purchased by LHO and found on the
6th floor of the TSBD. Several witnesses heard and a few even saw
something hit the street, at the first loud sound. Therefore all three
shots are accounted for: a first shot miss, a second shot back wound on
the President, and a third shot head wound on the President.

For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
must be true:

1. There were 3 shots :

The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound is
recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot- echo
perceived as two gunshots. The first loud sound is disconnected as a
confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses. Problem:
How can that many witnesses be wrong? If there were 3 shots plus echo why
didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?

2. There were 3 shots :

The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the back.
The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses confused it
as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a 3rd shot that
struck the President in the head. This is possible because the Carcano
M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds. Problem: Several well
placed witnesses are quite sure they saw and/or heard a first shot miss.

3. There were 3 shots :

1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
(GKS).

Problem: No person was seen behind the fence or anywhere else on the
Grassy Knoll with a weapon, and several witnesses heard 3 shots from
the same direction as the TSBD.

4. There were 3 shots :

1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
from behind the Limousine (not LHO): Take your pick, the Dal-Tex
Sniper theory or the Donahue theory.

Problem: No witness specifically saw or heard a shooter behind the
Limousine other than LHO.

5. There were 4 shots :

A 1st shot miss (LHO), a 2nd shot hit (LHO), a 3rd shot miss (GKS),
and a 4th shot hit (LHO). This is the HSCA conclusion.

Problem: No sniper was seen or heard on the GK by elevated witnesses on
the Triple Underpass, the pedestal in front of the North Pergola, or in
the Union Terminal Co north tower. No witness on the GK reported hearing
4 shots. Sitzman, the Hesters, and Clint Hill only heard 2 shots.

claviger

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 7:30:54 PM8/10/12

to

Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
correction will be more readable:

Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
passengers in the Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud
sound as a gunshot but most did not, and thought it was either a
firecracker, motorcycle backfire, or tire blowout.
Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President
to the next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard
three loud sounds. We know there was a shot at z224 and z313 as

recorded on the Zapruder film. The gap between those two shots is

approximately 4.86 - 5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of

Abraham Zapruder's Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series

Camera.
That is plenty of time to re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR

purchased by LHO found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Several
witnesses heard and a few even saw something hit the street at the

markusp

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 7:33:16 PM8/10/12

to

On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:18:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

Claviger, did you consider shot groupings? Also, if I was somehow in the
loop of conspirators, and I had shot suppression technology available to
me, I'd use it, certainly.

I think I gave this example some time ago, but I'll briefly repeat it: At
my home, I have Groden's DVD, "The Case for Conspiracy". The main menu is
animated, and upon first play, we hear sharp rifle reports, five of them
in all. I place this DVD into the Blu Ray player, crank up the surround
amplifier, and let my unsuspecting visitors in my home hear those shots. I
then ask how many they heard, and the vast majority say three. I do it
this way so as to catch them off-guard and not expecting to hear rifle
fire, just as the DP witnesses were.

It's pretty interesting, and anyone with that DVD can try it. Thought I'd
offer that, and thanks for your insights! Respectfully,

~Mark

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 8:13:30 PM8/10/12

to

On 8/10/2012 7:33 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:18:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> Claviger, did you consider shot groupings? Also, if I was somehow in the
> loop of conspirators, and I had shot suppression technology available to
> me, I'd use it, certainly.
>
> I think I gave this example some time ago, but I'll briefly repeat it: At
> my home, I have Groden's DVD, "The Case for Conspiracy". The main menu is
> animated, and upon first play, we hear sharp rifle reports, five of them
> in all. I place this DVD into the Blu Ray player, crank up the surround
> amplifier, and let my unsuspecting visitors in my home hear those shots. I
> then ask how many they heard, and the vast majority say three. I do it
> this way so as to catch them off-guard and not expecting to hear rifle
> fire, just as the DP witnesses were.
>

Good for you. Why do you think Groden put 5 shots in the tape? All the WC
defenders say that he claims there were 10 shots. Why not 10 shots on the
tape?

The HSCA said 4 shots, but some of us think they unfairly ruled one out.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 8:36:10 PM8/10/12

to

On 8/10/2012 7:30 PM, claviger wrote:
> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
> correction will be more readable:
>
> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
> passengers in the Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud
> sound as a gunshot but most did not, and thought it was either a
> firecracker, motorcycle backfire, or tire blowout.
> Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President
> to the next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard
> three loud sounds. We know there was a shot at z224 and z313 as
> recorded on the Zapruder film. The gap between those two shots is
> approximately 4.86 - 5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of
> Abraham Zapruder's Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series
> Camera.
> That is plenty of time to re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR
> purchased by LHO found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Several
> witnesses heard and a few even saw something hit the street at the
> first loud sound. Therefore all three shots are accounted for: a
> first shot miss, a second shot back wound on the President, and a
> third shot head wound on the President.
>

Never rely on witnesses. You are assuming what you need to prove.

> For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
> must be true:
>
> 1. There were 3 shots :
> The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound
> is recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot-
> echo perceived as two gunshots. The first loud sound is disconnected
> as a confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses.
>

Ridiculous. If you count an echo as a separate shot then your witnesses
should have heard 6 shots. But most heard only 3. If someone says more
than 3 you call them a kook.

> Problem: How can that many witnesses be wrong? If there were 3 shots
> plus echo why didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?

How many? 6 out of 700?

>
> 2. There were 3 shots :
> The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the
> back. The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses
> confused it as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a
> 3rd shot that struck the President in the head. This is possible
> because the Carcano M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds.
>

Then why did the WC defenders here say that the HSCA acoustical study was
impossible because they had two shots separated by only 1.66 seconds?
Where were you to tell them they were wrong? Did you ever see that kook in
the desert who can get off 7 shots in 6 seconds? That would mean that 2 of
those shots were separate by less than 1 second. Surely you can do it even
faster, maybe 6 shots in 4 seconds.

claviger

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 9:44:45 PM8/10/12

to

Mark,

Are you assuming all 5 shots were audible or 2/5 came from a silenced
rifle? Either way 3 of 5 apparently missed. The next question, were
all the rifles the same caliber or even the same make? Where were
these other snipers located? We know it wasn't the GK unless the BDM
in the black suit somehow ran out, took a shot, and ran away in about
10 seconds.
If so, no wonder he missed from up close.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 11, 2012, 8:03:32 AM8/11/12

to

5 sharp rifle reports doesn't sound like silencers to me.
I used to believe that silencers were used until I saw the acoustical
data for myself.
I don't know anyone who is still saying that Black Dog Man was a shooter.
You would need the shooter behind the fence and an extra shooter in the
TSBD.
You only need onw missed shot for sure and it could hit the curb near
Tague. One shot hits JFK's body and another hits JFK's head. One shot
hits Connally's body and another hits Connally's wrist.
Oswald missed Walker from up close.

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 11, 2012, 5:12:43 PM8/11/12

to

On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>
> correction will be more readable:
>
>
>
> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>
> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>
> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>
> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>
> passengers in the Limousine.

A number? Name one. There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.

The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.

claviger

unread,

Aug 11, 2012, 10:28:57 PM8/11/12

to

On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>
> > correction will be more readable:
>
> > Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>
> > ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>
> > of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>
> > eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>
> > passengers in the Limousine.
>
> A number? Name one.

Mary Woodward

> There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
> loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
> loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
> nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
> witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
> Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
> Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.

Can you provide the other 11 witnesses?

> The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.

There are several other witnesses to a first shot miss. The car full of
SS Agents didn't notice any physical reaction until the second shot.

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 10:38:49 AM8/12/12

to

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:28:57 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>
> > > Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>
> >
>
> > > correction will be more readable:
>
> >
>
> > > Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>
> >
>
> > > ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>
> >
>
> > > of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>
> >
>
> > > eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>
> >
>
> > > passengers in the Limousine.
>
> >
>
> > A number? Name one.
>
>
>
> Mary Woodward

Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "We decided to cross Elm Street and wait there on the grassy slope just east of the Triple Underpass…We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body….The cars behind stopped and several men--Secret Service men,--I suppose-- got out and started rushing forward, obstructing our view of the car…. About ten feet from where we were standing, a man and a woman had thrown their small child to the ground and covered his body with theirs. Apparently the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads.”

(12-7-63 FBI report, 24H520) “She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots, and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car. She stated that her first reaction was that the shots had been fired from above her head and from possibly behind her.”

Woodward said the first shot was fired after Kennedy waved to her group. He waved to her group circa Z-185. Do you think the first shot miss was fired after Z-185?

It's clear when one studies her statements that she interpreted Kennedy's reaction to the first shot as his looking around. If the first shot had been fired at Z-160 after all, she would have said he'd calmly waved to the crowd for a few seconds after the first shot was fired.

>
>
>
> > There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
>
> > loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
>
> > loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
>
> > nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
>
> > witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
>
> > Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
>
> > Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.
>
>
>
> Can you provide the other 11 witnesses?

In chapter 5 of my website, I go through the statements of every witness to describe Kennedy's reaction to the first shot.

Here are a few of them:

Welcome Eugene Barnett (7-23-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H539-544) “I was looking at the President when the first shot was fired, and I thought I saw him slump down, but I am not sure, and I didn’t look any more then. I thought he was ducking down."

Pierce Allman (11-22-63 eyewitness report on WFAA radio, between 1:45 and 2:00 PM CST) “Right after Mr. Kennedy passed in front of me I heard one big explosion and my immediate thought like most of the people standing around me was “this is firecrackers, but it’s in pretty poor taste”. I looked and saw the president, I thought, duck. Evidently, he was slumping at the time."

Phil Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H492-497) "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and slumped forward.”

Linda Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H498-499) (When asked if she heard shots) “Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward."

June Dishong (Letter written on 11-22-63, as read by her daughter on CNN, 11-21-2003, and featured on the Sixth Floor Museum website) “here come the president and his wife…His arm in the air waving…He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car."

George Hickey (11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car."

David Powers (5-18-64 affidavit, 7H472-474) “the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting."

Sam Kinney (11-22-63 report, 18H732) “The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass…it appeared that he (the President) had been shot because he slumped to the left."

Emory Roberts (11-29-63 report, 18H733-738) “12:30 PM: First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy."

B.J. Martin (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293) “one of the agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my right (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard the (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side of his face."

James Chaney (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder." (By saying the President turned to his left after the first shot-which only happens after Kennedy had obviously been hit--Chaney suggests he was hit by the first shot.)

Roy Kellerman (12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.3-11) (11-22-63 FBI interview) “he advised he heard a shot and immediately turned around, looking past Governor Connally…to the President. He observed the President slump forward."

First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally (Notes written on 12-2-63, as reprinted in her book From Love Field, 2003) “then I heard a loud, terrifying noise…I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and see him sink down in his seat."

Here is the summary:

So...a final tally. When one performs even a cursory review of the statements regarding the movements within the limousine at the time of the first shot, one finds that 43 of these indicated Kennedy had a reaction to the first shot. Not one indicated he just sat there waving, or looked around and resumed waving. While Agent Bennett's statement indicated that Kennedy was not hit until the second shot, he does not describe Kennedy's behavior after the first shot, so that his movements can be compared to the Zapruder film. This makes it hard to discern just when Bennett looked at Kennedy, and just how accurate are his recollections. Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 24-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit.

Let's recall here that Arlen Specter and his pals on the Warren Commission gave "substantial weight" to Agent Bennett's observation that the first shot missed, when they MUST have known, as most every statement used in this study was available to them, that his was the ONLY statement describing Kennedy's actions at the time of the first shot that suggested the first shot missed, and that there were literally DOZENS of statements available suggesting that it hit, many of them from witnesses with far more credibility. It seems more than just a coincidence, furthermore, that, by giving Bennett's statement its undue weight, the commission was able to suggest that maybe just maybe the first shot missed and that, therefore, Oswald had plenty of time to fire the shots.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 10:40:20 AM8/12/12

to

On 8/11/2012 10:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>>
>>> correction will be more readable:
>>
>>> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>>
>>> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>>
>>> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>>
>>> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>>
>>> passengers in the Limousine.
>>
>> A number? Name one.
>
> Mary Woodward
>
>> There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
>> loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
>> loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
>> nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
>> witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
>> Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
>> Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.
>
> Can you provide the other 11 witnesses?
>

Here we go again. Disinformation tactic #27. After we provide you the
other 11 witnesses, then you demand another 100, then another 1,000.
Then notarized and filmed statements. That's only for our witnesses. You
can make up your witnesses from your imagination.

>> The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.
>
> There are several other witnesses to a first shot miss. The car full of
> SS Agents didn't notice any physical reaction until the second shot.
>
>

Not necessarily a miss. Maybe just that no one SAW where it hit.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 1:56:34 PM8/12/12

to

In article <5027b79a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/11/2012 10:28 PM, claviger wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>>> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>>>
>>>> correction will be more readable:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>>>
>>>> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>>>
>>>> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>>>
>>>> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>>>
>>>> passengers in the Limousine.
>>>
>>> A number? Name one.
>>
>> Mary Woodward
>>
>>> There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
>>> loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
>>> loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
>>> nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
>>> witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
>>> Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
>>> Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.
>>
>> Can you provide the other 11 witnesses?
>>
>
>Here we go again. Disinformation tactic #27. After we provide you the
>other 11 witnesses, then you demand another 100, then another 1,000.
>Then notarized and filmed statements. That's only for our witnesses. You
>can make up your witnesses from your imagination.

Interesting comment from someone who refuses to cite for his claim that
Dr. Humes burned the first draft and notes on Saturday morning... and when
cites WERE finally provided, they didn't say what you claimed *AT ALL*.

Now, of course, you refuse to respond.

It's really not difficult to keep frequently asked for material on your
hard drive, in a "JFK" folder... that way, when people ask for you to cite
your sources, you can actually *DO* so.

Unfortunately, my previous response to this thread was censored without
notice.

Ironically, it was only a statement to the effect of where my response
could be found.

Peter... can you explain this?

>>> The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.
>>
>> There are several other witnesses to a first shot miss. The car full of
>> SS Agents didn't notice any physical reaction until the second shot.
>>
>>
>
>
>Not necessarily a miss. Maybe just that no one SAW where it hit.
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Robert Harris

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 1:57:01 PM8/12/12

to

In article
<6ea005e5-1dbb-4281...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
> Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
> eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of eyewitnesses
> heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
> Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
> but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
> backfire, or tire blowout.

The problem with your analysis is that you presume that the first sound
was "loud", and you ignore the obvious fact that the early shots were
suppressed.

Shots from Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 decibels at street
level, many times louder than is known to provoke involuntary startle
reactions. And we see obvious startle reactions by the limo passengers,
following shots at frames 285 and 312.

http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif

But although one of the early shots seems to have been noticed, none of
the nonvictims were startled prior to frame 285. The simple fact is, that
none of those shots were loud enough to provoke such reactions. Therefore,
they could not have come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.

The use of a suppressed weapon also explains why at least one of the early
shots missed the President entirely and another stuck him far below the
center of the head which had to have been the preferred target.
Suppressors are notorious for causing wild misfires caused by even
microscopic misalignments when they are installed. This is why there were
no headshots prior to the very end of the attack.

I explain all this in much greater detail in this video presentation. It
covers the shooting from beginning to end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 7:05:31 PM8/12/12

to

On 8/12/2012 1:57 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <6ea005e5-1dbb-4281...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
>> Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
>> eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of eyewitnesses
>> heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
>> Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
>> but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
>> backfire, or tire blowout.
>
> The problem with your analysis is that you presume that the first sound
> was "loud", and you ignore the obvious fact that the early shots were
> suppressed.
>

The acoustical evidence does not indicate suppressed shots.

> Shots from Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 decibels at street
> level, many times louder than is known to provoke involuntary startle
> reactions. And we see obvious startle reactions by the limo passengers,
> following shots at frames 285 and 312.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
> But although one of the early shots seems to have been noticed, none of
> the nonvictims were startled prior to frame 285. The simple fact is, that

Rosemary.
The Connallys heard a shot before he was hit.

> none of those shots were loud enough to provoke such reactions. Therefore,
> they could not have come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
> rifle.
>
> The use of a suppressed weapon also explains why at least one of the early
> shots missed the President entirely and another stuck him far below the
> center of the head which had to have been the preferred target.
> Suppressors are notorious for causing wild misfires caused by even
> microscopic misalignments when they are installed. This is why there were
> no headshots prior to the very end of the attack.
>
> I explain all this in much greater detail in this video presentation. It
> covers the shooting from beginning to end.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
>

You are clutching at straws trying to save your kooky theory.

>
> Robert Harris
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 7:06:43 PM8/12/12

to

On 8/12/2012 10:38 AM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:28:57 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> correction will be more readable:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> passengers in the Limousine.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> A number? Name one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mary Woodward
>
> Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "We decided to cross Elm Street and wait there on the grassy slope just east of the Triple Underpass…We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...I don't believe
anyone
was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body….The cars behind stopped and several men--Secret Service men,--I suppose-- got out and started rushing forward, obstructing our view of the car…. About ten feet from where we were standing, a man and a woman had thrown their small child to the ground and covered his body with theirs. Apparently the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads.”
>
> (12-7-63 FBI report, 24H520) “She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots, and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car. She stated that her first reaction was that the shots had been fired from above her head and from possibly behind her.”
>
> Woodward said the first shot was fired after Kennedy waved to her group. He waved to her group circa Z-185. Do you think the first shot miss was fired after Z-185?
>
> It's clear when one studies her statements that she interpreted Kennedy's reaction to the first shot as his looking around. If the first shot had been fired at Z-160 after all, she would have said he'd calmly waved to the crowd for a few seconds after the first shot was fired.

That's not fair. You met his phony challenge. Now you have to wait a
full month until he claims you never answered him and he demands the
same information again.

Not good enough. Next month he'll want 1,000.

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 7:07:25 PM8/12/12

to

case closed is a good book, have you read it ?

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 12, 2012, 10:10:14 PM8/12/12

to

thats got him

Ben Holmes

unread,

Robert Harris

unread,

Aug 13, 2012, 4:42:01 PM8/13/12

to

In article <9018a4d7-7a60-44b0...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
> >
> > correction will be more readable:
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
> >
> > ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
> >
> > of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of
> >
> > eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
> >
> > passengers in the Limousine.
>
>
> A number? Name one. There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
> loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
> loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
> nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
> witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
> Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
> Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.
>
> The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.

You are flatly wrong. First of all, NO ONE heard a really loud noise
prior to frame 285. There were no startle reactions then and witnesses
described it as distinctly different weaker than the shots at the end.

But the shot at 160 was indeed heard. Mrs. Kennedy said she was looking
to her left, heard the noise and then turned to her right, toward her
husband. Other witnesses reported her doing exactly as she described, in
reaction to that shot. We see her begin that turn at 169. JFK begins to
react at about the same instant and by 193, has twisted sharply to his
right and is shielding his face with his right hand.

http://jfkhistory.com/193.jpg

It is all explained in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4R1Mk3TfY

Robert Harris

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 13, 2012, 5:17:06 PM8/13/12

to

Your video's are good, you obviously put alot work into them. But aren't
you disapointed that you can't really prove anything ?

It's just speculation.

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 13, 2012, 5:17:50 PM8/13/12

to

i would love to but I haven't got the time.

Case closed was very good IMO. Obviously the title isn't very good because
the case didn't close. (Even though it should have done !)

Anthony Marsh

unread,

You have 17 more to go. Please continue.

claviger

unread,

Aug 15, 2012, 8:57:35 AM8/15/12

to

On Aug 14, 8:21 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:47:21 AM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > Pat,
>
> > Mary Woodward is a credible witness for several reasons. She is in a
>
> > perfect location as clearly seen in the famous Altgens photo. The
>
> > expression on her face demonstrates no awareness the President is
>
> > under fire from a sniper with a rifle, perhaps a split second before
>
> > she suddenly realizes the awful truth of what is taking place before
>
> > her very eyes. As we can see in this photo the President has been
>
> > wounded and his arms are raised and Jackie is holding his left elbow.
>
> > We can also see Governor Connally is in distress as well. This famous
>
> > photo is confirmation of the SBT.
>
> > Here are 21 witnesses to a first shot miss:
>
> > The first shot miss
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0272b57597a0...

Pat,

Do you believe LHO fired 3 shots from the 6th floor window? If yes,
how do you account for all three bullets? If the first bullet struck
the President and did not penetrate all the way through his torso then
where is this bullet? It should have been obvious in the X-rays if it
were still inside the body. If it did penetrate all the way through
but was not the bullet that wounded Gov. Connally then where did it
go? On such a steep downward trajectory it should still be inside the
Limousine.

Do you believe the two fragments found on the front floorboard are
from the first shot by LHO? If so, how did those fragments get past
JBC and end up on the front floor of the Limousine? In your scenario,
where did the bullet that wounded the Governor come from and what kind
of bullet was it? How did it get past the President to wound only the
Governor? If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
happened to the second shot fired by LHO? If you believe in the GKS
then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
above his position on the 5th floor.

By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
whole bullet to be found. The second shot that penetrated the
President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
in tandem.

The final bullet disintegrated as it passed through the cranium and
most of those fragments exited with fluid ejecta above and forward of
the back seat, covering the Connallys with blood and brain matter. So
the first shot would likely cause fragmentation and the third shot
definitely had a massive failure into a "lead snowstorm". The only
bullet to stay intact was the second bullet. If there was no first
shot miss then what happened to the other shot by LHO after the first
back shot suffered by the President?

John Fiorentino

unread,

Aug 16, 2012, 6:17:59 PM8/16/12

to

Anthony says.....

"The acoustical evidence proves that exactly three shots were fired from
the sniper's nest."

I say.....

Really?..............Is that your way of trying to defend the acoustical
crapola?

What is it Tony?...............Give a dog a bone day?

The acoustical "evidence" is crud.

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:502bde2b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> As usual full of false premises. Why do we have to assume that Oswald
> fired those shots?
> And you seem to not be aware of the early investigation of the shooting.
> The FBI concluded that the first shot hit the President, the second shot
> hit Connally and the last shot hit Kennedy in the head. The WC was
> preparing to endorse that conclusion when Specter realized there was a
> problem. And should we be asked to prove where every fragment went and
> what every fragment hit when the government did not? The WC did not even
> realize that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in by a fragment.
> I was the person who discovered that.
> Humes already accounted for the bullet which hit JFK's back saying that is
> probably fell out during cardiac massage.

>
>> Do you believe the two fragments found on the front floorboard are
>> from the first shot by LHO? If so, how did those fragments get past
>> JBC and end up on the front floor of the Limousine? In your scenario,
>

> No, no one is stupid enough to believe your straw man argument that the
> bullet exited JFK's throat, missed Connally and hit the chrome topping and
> fell onto the front floor of the limousine.
> Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

>
>> where did the bullet that wounded the Governor come from and what kind
>> of bullet was it? How did it get past the President to wound only the
>> Governor? If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
>

> Specter demonstrated how a bullet could go over Kennedy's right shoulder
> and hit Connally.

>
>> happened to the second shot fired by LHO? If you believe in the GKS
>

> You believe in the WC so you believe that one shot missed, so why do you
> demand that we not have a missed shot?

>
>> then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
>> witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
>> above his position on the 5th floor.
>>
>

> The acoustical evidence proves that exactly three shots were fired from
> the sniper's nest. Prove to me which one hit what. And when.
> You believe in the WC fiction so you think one shot missed. Tell me where
> that shot went and prove it. What hit the curb near Tague? And EXACTLY
> when?

>
>> By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
>> could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
>

> You have offered no proof that a bullet hit the street pavement and
> fragmented.
> How could those fragments have missed hitting the limousine. Diagram this
> trajectory and show where all the fragments went.

>
>> whole bullet to be found. The second shot that penetrated the
>> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>> in tandem.
>>
>

> False. The FBI saw no problem. The WC saw no problem until Specter
> realized there was a TIMING problem.

>
>> The final bullet disintegrated as it passed through the cranium and
>> most of those fragments exited with fluid ejecta above and forward of
>> the back seat, covering the Connallys with blood and brain matter. So
>> the first shot would likely cause fragmentation and the third shot
>> definitely had a massive failure into a "lead snowstorm". The only
>> bullet to stay intact was the second bullet. If there was no first
>> shot miss then what happened to the other shot by LHO after the first
>> back shot suffered by the President?
>>
>

> Then what hit the windshield and the chrome topping?
>
>>
>
>

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 17, 2012, 9:07:55 AM8/17/12

to

Nope.

>If yes,
>
> how do you account for all three bullets? If the first bullet struck
>
> the President and did not penetrate all the way through his torso then
>
> where is this bullet?

It might be in the Archives. It could very well be CE399.

> It should have been obvious in the X-rays if it
>
> were still inside the body. If it did penetrate all the way through
>
> but was not the bullet that wounded Gov. Connally then where did it
>
> go? On such a steep downward trajectory it should still be inside the
>
> Limousine.
>
>
>
> Do you believe the two fragments found on the front floorboard are
>
> from the first shot by LHO?

They're fragments from the head shot.

> If so, how did those fragments get past
>
> JBC and end up on the front floor of the Limousine? In your scenario,
>
> where did the bullet that wounded the Governor come from and what kind
>
> of bullet was it?

It came from behind. In my scenario, it was probably a small caliber bullet, that was either never found, or disposed of by the SS.

>How did it get past the President to wound only the
>
> Governor?

It went over his shoulder.

>If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
>
> happened to the second shot fired by LHO?

Only two shots were fired from the TSBD. Bonnie Ray Williams only heard two shots. You have to ask yourself how that could be if three shots were fired from a location but ten feet away from him?

> If you believe in the GKS
>
> then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
>
> witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
>
> above his position on the 5th floor.

Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but it seems likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together, and shells fall to the floor. He never specified that he'd heard three shells until years later, when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.

>
>
>
> By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
>
> could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
>
> whole bullet to be found.

What? Ricocheted bullets don't erupt into multiple pieces, they bounce off the street.

>The second shot that penetrated the
>
> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>
> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>
> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>
> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>
> in tandem.

Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.
>
>
>
> The final bullet

No, not the final bullet. Check the witnesses, like Brehm. There was a shot or sound after the head shot.

>disintegrated as it passed through the cranium and
>
> most of those fragments exited with fluid ejecta above and forward of
>
> the back seat, covering the Connallys with blood and brain matter. So
>
> the first shot would likely cause fragmentation and the third shot
>
> definitely had a massive failure into a "lead snowstorm". The only
>
> bullet to stay intact was the second bullet. If there was no first
>
> shot miss then what happened to the other shot by LHO after the first
>
> back shot suffered by the President?

There was no other shot. You're stuck on the idea only three shots were fired, and that they all came from Oswald's rifle. If you lift that veil from your face, the eyewitness evidence will make a lot more sense.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 17, 2012, 11:31:02 AM8/17/12

to

Specter demonstrated that for us.

>> If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
>>
>> happened to the second shot fired by LHO?
>
> Only two shots were fired from the TSBD. Bonnie Ray Williams only heard two shots. You have to ask yourself how that could be if three shots were fired from a location but ten feet away from him?
>

BOOM-CLICKCLICK-BOOM-CLICKCLICK-BOOM equals 3 shots.

>> If you believe in the GKS
>>
>> then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
>>
>> witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
>>
>> above his position on the 5th floor.
>
> Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but it seems likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together, and shells fall to the floor. He never specified that he'd heard three shells until years later, when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.
>>
>>
>>
>> By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
>>
>> could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
>>
>> whole bullet to be found.
>
> What? Ricocheted bullets don't erupt into multiple pieces, they bounce off the street.

Silly. I'd like to see you out there shooting down onto the street
trying to get WCC bullets to bounce of the street. Make a YouTube video
out of it and go viral.

>
>> The second shot that penetrated the
>>
>> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>>
>> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>>
>> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>>
>> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>>
>> in tandem.
>
> Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.

A WCC bullet can not stop within an inch. It is physically impossible.

claviger

unread,

Aug 17, 2012, 2:29:27 PM8/17/12

to

Pat,

> > Do you believe LHO fired 3 shots from the 6th floor window?
> Nope.

How many shots did LHO fire at the Limousine?

> > If yes, how do you account for all three bullets? If the first bullet
> > struck the President and did not penetrate all the way through
> > his torso then where is this bullet?
> It might be in the Archives. It could very well be CE399.

So it was removed before X-rays during the autopsy? How would
the prosectors find it without X-rays to locate it first?

> > It should have been obvious in the X-rays if it
> > were still inside the body. If it did penetrate all the way through
> > but was not the bullet that wounded Gov. Connally then where did it
> > go? On such a steep downward trajectory it should still be inside the
> > Limousine.
> > Do you believe the two fragments found on the front floorboard are
> > from the first shot by LHO?
> They're fragments from the head shot.

Then the head shot obviously came from behind the Limousine. Three
possible locations as a source for that shot: TSBD, Dal-Tex, GG678.

> > If so, how did those fragments get past JBC and end up on the
> > front floor of the Limousine? In your scenario, where did the bullet
> > that wounded the Governor come from and what kind of bullet was it?
> It came from behind. In my scenario, it was probably a small caliber
> bullet, that was either never found, or disposed of by the SS.

Smaller than the 6.5 Carcano (.26 cal)? Why would the SS dispose of
forensic evidence? Unless you are suggesting the missing bullet was
a .223 and Donahue was right.

> > How did it get past the President to wound only the Governor?
> It went over his shoulder.

So it was a rising trajectory from behind? How can that be?

> > If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
> > happened to the second shot fired by LHO?
> Only two shots were fired from the TSBD.

Which two?

> Bonnie Ray Williams only heard two shots. You have to ask
> yourself how that could be if three shots were fired from a
> location but ten feet away from him?

Good question.

> > If you believe in the GKS then what happened to the third shot
> > fired by LHO? One of the three witnesses on the 5th floor was
> > convinced he heard three shots from above his position on the
> > 5th floor.
> Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but
> it seems likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together,
> and shells fall to the floor. He never specified that he'd heard three
> shells until years later, when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.

OK, if LHO only fired two shots then the third audible shot came
from the Dal-Tex or GG678 because there is no evidence of a GKS.
You dispel any notion of a head shot from the GK if two fragments
found on the front floorboard were a result of the head shot..

> > By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
> > could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
> > whole bullet to be found.
> What? Ricocheted bullets don't erupt into multiple pieces, they
> bounce off the street.

Depends on the projectile of course. A military FMJ would be less
susceptible to massive disintegration, but still fail if the jacket splits
on contact. If the human skull can cause this kind of failure so can
street pavement or a cement curb. Donahue was convinced the massive
deformation of the two fragments was caused by a missed shot that
ricocheted off the street surface into the Limousine. The reason being
there was no blood or human tissue found on those fragments to indicate
they passed through a human body.

> > The second shot that penetrated the President would obviously
> > have a hard time avoiding the wide object immediately in it's path,
> > the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory it was headed it would be
> > impossible to miss the passenger directly in front of the President.
> > So it had to impact both passengers sitting in tandem.
> Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.

Yes of course, and it would show up on a X-ray. If it was a 6.5 Carcano
projectile no need to withhold it as evidence.

> > The final bullet
> No, not the final bullet. Check the witnesses, like Brehm. There was
> a shot or sound after the head shot.

Yes a few witnesses thought so. Question: why would any sniper
continue to fire at the Limousine after the devastating head shot?
For whatever reason, they obviously missed anyway.

> > disintegrated as it passed through the cranium and most of those
> > fragments exited with fluid ejecta above and forward of the back seat,
> > covering the Connallys with blood and brain matter. So the first shot
> > would likely cause fragmentation and the third shot definitely had a
> > massive failure into a "lead snowstorm". The only bullet to stay intact
> > was the second bullet. If there was no first shot miss then what
> > happened to the other shot by LHO after the first back shot suffered
> > by the President?
> There was no other shot. You're stuck on the idea only three shots
> were fired, and that they all came from Oswald's rifle. If you lift that
> veil from your face, the eyewitness evidence will make a lot more
> sense.

If LHO only fired 2 shots which direction did the other shots come from?
Do you agree with the HSCA that a GK shot was fired at the Limousine but
missed? You seem to be saying a shot from the Dal-Tex wounded the
Governor, so did the head shot come from there too? Where did the last
shot come from and why did it miss?

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 17, 2012, 9:03:43 PM8/17/12

to

Williams' earliest statements prove he heard only two clear shots. He
added the third one for his WC testimony, but specified, even then, that
the last two shots were extremely close together.

>
>
>
> >> If you believe in the GKS
>
> >>
>
> >> then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
>
> >>
>
> >> witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
>
> >>
>
> >> above his position on the 5th floor.
>
> >
>
> > Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but it seems
likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together, and shells fall
to the floor. He never specified that he'd heard three shells until years
later, when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
>
> >>
>
> >> could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
>
> >>
>
> >> whole bullet to be found.
>
> >
>
> > What? Ricocheted bullets don't erupt into multiple pieces, they bounce off the street.
>
>
>
> Silly. I'd like to see you out there shooting down onto the street
>
> trying to get WCC bullets to bounce of the street. Make a YouTube video
>
> out of it and go viral.

Read DiMaio. He has a section on ricochets. Bullets bounce off the street
when fired at an angle to the street. Think about it and you'll see it
makes sense.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >> The second shot that penetrated the
>
> >>
>
> >> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>
> >>
>
> >> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>
> >>
>
> >> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>
> >>
>
> >> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>
> >>
>
> >> in tandem.
>
> >
>
> > Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.
>
>
>
> A WCC bullet can not stop within an inch. It is physically impossible.

It depends on the charged. An under-charged bullet can bounce off the
skin.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 17, 2012, 9:10:30 PM8/17/12

to

On 8/17/2012 2:29 PM, claviger wrote:
> Pat,
>
>>> Do you believe LHO fired 3 shots from the 6th floor window?
>> Nope.
>
> How many shots did LHO fire at the Limousine?
>

ZERO

>>> If yes, how do you account for all three bullets? If the first bullet
>>> struck the President and did not penetrate all the way through
>>> his torso then where is this bullet?
>> It might be in the Archives. It could very well be CE399.
>
> So it was removed before X-rays during the autopsy? How would
> the prosectors find it without X-rays to locate it first?
>

There is some kook who has a theory that Humes altered the body before
the official start of the autopsy.
Lifton's theory is that the conspirators performed surgery to the body
before it got to Bethesda to remover bullets and alter the wounds.

>>> It should have been obvious in the X-rays if it
>>> were still inside the body. If it did penetrate all the way through
>>> but was not the bullet that wounded Gov. Connally then where did it
>>> go? On such a steep downward trajectory it should still be inside the
>>> Limousine.
>>> Do you believe the two fragments found on the front floorboard are
>>> from the first shot by LHO?
>> They're fragments from the head shot.
>
> Then the head shot obviously came from behind the Limousine. Three
> possible locations as a source for that shot: TSBD, Dal-Tex, GG678.
>

Was there a Mannlicher-Carcano in the Queen Mary? Do you have a photo of
it?

>>> If so, how did those fragments get past JBC and end up on the
>>> front floor of the Limousine? In your scenario, where did the bullet
>>> that wounded the Governor come from and what kind of bullet was it?
>> It came from behind. In my scenario, it was probably a small caliber
>> bullet, that was either never found, or disposed of by the SS.
>
> Smaller than the 6.5 Carcano (.26 cal)? Why would the SS dispose of
> forensic evidence? Unless you are suggesting the missing bullet was
> a .223 and Donahue was right.
>

Donahue was an idiot. Such a shot is physically impossible.

>>> How did it get past the President to wound only the Governor?
>> It went over his shoulder.
>
> So it was a rising trajectory from behind? How can that be?
>

He didn't say rising. Stop misrepresenting people. There is plenty of
room for a bullet from above to go over JFK's shoulder and hit
Connally's right armpit.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

>>> If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
>>> happened to the second shot fired by LHO?
>> Only two shots were fired from the TSBD.
>
> Which two?
>
>> Bonnie Ray Williams only heard two shots. You have to ask
>> yourself how that could be if three shots were fired from a
>> location but ten feet away from him?
>
> Good question.
>

Are you calling Williams a liar?

>>> If you believe in the GKS then what happened to the third shot
>>> fired by LHO? One of the three witnesses on the 5th floor was
>>> convinced he heard three shots from above his position on the
>>> 5th floor.
>> Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but
>> it seems likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together,
>> and shells fall to the floor. He never specified that he'd heard three
>> shells until years later, when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.
>
> OK, if LHO only fired two shots then the third audible shot came
> from the Dal-Tex or GG678 because there is no evidence of a GKS.
> You dispel any notion of a head shot from the GK if two fragments
> found on the front floorboard were a result of the head shot..
>

Unwarranted assumption.

>>> By contrast a first shot miss that ricocheted off the street pavement
>>> could have fragmented in different directions and was no longer a
>>> whole bullet to be found.
>> What? Ricocheted bullets don't erupt into multiple pieces, they
>> bounce off the street.
>
> Depends on the projectile of course. A military FMJ would be less
> susceptible to massive disintegration, but still fail if the jacket splits
> on contact. If the human skull can cause this kind of failure so can
> street pavement or a cement curb. Donahue was convinced the massive
> deformation of the two fragments was caused by a missed shot that
> ricocheted off the street surface into the Limousine. The reason being
> there was no blood or human tissue found on those fragments to indicate
> they passed through a human body.
>

False assumption. There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the
bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for testing.

>>> The second shot that penetrated the President would obviously
>>> have a hard time avoiding the wide object immediately in it's path,
>>> the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory it was headed it would be
>>> impossible to miss the passenger directly in front of the President.
>>> So it had to impact both passengers sitting in tandem.
>> Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.
>
> Yes of course, and it would show up on a X-ray. If it was a 6.5 Carcano
> projectile no need to withhold it as evidence.
>
>>> The final bullet
>> No, not the final bullet. Check the witnesses, like Brehm. There was
>> a shot or sound after the head shot.
>
> Yes a few witnesses thought so. Question: why would any sniper
> continue to fire at the Limousine after the devastating head shot?
> For whatever reason, they obviously missed anyway.
>

A second shooter might not have realize the other shooter had already
fired the fatal shot while he is squeezing off his own shot.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:08:31 AM8/18/12

to

..

>> Depends on the projectile of course. A military FMJ would be less
>> susceptible to massive disintegration, but still fail if the jacket splits
>> on contact. If the human skull can cause this kind of failure so can
>> street pavement or a cement curb. Donahue was convinced the massive
>> deformation of the two fragments was caused by a missed shot that
>> ricocheted off the street surface into the Limousine. The reason being
>> there was no blood or human tissue found on those fragments to indicate
>> they passed through a human body.
>>
>
>False assumption. There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the
>bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for testing.

My guess is that no-one in this censored forum will bother to actually check out
the testimony to decide who's correct... as it is, neither.

Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier,
did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by
way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other
material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped
off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been
necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

So there *was* foreign material which could have been blood, and no; they were
*NOT* "washed for testing".

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:11:03 AM8/18/12

to

Not really. Show me which angle. Maybe at 2 degrees. Where would the
shooter have to be aiming to get a 2 degree angle? The angle down from
the sniper's nest is always more than 10 degrees.

>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> The second shot that penetrated the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> in tandem.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.
>>
>>
>>
>> A WCC bullet can not stop within an inch. It is physically impossible.
>
> It depends on the charged. An under-charged bullet can bounce off the
> skin.

Silly. There has never been an undercharged WCC round. You can't even
fire a WCC undercharged round. The last guy who tried that the rifle
blew up in his face. It is physically impossible.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 1:24:04 PM8/18/12

to

You just quoted him saying it was wiped off. There was no attempt to
preserve it for testing. And he could be tell if it was blood. He did
not test it.

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 1:26:14 PM8/18/12

to

Geez. Do the reading. On p. 109 of Gunshot Wounds DiMaio reports on some ricochet tests performed using FMJ bullets, and declares "At angles below 30 degrees, they tended to remain in one piece though they flattened out."

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The second shot that penetrated the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> President would obviously have a hard time avoiding the wide object
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> immediately in it's path, the large frame of JBC. On the trajectory
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> it was headed it would be impossible to miss the passenger directly in
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> front of the President. So it had to impact both passengers sitting
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> in tandem.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Not if it didn't make it through Kennedy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A WCC bullet can not stop within an inch. It is physically impossible.
>
> >
>
> > It depends on the charged. An under-charged bullet can bounce off the
>
> > skin.
>
>
>
> Silly. There has never been an undercharged WCC round. You can't even
>
> fire a WCC undercharged round. The last guy who tried that the rifle
>
> blew up in his face. It is physically impossible.

WHAT? I've read a bit on handloading, and have never seen anything anywhere in which it was claimed certain cartridges will blow up in your face if you dare remove a few grains of powder. Citation please...

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:46:26 PM8/18/12

to

honestly what is the point of all this ?

You won't prove a damm thing ?

waste of time and effort

lone gunman

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:47:00 PM8/18/12

to

there was no shot at 285. It's not proof. If it's solid 100% proof then
why don't you write a book and blow the case apart ?

You'll make the news !

I'm waiting for the 100% concrete evidence that proves without any doubt
that Oswald didn't act alone. Honestly, I would love it if it happened !

claviger

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:48:04 PM8/18/12

to

Pat,

> Geez. Do the reading. On p. 109 of Gunshot Wounds DiMaio
> reports on some ricochet tests performed using FMJ bullets,
> and declares "At angles below 30 degrees, they tended to
> remain in one piece though they flattened out."

If the bullet hit the curb, as Sgt. Stavis Ellis claims, that would change
the angles of the ricochet. It would also provide a vertical surface for
the fragments to bounce off in the direction of the Limousine.

claviger

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:48:52 PM8/18/12

to

Ben,

Thanks for looking that up. Amazing the lack of curiosity about the
residue. Hard to believe in this day and age. Frazier obviously has no
idea what it was and should have confirmed it before proceeding with any
testing on this forensic evidence. Police work was different in those
days before CSI protocols were developed.

Here is Howard Donahue's experience trying to confirm any residue on
those fragments:

p. 74

The presidential limousine was flown back to Washington on the
night of the twenty-second and examined over the next several days by
Secret Service and FBI agents. The car turned out to be a veritable
lead mine of evidence. Donahue looked up the information in the
Warren Report:
"One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6
grains and consisted of the nose portion of the bullet. The other
fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21
grains and consisted of the base portion of the bullet," Commission
investigators wrote.

- - - - - - - - - -

The Warren Commission concluded the fragments and the damage to
the inside of the car were probably the result of lead that fanned out
after the third shot hit Kennedy in the head.
Maybe so, Donahue thought. But he was already highly suspicious
of anything the Commission said about the head wound. And he was
increasingly perplexed and troubled by the Commission's statements
regarding fragments or shots that may have missed.

p. 75

He decided the best thing to do was examine the bullet fragments
himself at the National Archives. Donahue drove to Washington and was
granted permission by the chief archivist to study the two large
fragments found on and beside the front seat. As he stared into the
folds and fissures of the twisted gray forms through a 30-power
jewelers loupe, two telling facts emerged. First, there was no
cranial debris on either fragment. Had the slugs passed through the
President's brain, they would have necessarily been coated with brain
tissue, fluid, and blood. This material would have dried and hardened
deep in the tiniest cracks of the fragments and been extremely
difficult to remove.
The second oddity was that one of the fragments---part of the rear
section of the broken bullet---had the jacker peeled backward 180
degrees and folded almost flat. One edge of this folded section
literally formed a razor edge. It seemed improbable that such a sharp
edge could have been fashioned as the bullet traveled through the
skull and cranial tissue. Much more likely was the possibility that
the razor edge and 180-degree fold were created by the bullet's impact
with an immoveable object---like concrete, for instance.

p. 204

Donahue wondered if perhaps the two big fragments had been covered
with blood and brain matter when they'd been recovered, and had simply
been thoroughly cleaned before being sent to the National Archives.
Cunningham, like all federal agents, was probably prohibited from
discussing the specifics of any case he'd worked on, particularly one
as notorious as the Kennedy assassination. But Donahue decided to
call him anyway.
"Mr. Cunningham. How do you do?. . .I'm Howard Donahue. I was in
your firearms identification class last semester and ah, I'm working
on a term paper on the Kennedy assassination for Biological Aspects.
I had one question maybe you could answer for me."
"I'll try," Cunningham replied, friendly enough.
"What I wanted to know is this: Do you remember if there was any
cranial residue on the bullet fragments you picked up from the
presidential limousine on the night of the twenty-second? You know,
blood or hair or brain tissue or anything like that?"
"Well," Cunningham paused. "That's a good question. I sent the
fragments up to Blood [the FBI's forensic serology lab], but never got
an answer."

p. 205

The response was less definitive than Donahue would have liked,
but nonetheless it supported his suspicion that there probably had
been no organic matter at all on the frgaments. If there had been, it
would have likely been visible to the naked eye and Cunningham would
have remembered it. More important, this information would have been
included in the Warren Report, since the presence of blood and bone on
the lead would have strengthened the Commission's contention that the
car fragments came from the head wound.
The fact was, no serological report was ever produced. Even
Cunningham never received an answer. Once again, Donahue had
uncovered an incongruity that he believed, indirectly at least,
supported his conclusion about the origin of the shot.

"Mortal Error", Bonar Menninger

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 18, 2012, 10:51:17 PM8/18/12

to

In article <502fa2ab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Sorry Tony... "Washed off" doesn't have the same connotation as "wiped
off"... and I *KNOW* you know the difference.

It would be difficult indeed to "wipe" blood off of a striated surface,
but quite easy to "wash" it off.

Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
That's simply untrue.

Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...

But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
had been "washed".

Wrong on both counts.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 8:09:55 PM8/19/12

to

The fragments were washed off before testing.

>
> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
> That's simply untrue.
>

I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.

> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>
> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
> had been "washed".
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
>

You can't test the evidence with residue on it.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 8:12:44 PM8/19/12

to

And so what did the government do with the evidence? They destroyed it.

> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> The Warren Commission concluded the fragments and the damage to
> the inside of the car were probably the result of lead that fanned out
> after the third shot hit Kennedy in the head.
> Maybe so, Donahue thought. But he was already highly suspicious
> of anything the Commission said about the head wound. And he was
> increasingly perplexed and troubled by the Commission's statements
> regarding fragments or shots that may have missed.
>
> p. 75
>
> He decided the best thing to do was examine the bullet fragments
> himself at the National Archives. Donahue drove to Washington and was
> granted permission by the chief archivist to study the two large
> fragments found on and beside the front seat. As he stared into the

Only one fragment was found beside the front seat. The other was
IMBEDDED in the front seat. Consider the lack of research by your source.

> folds and fissures of the twisted gray forms through a 30-power
> jewelers loupe, two telling facts emerged. First, there was no
> cranial debris on either fragment. Had the slugs passed through the
> President's brain, they would have necessarily been coated with brain
> tissue, fluid, and blood. This material would have dried and hardened
> deep in the tiniest cracks of the fragments and been extremely
> difficult to remove.

Unwarranted assumption by an amateur.

> The second oddity was that one of the fragments---part of the rear
> section of the broken bullet---had the jacker peeled backward 180
> degrees and folded almost flat. One edge of this folded section

Too simplistic a description. The jacket remained intact while the lead
core was squeezed out.

> literally formed a razor edge. It seemed improbable that such a sharp
> edge could have been fashioned as the bullet traveled through the
> skull and cranial tissue. Much more likely was the possibility that
> the razor edge and 180-degree fold were created by the bullet's impact
> with an immoveable object---like concrete, for instance.
>

Or the chrome topping.

> p. 204
>
> Donahue wondered if perhaps the two big fragments had been covered
> with blood and brain matter when they'd been recovered, and had simply
> been thoroughly cleaned before being sent to the National Archives.
> Cunningham, like all federal agents, was probably prohibited from
> discussing the specifics of any case he'd worked on, particularly one
> as notorious as the Kennedy assassination. But Donahue decided to
> call him anyway.
> "Mr. Cunningham. How do you do?. . .I'm Howard Donahue. I was in
> your firearms identification class last semester and ah, I'm working
> on a term paper on the Kennedy assassination for Biological Aspects.
> I had one question maybe you could answer for me."
> "I'll try," Cunningham replied, friendly enough.
> "What I wanted to know is this: Do you remember if there was any
> cranial residue on the bullet fragments you picked up from the
> presidential limousine on the night of the twenty-second? You know,
> blood or hair or brain tissue or anything like that?"
> "Well," Cunningham paused. "That's a good question. I sent the
> fragments up to Blood [the FBI's forensic serology lab], but never got
> an answer."
>

Not only can we not believe Donahue, but the documents will probably
show that serology never got any fragments.
If the government ever releases them.

> p. 205
>
> The response was less definitive than Donahue would have liked,
> but nonetheless it supported his suspicion that there probably had
> been no organic matter at all on the frgaments. If there had been, it
> would have likely been visible to the naked eye and Cunningham would
> have remembered it. More important, this information would have been
> included in the Warren Report, since the presence of blood and bone on
> the lead would have strengthened the Commission's contention that the
> car fragments came from the head wound.

Again, more naive assumptions. The Warren Commission lied about the
chrome topping and never admitted that they destroyed it.

> The fact was, no serological report was ever produced. Even
> Cunningham never received an answer. Once again, Donahue had
> uncovered an incongruity that he believed, indirectly at least,
> supported his conclusion about the origin of the shot.
>
> "Mortal Error", Bonar Menninger
>
>

Junk.

John King

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 10:04:53 PM8/19/12

to

In article
<6ea005e5-1dbb-4281...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
> Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
> eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film?

Possibly because they aren't particularly at odds with the Zapruder film
after all?

> A number of eyewitnesses
> heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
> Limousine.

It had an effect on at least one in the limo: Connally, who said he turned
to his right immediately after hearing the sound, and in the film we see
him do exactly what he said he did. But the other surviving limo
witnesses also said they heard the first sound, yet as you say, we don't
see obvious reactions from them. Yet this is consistent with the
bystanders also. If there were any obvious visible reactions in the crowd
to the first sound, it was a very small percentage of them, just like in
the limo.

Thus there seems to me to be nothing especially at odds with the film.
In the limo, and out of it, only a small minority of people said they
immediately recognized the first sound as a gunshot, and in the limo and
out of it, only a small minority exhibited any obvious visible reaction to
the sound.

> Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
> but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
> backfire, or tire blowout.

Which is a perfectly sensible explanation for why so few people, in the
limo and out of it, exhibit any visual reaction in the film. Not even
JFK, the only one in the limo who didn't survive, seems to have taken much
notice of the sound. This doesn't seem at odds with the film at all.

> Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President to the
> next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard three loud
> sounds. We know there was a shot at z224 and z313 as recorded on the
> Zapruders film. The gap between those two shots is approximately 4.86 -
> 5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of Zapruder's Model 414 PD
> Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. That is plenty of time to
> re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR purchased by LHO and found on the
> 6th floor of the TSBD. Several witnesses heard and a few even saw
> something hit the street, at the first loud sound. Therefore all three
> shots are accounted for: a first shot miss, a second shot back wound on
> the President, and a third shot head wound on the President.
>
> For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
> must be true:

"So close together" as what? Are you talking about the minority of
witnesses who said that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous?
There were just as many others who merely said that the last two shots
were closer together than shots one and two, but made no specific
statement of how much closer. Then there were just as many who said that
the amount of time between shots two and three was approximately half of
the amount of time between shots one and two. Out of all the witnesses
who made any statement to the effect that the last two shots were closer
together, no matter how the statement was worded, only a minority
specifically said that they were very close together. Twice as many of
them said no such thing.

> 1. There were 3 shots :
>
> The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound is
> recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot- echo
> perceived as two gunshots.

That could account for some of the "very close together" witnesses, I
guess.

> The first loud sound is disconnected as a
> confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses.

Several, as in a tiny minority, yes.

> Problem:
> How can that many witnesses be wrong?

"That many"? It was a fairly small minority. "How can so few witnesses
be wrong" would have been more accurate wording.

> If there were 3 shots plus echo why
> didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?

I'm not gonna touch that one. :P

> 2. There were 3 shots :
>
> The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the back.
> The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses confused it
> as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a 3rd shot that
> struck the President in the head. This is possible because the Carcano
> M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds. Problem: Several well
> placed witnesses are quite sure they saw and/or heard a first shot miss.
>
> 3. There were 3 shots :
>
> 1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> (GKS).
>
> Problem: No person was seen behind the fence or anywhere else on the
> Grassy Knoll with a weapon, and several witnesses heard 3 shots from
> the same direction as the TSBD.
>
> 4. There were 3 shots :
>
> 1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> from behind the Limousine (not LHO): Take your pick, the Dal-Tex
> Sniper theory or the Donahue theory.
>
> Problem: No witness specifically saw or heard a shooter behind the
> Limousine other than LHO.
>
> 5. There were 4 shots :
>
> A 1st shot miss (LHO), a 2nd shot hit (LHO), a 3rd shot miss (GKS),
> and a 4th shot hit (LHO). This is the HSCA conclusion.
>
> Problem: No sniper was seen or heard on the GK by elevated witnesses on
> the Triple Underpass, the pedestal in front of the North Pergola, or in
> the Union Terminal Co north tower. No witness on the GK reported hearing
> 4 shots. Sitzman, the Hesters, and Clint Hill only heard 2 shots.

I pretty much agree with your points on the rest of that. The only part I
have a problem with is that you seem to be overinflating the percentage of
witnesses who described any two shots as being closer together than, say,
two seconds apart. I seem to recall it was less than twenty who said any
such thing, at least in any statement made within the first twelve months
following the assassination and including statements made on the day.

John King

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 10:06:24 PM8/19/12

to

In article <89fe83aa-7636-453d...@googlegroups.com>,
John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We learned from LNs long ago that there two types of people. The ones who
> agree with you and your enemies....

And as I will never, ever, ever tire of reminding you, Mr. Blubaugh,
almost exactly the same percentage of CTs are guilty of exactly the same
thing. I have been disputing your sweeping generalizations about LNs for
years now, pointing out that you frequently make pot/kettle statements.
You very frequently say things about LNs that are equally true about CTs,
and in not one of your replies to me that I have ever myself replied to
(i.e., the only replies to me by you that I can be proven to have seen)
have you even tried to present any serious case to dispute me.

When will you finally, at last, for the first time ever in my experience,
admit that your sweeping generalizations about LNs are ***EQUALLY*** true
of the ***SAME*** percentage of CTs?

Remember a year or so ago when you said that the LNs would come forth with
claims about miscarriage of justice when the woman who allegedly murdered
her daughter was acquitted? Remember how not one LN in that thread, not
one, said anything even remotely close to what you predicted they would
say? Remember how I pointed that out to you in several of my replies?
Remember how you failed to effectively refute me in even one of your
replies to me? Remember how this was in the context of me challenging
several of your sweeping generalizations about LNs in several other
threads? Remember how in none of those other threads did you really try
very hard to refute me either?

Time and time again I have reminded you that sweeping generalizations
about any group of people are almost always fallacious to a large extent.
Time and time again I have reminded you that almost every time you have
made such a generalization, I have been able to clearly recall thousands
of articles in which I've plainly seen CTs doing exactly what you say LNs
do.

In both groups, CTs and LNs, people who intelligently analyze evidence and
people who don't are in roughly equal percentages. In both groups, people
who are more objective and people who are much more biased are in roughly
equal percentages. Just as we'd find in any group on any issue of any
ideology. That's simply how people are.

John King

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 10:07:41 PM8/19/12

to

In article
<9190f882-b307-4588...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 10, 6:33?pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:18:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> >
> > Claviger, did you consider shot groupings? Also, if I was somehow in the
> > loop of conspirators, and I had shot suppression technology available to
> > me, I'd use it, certainly.
> >
> > I think I gave this example some time ago, but I'll briefly repeat it: At
> > my home, I have Groden's DVD, "The Case for Conspiracy". The main menu is
> > animated, and upon first play, we hear sharp rifle reports, five of them
> > in all. I place this DVD into the Blu Ray player, crank up the surround
> > amplifier, and let my unsuspecting visitors in my home hear those shots. I
> > then ask how many they heard, and the vast majority say three. I do it
> > this way so as to catch them off-guard and not expecting to hear rifle
> > fire, just as the DP witnesses were.
> >
> > It's pretty interesting, and anyone with that DVD can try it. Thought I'd
> > offer that, and thanks for your insights! Respectfully,
> >
> > ~Mark
>
> Mark,
>
> Are you assuming all 5 shots were audible or 2/5 came from a silenced
> rifle?

He seems quite obviously to be saying that the five shots on the *dvd*
are audible. He is also quite obviously suggesting that the
unsuspecting witness is likely to mistake five audible shots for three.
I see no hint of him even indirectly implying any silenced rifle.

> Either way 3 of 5 apparently missed.

Irrelevant to the point Mark was making. He was talking about the
possibility of witnesses mistaking five sounds for three sounds, not
about how many or how few missed.

> The next question, were
> all the rifles the same caliber or even the same make?

That also seems irrelevant to any point made in the article to which you
were responding, a non-sequitur.

> Where were
> these other snipers located?

He's saying witnesses might have mistaken five sounds for three sounds.
The locations are irrelevant to that specific argument.

> We know it wasn't the GK unless the BDM
> in the black suit somehow ran out, took a shot, and ran away in about
> 10 seconds.
> If so, no wonder he missed from up close.

Just for the record, in case you end up misunderstanding *my* argument, I
firmly believe in three shots fired by one shooter. I also wonder about
Mark's claims here. Too much info has been left out, such as on the dvd
are there any shots that are much closer together than the others? Are
any of the five sounds on the dvd louder/softer than the others? I would
like to be present when that dvd is played to unsuspecting guests, because
I have some difficulty in believing that a "majority" would mistake five
equally-loud sounds for three. Such a thing hardly ever happens, at least
with witnesses numbering in the double digits, unless there is an obvious
reason for it, such as that two of the sounds are significantly softer on
the dvd than the other three, etc.

I was merely pointing out to you that you were arguing with an argument
Mark did not make in that article, which can be called a non-sequitur or a
strawman. ;-)

John King

unread,

Aug 19, 2012, 10:10:17 PM8/19/12

to

In article <6b49d028-0d24-4b65...@googlegroups.com>,

markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think I gave this example some time ago, but I'll briefly repeat it: At
> my home, I have Groden's DVD, "The Case for Conspiracy". The main menu is
> animated, and upon first play, we hear sharp rifle reports, five of them
> in all. I place this DVD into the Blu Ray player, crank up the surround
> amplifier, and let my unsuspecting visitors in my home hear those shots. I
> then ask how many they heard, and the vast majority say three. I do it
> this way so as to catch them off-guard and not expecting to hear rifle
> fire, just as the DP witnesses were.

I'm sorry, but I have a bit of trouble swallowing this. You've left out a
great deal of information. The "vast majority" of how many of your
visitors said they heard only three? Unless both the total number of your
visitors *and* the majority who said three instead of five numbers in the
double digits (as in at least ten in the majority and more in the total)
this is not especially useful. You also didn't say whether or not all
five "shots" on the dvd are equally loud or equally spaced, which would
obviously affect subsequent recollections.

John King

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 11:18:44 AM8/20/12

to

In article <aa7c7d99-67d4-4c2b...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:57:35 AM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 8:21�pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:47:21 AM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>
> >If that bullet came from the Dal-Tex Bldg then what
> >
> > happened to the second shot fired by LHO?
>
> Only two shots were fired from the TSBD. Bonnie Ray Williams only heard two
> shots. You have to ask yourself how that could be if three shots were fired
> from a location but ten feet away from him?

Oh, you're leaving out a great deal here. Didn't the two men beside him
consistently say from the beginning that they heard three? If so, that
puts Williams in the minority. You're also leaving out that more than
90% of the witnesses who thought shots came from the TSBD thought ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, that more than 90% of the
witnesses who thought shots came from the GK thought ALL the shots
sounded as if they came from there, and that more than 90% of the
witnesses who thought shots came from the Triple Underpass thought ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there. No matter what direction
the witnesses named, more than 90% of the witnesses who named that same
direction named ONLY that direction and no other for the sounds of ALL
gunfire. The reason for this is blindingly obvious.

> > If you believe in the GKS
> >
> > then what happened to the third shot fired by LHO? One of the three
> >
> > witnesses on the 5th floor was convinced he heard three shots from
> >
> > above his position on the 5th floor.
>
> Harold Norman wasn't consistent or clear in his statements but it seems
> likely he heard a shot and then two shots close together, and shells fall to
> the floor.

So he heard three shots. Williams is in the minority with his two. And
did Norman ever say that one of the shots sounded farther away than the
others? Not that I recall.

> He never specified that he'd heard three shells until years later,
> when Bugliosi got his hooks in him.

I'm not sure this isn't a trivial quibble. He had already said he heard
three shots, and didn't say any one of them sounded more distant than
the others. He said he also heard shells hitting the floor above him.
That he did not specifically say "three" shells hitting the floor may or
may not be significant. He may have simply assumed that once he had
said that he heard three shots, it was hardly necessary for him to
specifically spell out that he heard shells hitting the floor the same
number of times, as this might be considered a common-sense assumption
which hardly needed to be explained. Who knows?

John King

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 11:18:50 AM8/20/12

to

In article <edb510f2-fa13-463f...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> Williams' earliest statements prove he heard only two clear shots. He
> added the third one for his WC testimony, but specified, even then, that
> the last two shots were extremely close together.

Which makes him quite consistent, for the WC, with the witnesses who
made any statement at all, no matter what it was or how it was worded,
regarding the relative timing of the shots, even statements of "I don't
know" when asked. The majority of witnesses who even mentioned this
matter at all in any context said shots two and three were closer
together than shots one and two. But didn't Jarman and Norman say in
their earliest statements that they recalled three shots? If so,
Williams is in the minority among the three closest witnesses, by far,
to the TSBD shooter. And not one of the three, ever, said that any
single shot sounded farther away than the other shots, correct? If so,
I am at a loss to determine why you are using Williams in the context of
your claim that only two shots were fired from the TSBD. Twice as many
of the closest three witnesses disputed him from the beginning on that,
yes?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 10:29:45 PM8/20/12

to

In article <50310ba2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

No Tony... they were "wiped" off, which does not imply anything other than
a dry cloth.

Nor did any wiping [or as you claim, washing] stop any evidence of residue
- IT WAS TESTIFIED TO!

Now tell us Tony - why did you tacitly agree that there wasn't any residue
on the fragments?

On what basis were you agreeing with that?

>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>> That's simply untrue.
>
>I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.

It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]

You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
on the two fragments.

Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?

>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>
>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>> had been "washed".
>>
>> Wrong on both counts.
>
>
>You can't test the evidence with residue on it.

Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
stated.

Here it is again:

Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...

But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
had been "washed".

Wrong on both counts.

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 10:33:57 PM8/20/12

to

Norman, apparently, heard shells hit the floor above him. This guided his
thinking the shots came from above. There is also no statements by him on
the number of shots until December, long after it had been reported three
shots had been fired.

Jarman, who was only a few feet further from the SN than Williams,
initially thought the shots came from below.

(11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p334-335) “He said these shots sounded to him
to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the TSBD building. Jarman
said that he and Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray (LNU) went to the west side
of the building on the fifth floor where they discussed the shots. He said
they decided the shots had come from inside the building because they were
too loud to have come from outside the building. He said that Harold
Norman stated at that time that something had fallen from above him and
that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him in his face...”

(3-24-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H198-211(When asked from
where he’d thought the shots had been fired) “I thought at first it
had came from below…I am sure it came from the left. (When asked if he
had any doubt that the sounds he heard were gunshots, given that he’d
had 8 years in the military) “Not after the second shot.” (When asked
at what point he realized the shots came from above) "After we had ran
down to this last window on the west side of the building, and we was
discussing it. And then after I got to thinking about all the debris on
Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought about that, also. And so I told Hank, I
say, "That shot probably did come from upstairs, up over us," and Hank
said, "I know it did, because I could hear the action of the bolt, and I
could hear the cartridges drop on the floor." And I told him there we
better get the hell from up here.

The witnesses were taken by surprise by the first sound. Very few of them
knew what it was or from where it had come. With the second sound they
began to get a sense, and with the third they had all the time in the
world to develop their impression. It's not accurate, then, to assume the
witnesses heard three sounds, and figured out the direction of each one,
and then reported that each one came from the same location.

It significant, nonetheless, that most of those standing in front of the
TSBD thought the shots came from their right, and not above.

claviger

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 10:34:29 PM8/20/12

to

John King,

Simple math:
z133 - z224 = 91 frames = 4.97 sec
z224 - z313 = 89 frames = 4.86 sec

Only a split second difference? Is that enough to create such a
distinct impression the last two shots were closer together? If the
first shot was at z160 or z180 we now have a complete opposite
situation. Why did so many witnesses have the impression the last two
shots were closer together than the first two, and some even said the
last two were on top of each other? Either there was a 4th shot
involved or a lost shot not counted. In the first instance a 4th shot
between z224 and z313, and closer to z313. In the second instance the
last shot made a loud echo that witnesses thought was another shot,
but that suggests witnesses should have heard 4 loud sounds or they
missed counting the first shot before z224.

My guess is witnesses heard a loud echo on the last shot. By the time
of the last shot the Limousine was right in front of the North
Pergola. This concave cement structure would have captured the sound
and reflected it back toward the street. We would expect a loud echo
in this situation. The other reason might be a shot fired at a
different angle, which would include the 6th floor window or a shot
from another position. Another causation would a be a shot fired from
a different weapon than the one in the 6th floor window, a combination
of different angle and ammunition. While the shape of the Pergola may
explain the loud echo that means the first shot miss is unaccounted
for by many witnesses.

John King

unread,

Aug 21, 2012, 11:03:43 AM8/21/12

to

In article
<4cc7330e-24bd-4bbf...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John King,

That would be me. ;-)

> Simple math:
> z133 - z224 = 91 frames = 4.97 sec

Yep. When did I say otherwise, in my article to which you are here
responding, or any other article I've ever posted here since October,
2002?

> z224 - z313 = 89 frames = 4.86 sec

Yep, 89 divided by 18.3 frames per second (the figure given far more
often than any other for the speed of the Zapruder film) does indeed =
4.86338797814208 seconds.

Why on earth is this being said to me, of all people, since I have never
denied that in any article I've ever posted here, and most *definitely*
not in my article to which you are here responding?

> Only a split second difference?

When did I say that? Certainly not in my article to which you are here
replying. I'm looking at that article in the midst of typing this
sentence, and I merely see myself saying that of all the witnesses who
said that any two shots were closer together than the others, only a
minority said that they were very close together, or almost
simultaneous. I suppose one could reasonable interpret that as a "split
second difference," but I didn't originally say that, this minority of
witnesses did. Please challenge those among them who are still living
instead of me.

I am merely the vessel. ;-)

> Is that enough to create such a
> distinct impression the last two shots were closer together? If the
> first shot was at z160 or z180 we now have a complete opposite
> situation. Why did so many witnesses have the impression the last two
> shots were closer together than the first two, and some even said the
> last two were on top of each other?

I thought that I had already answered that before, but I'll try again:

Because it really is the truth that they were closer together?

Just a thought.

As to why a *minority* of them, as I've already told you, thought the
last two were "on top of each other," I suppose that might be merely due
to the typical random variations of witness statements that we almost
always have in such situations.

> Either there was a 4th shot
> involved or a lost shot not counted.

Or, an alternate (and far more plausible) explanation: shots two and
three really *were* closer together than shots one and two, but the real
truth of the matter is probably somewhere approximately halfway between
the extremes of the witness statements, which ranged from as long as
five seconds between shots two and three and ten seconds between shots
one and two (Mayor Cabell) to nearly simultaneous, as in Kellerman.

> In the first instance a 4th shot
> between z224 and z313, and closer to z313. In the second instance the
> last shot made a loud echo that witnesses thought was another shot,
> but that suggests witnesses should have heard 4 loud sounds or they
> missed counting the first shot before z224.

And since more than 76% of 216 witnesses said there were three gunshot
sounds, that is not especially plausible.

> My guess is witnesses heard a loud echo on the last shot.

The minority might have been fooled by that. But a larger number said
that the last two shots were closer together, without also saying that
they were nearly simultaneous, and plenty of them specifically said
there were still at least two seconds between those shots.

> By the time
> of the last shot the Limousine was right in front of the North
> Pergola. This concave cement structure would have captured the sound
> and reflected it back toward the street. We would expect a loud echo
> in this situation. The other reason might be a shot fired at a
> different angle, which would include the 6th floor window or a shot
> from another position. Another causation would a be a shot fired from
> a different weapon than the one in the 6th floor window, a combination
> of different angle and ammunition. While the shape of the Pergola may
> explain the loud echo that means the first shot miss is unaccounted
> for by many witnesses.

A first shot miss I'm buying, but the other stuff in those sentences?
Dunno. And into all of this comes the perceived gunfire direction. As
I have been saying here for years, more than 90% of all witnesses who
named any particular direction for the sounds of gunfire, no matter what
direction they named, individually stated that *all* the gunfire sounded
as if it came from that single location, or else individually named only
a single location/direction. For example, more than 90% of all
witnesses who gave any direction even remotely consistent with the
grassy knoll/pergola/garden/fence/whatever, no matter how they worded
it, either specifically said that *all* gunfire sounds came from that
single direction, or else named no other direction in their statements.
In addition, very few witnesses claimed that any single gunshot sound
seemed to be more distant, or louder, or softer, than the others.

I wrote above about the typical random variations of witness statements.
But that's not at all what we have here on the perceived directions of
gunfire, or on the number of shots. Instead we have something
extraordinarily different: witnesses in the triple digits (a
tremendously larger number than we've almost ever had in any murder case
in all U.S. history) strongly converging on the number of shots, and on
the claim that all the shots came from one direction, even if there is
no convergence on which direction that was, and also a strong
convergence on all shots sounding of equal volume and equal distance no
matter where the witnesses were.

Way back in 2003 I challenged everyone here to produce even one
well-documented example, just one, in which the majority of witnesses to
any murder by shooting, when the total number of witnesses was in the
triple-digits (i.e. an absolute minimum of 100 witnesses total) turned
out to have been proven, not merely alleged, to be wrong, about a
particular aspect of the murder. Several posters criticized me in
various ways, but interestingly, not one of them, not one, produced such
an example. Finally, after waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
several weeks continuously I finally gave up on everyone here and
challenged myself. I became the first person to produce such an
example, sort of, but it was really just a test. I found that study
that was done at a university in which a staged "shooting" was done in
front of c.600 students (triple digits) in which it was really the
professor giving the lecture who had the gun (loaded of course with
blanks) but that very few of the students noticed him laying the gun on
the lectern. A few minutes after he started the lecture, a man came
bursting in (arranged in advance), ran down toward the professor
shouting all sorts of abuse at him, and (noticed by very few of the
students) the professor grabbed the gun just as the "assailant" reached
him, they both fell behind the lectern, and a gunshot was heard.

Both popped up just afterward, and the students were given a
questionnaire about what they had just witnessed. Naturally they were
all over the place on their physical descriptions of the "assailant,"
especially on his clothing, and naturally most of them thought the
"assailant" had the gun since very few of them had seen the professor
with the gun earlier, and naturally most of them thought that the
"assailant" fired the blank when both of them were out of view behind
the lectern.

But what did the vast majority of the students strongly converge on?
Two things:

Only one gunshot sound.

It was fired from behind the lectern.

And they were absolutely correct on those two matters, which the study
did not dispute in the slightest.

The odds that a majority of witnesses numbering in the triple digits
will be wrong about any single aspect of a shooting is astronomically
low unless there is a blatantly obvious reason for that many people to
be wrong in exactly the same way. It is blatantly obvious that the
majority of the c.600 witnesses at the university were wrong about who
fired the shot merely because the professor placed the gun on the
lectern very unobtrusively and the "assailant" was pretending to act in
such a blatantly confrontational and threatening manner.

But on the *sound* of gunfire, the vast majority of the witnesses were
superbly accurate, not only on how many shots were fired (one) but how
many directions the gunfire sounded as if it came from (one).

Since we have triple-digit witnesses in Dealey Plaza also, why would we
assume that they were any less likely, in the majority, to be just as
superbly accurate on how many gunshots were heard, and how many
directions the gunshots came from, since no one has ever, in the entire
history of firearms, given even one well-documented example of such an
extremely large majority ever being "wrong" before on the number of
shots and the number of directions the shots came from?

Yes, yes, yes, the Dealey witnesses are all over the place on *which*
direction then gunfire came from.

But they strongly converge, more than 90% of them, on this:

Whatever direction it was, all the sounds of gunfire came from a single
direction.

John King

unread,

Aug 21, 2012, 11:04:39 AM8/21/12

to

In article <b7bdfeac-23fd-412f...@googlegroups.com>,

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:18:50 AM UTC-7, John King wrote:
> > In article <edb510f2-fa13-463f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Williams' earliest statements prove he heard only two clear shots. He
> >
> > > added the third one for his WC testimony, but specified, even then, that
> >
> > > the last two shots were extremely close together.
> >
> >
> >
> > Which makes him quite consistent, for the WC, with the witnesses who
> >
> > made any statement at all, no matter what it was or how it was worded,
> >
> > regarding the relative timing of the shots, even statements of "I don't
> >
> > know" when asked. The majority of witnesses who even mentioned this
> >
> > matter at all in any context said shots two and three were closer
> >
> > together than shots one and two. But didn't Jarman and Norman say in
> >
> > their earliest statements that they recalled three shots? If so,
> >
> > Williams is in the minority among the three closest witnesses, by far,
> >
> > to the TSBD shooter. And not one of the three, ever, said that any
> >
> > single shot sounded farther away than the other shots, correct? If so,
> >
> > I am at a loss to determine why you are using Williams in the context of
> >
> > your claim that only two shots were fired from the TSBD. Twice as many
> >
> > of the closest three witnesses disputed him from the beginning on that,
> >
> > yes?
>
> Norman, apparently, heard shells hit the floor above him. This guided his
> thinking the shots came from above.

Which I would think any reasonable person would conclude, correct? If I
heard loud gunfire, even if I had no idea where it was coming from, but
also heard something hitting the floor right above me after each shot, the
most natural conclusion that would come to me is that the shots were
probably fired from the floor above me. Wouldn't that be the case with
you as well? I would be astonished if you said "no," and I would think
even the majority of CTs would be astonished as well, whether they admit
it here or not.

> There is also no statements by him on
> the number of shots until December, long after it had been reported three
> shots had been fired.

That may be. But that *still* puts him in the minority among these
three closest witnesses to the firing, just as I said, as the other two
were saying there were three shots from their earliest known statements,
right?

> Jarman, who was only a few feet further from the SN than Williams,
> initially thought the shots came from below.

That he did. But he still said there were three from the beginning,
correct? And he also said that all three shots were of equal volume and
equal distance, or else did not specifically say otherwise, right? And
he also initially said that he thought *all* of the shots came from the
same direction, correct?

Are you yet realizing how superbly these witnesses bolster the concept
of a single shooter in a single location?

> (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p334-335) ?He said these shots sounded to him

> to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the TSBD building. Jarman
> said that he and Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray (LNU) went to the west side
> of the building on the fifth floor where they discussed the shots. He said
> they decided the shots had come from inside the building because they were
> too loud to have come from outside the building. He said that Harold
> Norman stated at that time that something had fallen from above him and

> that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him in his face...?

Yep, and no mention whatsoever of any single shot sounding as if it came
from a different direction than the others or sounding as if it came from
an even slightly greater or lesser distance than the others. Thank you
for posting this superb confirmation of what I have been saying in this
newsgroup for nearly a decade. ;-)

> (3-24-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H198-211(When asked from

> where he?d thought the shots had been fired) ?I thought at first it
> had came from below?I am sure it came from the left.

Like a number of witnesses, he used the singular pronoun "it" to describe
all sounds (plural) of gunfire. Note carefully that he did not claim that
he at first thought any individual shot had come from any other direction
than the left. And note carefully that there is no mention whatsoever of
his initial impression that any individual shot was louder or softer, or
closer or farther, than any other shot. Again, this is superb
confirmation of a single shooter in a single location.

> (When asked if he
> had any doubt that the sounds he heard were gunshots, given that he?d
> had 8 years in the military) ?Not after the second shot.? (When asked

> at what point he realized the shots came from above) "After we had ran
> down to this last window on the west side of the building, and we was
> discussing it. And then after I got to thinking about all the debris on
> Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought about that, also. And so I told Hank, I
> say, "That shot probably did come from upstairs, up over us," and Hank
> said, "I know it did, because I could hear the action of the bolt, and I
> could hear the cartridges drop on the floor." And I told him there we
> better get the hell from up here.

Ok...none of this disputes, not in the slightest, the idea that there was
a single shooter firing a single weapon in a single location. All
possible discrepancies in that entire text amount to nothing more than the
mere triviality of mundane and common witness confusion regarding which
location the single shooter was firing from. But they are not even
slightly confused on *how* *many* directions the gunfire came from: they
were adamant that whatever direction it came from, it all came from one
direction. Again, superb confirmation of a single shooter in a single
location.

> The witnesses were taken by surprise by the first sound. Very few of them
> knew what it was or from where it had come.

Exactly. Thank you so much for agreeing with me. ;-)

> With the second sound they
> began to get a sense, and with the third they had all the time in the
> world to develop their impression. It's not accurate, then, to assume the
> witnesses heard three sounds, and figured out the direction of each one,
> and then reported that each one came from the same location.

I would agree with that only if there had been a small number of
witnesses, nine or fewer, i.e. single digits only. But that isn't the
case here. In addition to these three men, there are 213 others from whom
statements about the gunfire were recorded for posterity, a tremendously
larger number of witnesses to a murder by gunfire than has almost ever
happened in all the history of firearms worldwide. With more than 90% of
the 216 witnesses all agreeing that all gunshots came from a single
direction, even if they came nowhere close to agreeing with each other on
which direction it was, the idea that that large a majority of that large
a number of total witnesses could possibly be "wrong" in exactly the same
way is beyond reasonable credibility, and no such documented example of
such a thing has ever been produced before, AFAIK.

> It significant, nonetheless, that most of those standing in front of the
> TSBD thought the shots came from their right, and not above.

So these "most" you're talking about all thought every shot came from
the same direction.

The obvious conclusion is simple, and completely mundane, unremarkable
tricks of acoustics. Depending on where each witness was in Dealey, this
witness thought all the shots came from this direction, and that witness
thought all the shots came from that direction. This is a common,
everyday phenomenon of the way sound travels through any substance, and
most especially when there are substances of different densities
reflecting the sound waves in various directions, as was obviously the
case in Dealey, with tall buildings on three sides of the plaza. I have
two degrees in music, and studied acoustics in college, so I think I just
might know what I'm talking about.

Thank you for superbly supporting my argument. Come to Huntsville, Tx,
and I'll buy you a beer. I'm serious.

JK

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 21, 2012, 11:21:49 PM8/21/12

to

On 8/20/2012 10:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> John King,
>
> Simple math:
> z133 - z224 = 91 frames = 4.97 sec
> z224 - z313 = 89 frames = 4.86 sec
>
> Only a split second difference? Is that enough to create such a
> distinct impression the last two shots were closer together? If the

No kook said that the first shot was at Z-133 so why did you choose that
frame number?

> first shot was at z160 or z180 we now have a complete opposite
> situation. Why did so many witnesses have the impression the last two
> shots were closer together than the first two, and some even said the
> last two were on top of each other? Either there was a 4th shot
> involved or a lost shot not counted. In the first instance a 4th shot
> between z224 and z313, and closer to z313. In the second instance the
> last shot made a loud echo that witnesses thought was another shot,
> but that suggests witnesses should have heard 4 loud sounds or they
> missed counting the first shot before z224.
>

Your theory is that Hickey fired the fatal head shot at Z-313 so which
frame do you pick for the last shot from the TSBD?

> My guess is witnesses heard a loud echo on the last shot. By the time
> of the last shot the Limousine was right in front of the North
> Pergola. This concave cement structure would have captured the sound
> and reflected it back toward the street. We would expect a loud echo
> in this situation. The other reason might be a shot fired at a
> different angle, which would include the 6th floor window or a shot
> from another position. Another causation would a be a shot fired from
> a different weapon than the one in the 6th floor window, a combination
> of different angle and ammunition. While the shape of the Pergola may
> explain the loud echo that means the first shot miss is unaccounted
> for by many witnesses.
>

Nope.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 21, 2012, 11:24:04 PM8/21/12

to

Which fragments. There was residue on some fragments when they were found.

> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>
>
>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>> That's simply untrue.
>>
>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>
> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]
>
> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
> on the two fragments.
>
> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>

Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.

>
>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>
>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>> had been "washed".
>>>
>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>
>>
>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>
>
> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
> stated.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>

Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.

> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
> had been "washed".
>

When?

> Wrong on both counts.
>
>

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:29:16 AM8/22/12

to

In article <503413ff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Who changed the topic, Tony?

Did you suddenly forget the topic?

Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion,
EVEN AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?

Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which
makes your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two
fragments are being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD
THIS POST.

But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing
those same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been
discussing all along.

Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there
*WAS* residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're
speaking about].

So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does

not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially

after they were washed for testing."?

Because this is a critical question, I'm going to ask it again:

So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does

not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially

after they were washed for testing."?

>> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>>
>>
>>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>
>>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>>
>> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
>> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]
>>
>> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
>> on the two fragments.
>>
>> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>
>
>Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.

See above.

Then answer the question Tony. This has *NOTHING* to do with the open
forum.

And in case you've forgotten, here's the question again: You failed to

correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on the two
fragments. Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?

That was in THIS forum... not the open forum.

>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>
>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
>> stated.
>>
>> Here it is again:
>>
>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>
>
>Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.

Since you were provably incorrect, it seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?

Indeed, you're admitting in this post THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE
WHICH BULLET FRAGMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED!

How can you have superior knowledge on a topic that you can't even define?

Of course, if you *did* have evidence that I didn't cite, you provably
HAVE NOT CITED IT, nor, I suspect, will you ever do anything other than
imply that you might have it.

Your next response will either prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Anyone
care to make a bet on what the result will be?

>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>> had been "washed".
>>
>
>When?

This is *YOUR* claim, Tony. *YOU* are claiming that the bullet fragments
that you cannot name were "washed".

So tell us Tony, WHEN WERE THEY WASHED, AND BY WHOM?

And why was I able to cite for the fact that you argued against, that they
did indeed have residue on them?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:02:06 PM8/22/12

to

You did.

> Did you suddenly forget the topic?
>

No, you did.

>
> Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion,
> EVEN AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?
>

I wanted to make sure YOU knew which two fragments were being discussed.

>
> Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which
> makes your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two
> fragments are being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD
> THIS POST.
>

Your posts have been confusing because you are not sure which two
fragments we have been discussing.

>
> But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing
> those same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been
> discussing all along.
>
>
> Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there
> *WAS* residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're
> speaking about].
>

I did not limit it to only those two. And again the salient question is
WHEN they ere contamination, how much, when they were cleaned and how
well. You need to remember that the FBI search team did not find the two
large fragments in the front seat area. They were recovered by the Secret
Service. We simply don't know how carefully they were handled and
processed by the Secret Service.

> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
> after they were washed for testing."?
>

Your only weapon is to claim that I said things which I never did. I was
quoting these same documents some 30-40 years which you just stumbled
upon recently.

> Because this is a critical question, I'm going to ask it again:
>
> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
> after they were washed for testing."?
>

Because the why you phrased your argument suggested that you believe
there MUST always be residue on any bullet that went through a body. But
that is not true.

>
>>> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>>>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>>>
>>> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
>>> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]
>>>
>>> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
>>> on the two fragments.
>>>
>>> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>>
>>
>> Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
> Then answer the question Tony. This has *NOTHING* to do with the open
> forum.
>

Yes it did. Instead of explaining yourself you said, "See the open forum
for more information..." and you know that I do not post in the "open
forum." So your remark was evasive and facetious.

>
> And in case you've forgotten, here's the question again: You failed to
> correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on the two
> fragments. Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>

I don't have to correct every nutty thing you say. There are only so
many hours in the day. After I correct you 100 times, I may get bored
and not bother correcting you another 100 times.

> That was in THIS forum... not the open forum.
>
>
>
>>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>>
>>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
>>> stated.
>>>
>>> Here it is again:
>>>
>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.
>
>
> Since you were provably incorrect, it seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?
>

Since you don't even know the evidence in this case you are in no
position to determine that.

> Indeed, you're admitting in this post THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE
> WHICH BULLET FRAGMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED!
>

I am not sure which bullet fragments you mean because you have been
evasive in explaining yourself.

> How can you have superior knowledge on a topic that you can't even define?
>

Because I was studying it long before you even heard of this case.

>
> Of course, if you *did* have evidence that I didn't cite, you provably
> HAVE NOT CITED IT, nor, I suspect, will you ever do anything other than
> imply that you might have it.
>

I have cited it hundreds of times, but you are too lazy to find those
instances.

> Your next response will either prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Anyone
> care to make a bet on what the result will be?
>

Why do you think you deserve a response at all? Who the Hell do you
think you are to even try to argue any point with me when you refuse to
do your homework?

>
>
>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>> had been "washed".
>>>
>>
>> When?
>
> This is *YOUR* claim, Tony. *YOU* are claiming that the bullet fragments
> that you cannot name were "washed".
>

No, that is not my claim. That is your misrepresentation.

> So tell us Tony, WHEN WERE THEY WASHED, AND BY WHOM?
>
> And why was I able to cite for the fact that you argued against, that they
> did indeed have residue on them?
>

When exactly did they have residue on them and do they still have
exactly the same residue on them?
If not that alone proves that they were cleaned.
So then YOU need to tell me exactly when they were cleaned and by whom.

>
>
>
>
>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

claviger

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 3:56:17 PM8/23/12

to

On Aug 21, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 10:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>
>
>
> > John King,
>
> > Simple math:
> > z133 - z224 = 91 frames = 4.97 sec
> > z224 - z313 = 89 frames = 4.86 sec
>
> > Only a split second difference? Is that enough to create such a
> > distinct impression the last two shots were closer together? If the
>
> No kook said that the first shot was at Z-133 so why did you choose that
> frame number?

The Max Holland Theory of a first shot at or before Z-133. Also, that
is as far as we can go to barely make the timing between the 1st and
2nd shot longer than the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots.
"JFK: The Lost Bullet." Findings of the documentary are summarized in
The DeRonja-Holland Report.
"11 Seconds in Dallas Redux: Film Evidence"

> > first shot was at z160 or z180 we now have a complete opposite
> > situation. Why did so many witnesses have the impression the last two
> > shots were closer together than the first two, and some even said the
> > last two were on top of each other? Either there was a 4th shot
> > involved or a lost shot not counted. In the first instance a 4th shot
> > between z224 and z313, and closer to z313. In the second instance the
> > last shot made a loud echo that witnesses thought was another shot,
> > but that suggests witnesses should have heard 4 loud sounds or they
> > missed counting the first shot before z224.
>
> Your theory is that Hickey fired the fatal head shot at Z-313 so which
> frame do you pick for the last shot from the TSBD?

If a miss could be any frame close to Z-313. The other option is LHO
only fired two shots, as Pat Speer believes.

> > My guess is witnesses heard a loud echo on the last shot. By the time
> > of the last shot the Limousine was right in front of the North
> > Pergola. This concave cement structure would have captured the sound
> > and reflected it back toward the street. We would expect a loud echo
> > in this situation. The other reason might be a shot fired at a
> > different angle, which would include the 6th floor window or a shot
> > from another position. Another causation would a be a shot fired from
> > a different weapon than the one in the 6th floor window, a combination
> > of different angle and ammunition. While the shape of the Pergola may
> > explain the loud echo that means the first shot miss is unaccounted
> > for by many witnesses.
>
> Nope.

Nope to what?

claviger

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 4:00:15 PM8/23/12

to

John K,

Let me try to simplify what I'm trying to say. First, I believe the
majority of witnesses are sincere and telling the truth about what
they saw and heard. That perception may be wrong when compared to the
Zapruder film, but they did not intentionally tell a lie. Only a few
made up stories to get attention.

Witness stories contradict each other as to the timing and direction
of the shots. There are witnesses who say the first two shots were
closer together. If the first shot took place at z160 of later, they
are correct. Some say the shots were evenly spaced, which means Max
Holland is correct. The majority of witnesses claim the last two
shots were closer together and some say they were right on top of each
other. This would be at odds with the Zapruder film and there is no
easy way to reconcile this contradiction.

Let's assume the majority of earwitnesses are correct. The last two
shots were 89 frames = 4.86 sec apart, therefore we must find a point
89 frames prior to z224 which would define the range. Assuming the
earwitness are correct the first shot was somewhere before z135. If
it was captured on the Zapruder film that narrows it down to z133 or
z134. It has to be in those frames or prior to Zapruder turning his
camera back on. If the first shot took place at z135 then all three
shots were evenly spaced: z135 + 89 = z224 + 89 = z313.

How can a majority of witness perceptions be the opposite of what was
captured on the Zapruder film?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 9:49:26 PM8/23/12

to

In article <5035...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Of course I didn't. I'm *STILL* speaking of the two fragments found in the
limo.

Can you support your claim, Tony?

Can you QUOTE any change of the topic?

>> Did you suddenly forget the topic?
>>
>
>No, you did.

Feel free to point out why you think that the topic has changed... QUOTE
the relevant section.

>> Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion,
>> EVEN AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?
>>
>
>I wanted to make sure YOU knew which two fragments were being discussed.

Sorry Tony, you just got through claiming that I've changed the topic.

Now you imply that you were just checking to make sure.

So tell everyone something that you can SUPPORT with quotes, Tony...

>> Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which
>> makes your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two
>> fragments are being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD
>> THIS POST.
>>
>
>Your posts have been confusing because you are not sure which two
>fragments we have been discussing.

No Tony... no-one is confused. You're *pretending* to be confused, but the
*same* two fragments found in the limo are *STILL* the ones being talked
about.

Now, tell us ... no, QUOTE us, what statement of mine led you to believe
that the topic had been changed...

But you won't.

>> But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing
>> those same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been
>> discussing all along.
>>
>>
>> Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there
>> *WAS* residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're
>> speaking about].
>>
>
>
>I did not limit it to only those two.

Then you should have said so, right?

Why did you imply that there was *NO* residue on those two, and when
contradicted by the testimony I quoted, then go on to claim that you don't
know what two fragments I'm speaking of?

>And again the salient question is

The one you were provably wrong on.

Indeed, that's why I quoted the testimony that contradicted what you
claimed.

>WHEN they ere contamination, how much, when they were cleaned and how
>well. You need to remember that the FBI search team did not find the two
>large fragments in the front seat area. They were recovered by the Secret
>Service. We simply don't know how carefully they were handled and
>processed by the Secret Service.

None of this matters if you don't know which fragments we are speaking
about, and cannot admit that the evidence shows that they *DID* have
residue on them.

Contrary to your statement... where you agreed with the poster, and
asserted that "There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the

bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for testing."

BUT THERE *WAS* RESIDUE ON THESE TWO BULLET FRAGMENTS.

So why didn't you point this out?

Why are you trying to confuse everyone about which bullet fragments are
under discussion?

>> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
>> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
>> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
>> after they were washed for testing."?
>>
>
>Your only weapon is to claim that I said things which I never did.

"There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments,
especially after they were washed for testing."

No Tony... I merely QUOTE YOUR EXACT WORDS, and ask you why they are
contrary to the known evidence...

Now, tell us what I've "claimed that you said" that you've not said, Tony.
That way, I can quote your exact words to illustrate that you're
incorrect.

>I was
>quoting these same documents some 30-40 years which you just stumbled
>upon recently.

Another silly claim that you can't cite for. If you've been quoting this
particular testimony for 30-40 years, why did you make a claim that
contradicts it in this thread?

>> Because this is a critical question, I'm going to ask it again:
>>
>> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
>> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
>> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
>> after they were washed for testing."?
>>
>
>Because the why you phrased your argument suggested that you believe
>there MUST always be residue on any bullet that went through a body. But
>that is not true.

No Tony, no such statement was ever made, nor implied. You CANNOT quote
anything that I said that would even imply what you're now claiming.

Nor will you even try.

Why do you think you can get away with such clearly incorrect statements?
Perhaps because this is the censored forum, and you know that you won't be
called to task for such claims?

Quote my statements, Tony... and show your claim with argument.

But you won't.

Nor will you even try.

>>>> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>>>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>>>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>>>>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>>>>
>>>> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
>>>> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]
>>>>
>>>> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
>>>> on the two fragments.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>
>> Then answer the question Tony. This has *NOTHING* to do with the open
>> forum.
>>
>
>
>Yes it did. Instead of explaining yourself you said, "See the open forum
>for more information..." and you know that I do not post in the "open
>forum." So your remark was evasive and facetious.

The question had *NOTHING* to do with any information contained in the
open forum... I merely point out there, what would be censored here.

What *WAS* in the open forum was precisely what I stated would be found
there... an accurate *label* for the statement that I was replying to. You
can probably very quickly guess which three letter word I used to refer to
your statement.

>> And in case you've forgotten, here's the question again: You failed to
>> correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on the two
>> fragments. Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>
>
>I don't have to correct every nutty thing you say.

But you *DO* have to correct every nutty thing *YOU* say, or else stand
the chance that people like me will be happy to point it out.

Can you admit in this censored forum that the two bullet fragments THAT
WERE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE BEGINNING, ALL ALONG, AND RIGHT NOW, actually
had residue on them, and that this is what the evidence shows?

Probably not... because then you'd have to explain why you implied
otherwise.

>There are only so
>many hours in the day. After I correct you 100 times, I may get bored
>and not bother correcting you another 100 times.

You've not corrected me even *once* in this thread.

Tell us Tony, can you admit that the evidence shows that there was residue
found on the two bullet fragments found in the limo that are under
discussion here?

And if you can bring yourself to admit the truth, do you have *any
explanation whatsoever* for your failure to point this out in the
beginning?

>> That was in THIS forum... not the open forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
>>>> stated.
>>>>
>>>> Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.
>>
>>
>> Since you were provably incorrect, it seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?
>>
>
>Since you don't even know the evidence in this case you are in no
>position to determine that.

As I suspected, you've been unable to cite anything...

And since you've been shown to be incorrect on your presumption, and that
of the original poster you were responding to - the chances that you
*EVER* had evidence that you could cite is vanishingly small, isn't it?

>> Indeed, you're admitting in this post THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE
>> WHICH BULLET FRAGMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED!
>>
>
>I am not sure which bullet fragments you mean because you have been
>evasive in explaining yourself.

Who changed the topic, Tony?

Did you understand WHEN YOU INITIALLY RESPONDED which two bullet fragments
were being discussed?

Did the topic change at all?

Can you QUOTE any statement of mine that would lead *ANYONE* to be
confused about which two bullet fragments are being talked about?

>> How can you have superior knowledge on a topic that you can't even define?
>>
>
>Because I was studying it long before you even heard of this case.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Okay... you've claimed that you can have superior knowledge on a topic
that you cannot even define.

So let's change the topic. I know what it is, and you can't define it. So
tell everyone something very simple. What did JFK have to say on this
topic?

Anyone who *can* define the topic can *EASILY* look it up.

So tell us the answer, Tony.

Demonstrate that what you just claimed you can do, you can actually *do*.

>> Of course, if you *did* have evidence that I didn't cite, you provably
>> HAVE NOT CITED IT, nor, I suspect, will you ever do anything other than
>> imply that you might have it.
>>
>
>I have cited it hundreds of times, but you are too lazy to find those
>instances.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Too bad this is the censored forum... it protects you in instances like
this.

>> Your next response will either prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Anyone
>> care to make a bet on what the result will be?
>>
>
>Why do you think you deserve a response at all? Who the Hell do you
>think you are to even try to argue any point with me when you refuse to
>do your homework?

Yep... proved me correct. You can't cite, you're claiming not to even know
which two bullet fragments I was talking about.

>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When?
>>
>> This is *YOUR* claim, Tony. *YOU* are claiming that the bullet fragments
>> that you cannot name were "washed".
>>
>
>No, that is not my claim. That is your misrepresentation.

I defy you to produce a single instance on my part where I stated that
these two bullet fragments had been "washed".

You won't, of course... you can't.

I repeat, this was *YOUR* claim, Tony. *ONLY* you have been using the term
"wash" with respect to these two bullet fragments.

>> So tell us Tony, WHEN WERE THEY WASHED, AND BY WHOM?

I didn't think I'd get an answer...

>> And why was I able to cite for the fact that you argued against, that they
>> did indeed have residue on them?
>>
>
>When exactly did they have residue on them and do they still have
>exactly the same residue on them?

You're changing the topic, Tony...

Your original claim was that they *DIDN'T* have residue on them, *BECAUSE*
they had been washed.

So tell the truth, Tony... did they have residue on them?

>If not that alone proves that they were cleaned.

No Tony... what "proves" them to have had residue on them IS THE TESTIMONY
THAT I QUOTED.

Testimony that contradicts what you stated.

You've not cited any evidence that they did *NOT* have residue on them.

>So then YOU need to tell me exactly when they were cleaned and by whom.

They were cleaned by Mr. Phelps, a lab assistant, and it was done shortly
after 9am on Jan. 23, 1964. He used a dry cloth, and merely wiped them
clean.

I've cited for this fact hundreds of times, but you are too lazy to find
those instances.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 10:13:31 PM8/23/12

to

On 8/23/2012 3:56 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/20/2012 10:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> John King,
>>
>>> Simple math:
>>> z133 - z224 = 91 frames = 4.97 sec
>>> z224 - z313 = 89 frames = 4.86 sec
>>
>>> Only a split second difference? Is that enough to create such a
>>> distinct impression the last two shots were closer together? If the
>>
>> No kook said that the first shot was at Z-133 so why did you choose that
>> frame number?
>
> The Max Holland Theory of a first shot at or before Z-133. Also, that

Something like that. But Max, as stupid as he is, never picked from
Z-133 for the first shot. So again, I ask you why YOU picked frame
Z-133? Is it because it is the only early frame you know?

> is as far as we can go to barely make the timing between the 1st and
> 2nd shot longer than the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots.

You seem just a tad confused here. Z-133 was not the first frame of the
Zapruder film and it is not the earliest possible time that a shot could
be fired.

> "JFK: The Lost Bullet." Findings of the documentary are summarized in
> The DeRonja-Holland Report.
> "11 Seconds in Dallas Redux: Film Evidence"
>
>>> first shot was at z160 or z180 we now have a complete opposite
>>> situation. Why did so many witnesses have the impression the last two
>>> shots were closer together than the first two, and some even said the
>>> last two were on top of each other? Either there was a 4th shot
>>> involved or a lost shot not counted. In the first instance a 4th shot
>>> between z224 and z313, and closer to z313. In the second instance the
>>> last shot made a loud echo that witnesses thought was another shot,
>>> but that suggests witnesses should have heard 4 loud sounds or they
>>> missed counting the first shot before z224.
>>
>> Your theory is that Hickey fired the fatal head shot at Z-313 so which
>> frame do you pick for the last shot from the TSBD?
>
> If a miss could be any frame close to Z-313. The other option is LHO
> only fired two shots, as Pat Speer believes.
>

A miss could be any frame before Z-133 or after Z-313. The WC couldn't
be sure.

>>> My guess is witnesses heard a loud echo on the last shot. By the time
>>> of the last shot the Limousine was right in front of the North
>>> Pergola. This concave cement structure would have captured the sound
>>> and reflected it back toward the street. We would expect a loud echo
>>> in this situation. The other reason might be a shot fired at a
>>> different angle, which would include the 6th floor window or a shot
>>> from another position. Another causation would a be a shot fired from
>>> a different weapon than the one in the 6th floor window, a combination
>>> of different angle and ammunition. While the shape of the Pergola may
>>> explain the loud echo that means the first shot miss is unaccounted
>>> for by many witnesses.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Nope to what?
>

Nope to the shape of the pergola explaining what you call THE loud echo
which somehow you try to tie to a missed shot.
Dealey Plaza was not the Grand Canyon.

>

John King

unread,

Aug 24, 2012, 1:37:52 PM8/24/12

to

In article
<bbce8322-f45c-4a9b...@a14g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John K,
>
> Let me try to simplify what I'm trying to say. First, I believe the
> majority of witnesses are sincere and telling the truth about what
> they saw and heard.

So do I.

> That perception may be wrong when compared to the
> Zapruder film,

I do not believe that the majority of witness statements conflict with
the Zapruder film.

> but they did not intentionally tell a lie. Only a few
> made up stories to get attention.
>
> Witness stories contradict each other as to the timing and direction
> of the shots.

They do. But which claims are shared by the largest number of witnesses?

> There are witnesses who say the first two shots were
> closer together.

And they are in the minority, as I already said.

> If the first shot took place at z160 of later, they
> are correct.

And there's the extreme flaw in this whole line of reasoning. ***IF***
is the operative word. Very much unlike the second and third shots,
there is no clear visual confirmation in the film of the exact time of
the first shot, because unlike the other two shots, we don't see it
strike anyone, or anything, or see anyone's obvious reaction to being
struck. How can the *majority* of witness statements about the timing
of the shots be reasonably considered to conflict with the film, when
the film only shows us conclusive timing for two of the shots?

> Some say the shots were evenly spaced, which means Max
> Holland is correct.

And they and he are also in the minority.

> The majority of witnesses claim the last two
> shots were closer together

Yes.

> and some say they were right on top of each
> other.

Which, as I said before, comprises only a minority of those witnesses.

> This would be at odds with the Zapruder film

The *minority* who said right on top of each other are at odds with the
film. The *larger* number of people who either said that the amount of
time between shots 2 and 3 was approximately half of the time between
shots 1 and 2, or who simply said that shots 2 and 3 are closer
together, are *not* at odds with the film. I just explained above why
that is obviously so.

> and there is no
> easy way to reconcile this contradiction.

As it is not a contradiction in the first place, I see nothing to
reconcile.

> Let's assume the majority of earwitnesses are correct.

Yes, let's do, *finally*.

> The last two
> shots were 89 frames = 4.86 sec apart, therefore we must find a point
> 89 frames prior to z224 which would define the range.

Yes, exactly the way it should be done. You are very wise. ;-)

> Assuming the
> earwitness are correct the first shot was somewhere before z135.

Your math is is good as mine. ;-)

> If
> it was captured on the Zapruder film

If what was captured on the film? The shot that wasn't captured on the
film no matter when the shot was fired? Or are you simply referring to
the *time* of the shot being on the film, since of course the limousine
had already completed its turn onto Elm when Zapruder resumed filming?

> that narrows it down to z133 or
> z134. It has to be in those frames or prior to Zapruder turning his
> camera back on.

Exactly, and even if it was later, the film did not capture any clear
evidence of the exact time of that shot anyway.

> If the first shot took place at z135

Which has absolutely no direct evidence on the film to support it,

> then all three
> shots were evenly spaced: z135 + 89 = z224 + 89 = z313.
>
> How can a majority of witness perceptions be the opposite of what was
> captured on the Zapruder film?

Opposite of what? A film that only shows conclusive timing for two of
the three shots? When it cannot possibly be established from the film
itself to the nearest frame when the first shot occurred, or the nearest
10 frames, or the nearest 20 frames, or the nearest 30 frames, or any
number of frames except that it was *before* the second shot, how can
the majority of witness impressions be the opposite of something that
was NOT captured on that film? And here, on the exact timing of the
first shot, there is no majority, except that the majority of witnesses
converge on it happening at some point after the limo had completed its
turn onto Elm. But they are all over the place on exactly how *far* the
limo had traveled after the turn when the first shot was heard. There
is no clear consensus on the precise location of the limo at that
instant. According to them it was anywhere from having just *barely*
completed the turn to having come even with the west side of the
depository and every point in between, with no distinctly larger number
of people than otherwise converging on a particular point.

Just like the film, the witnesses are virtually *useless* in
establishing anything even remotely close to the exact timing of the
first shot, because there is no single claim agreed upon by any
*majority* other than that the first shot occurred before the second
shot, and that the limo was on Elm street when the first shot was fired.

claviger

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 1:37:47 PM8/26/12

to

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

Number of Shots
3 shots 76.7%
1 or 2 10.5
4 + 8.7
2 or 3 4.1

Definitive Tabulation Direction
53.8% Depository
33.7 Knoll
7.7 Other
4.8 Two Directions

"SS Agents: What they heard, what they saw."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/38a6a1c1a7929246/944e61eae1cbe52d?lnk=gst&q=what+ss+agents+heard#944e61eae1cbe52d

Of the 16 agents 10 did not recognize the first loud pop as a
gunshot:
8 thought it was a firecracker.
1 thought it was a motorcycle backfire.
1 thought it was a tire blowout.

How many shots they heard:
2 shots / 3 agents
3 shots / 12 agents
Didn't say / 1 agent

Last two shots closer together : 11 agents
Equal spacing : 3 agents
First two shots closer together : 1 agent
Didn't say : 1 agent

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 27, 2012, 4:25:19 PM8/27/12

to

On 8/26/2012 1:37 PM, claviger wrote:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> Number of Shots
> 3 shots 76.7%
> 1 or 2 10.5
> 4 + 8.7
> 2 or 3 4.1
>
> Definitive Tabulation Direction
> 53.8% Depository
> 33.7 Knoll
> 7.7 Other
> 4.8 Two Directions
>

Biased WC defender compilation.

claviger

unread,

Aug 27, 2012, 4:35:04 PM8/27/12

to

On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> Number of Shots
> 3 shots 76.7%
> 1 or 2 10.5
> 4 + 8.7
> 2 or 3 4.1
>
> Definitive Tabulation Direction
> 53.8% Depository
> 33.7 Knoll
> 7.7 Other
> 4.8 Two Directions
>

> "SS Agents: What they heard, what they saw."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> Of the 16 agents 10 did not recognize the first loud pop as a
> gunshot:
> 8 thought it was a firecracker.
> 1 thought it was a motorcycle backfire.
> 1 thought it was a tire blowout.
>
> How many shots they heard:
> 2 shots / 3 agents
> 3 shots / 12 agents
> Didn't say / 1 agent
>
> Last two shots closer together : 11 agents
> Equal spacing : 3 agents
> First two shots closer together : 1 agent
> Didn't say : 1 agent

In this subset of SSA eyewitnesses we have the same pattern, the
perception of last two shots closer together. If the first shot took
place at or before Z134 they would be correct. If it happened at Z135
then 3 agents are correct. If it took place after Z135 then 1 agent is
correct.

Perhaps the human mind of many witnesses dismissed the first loud sound as
having a harmless source, such as a firecracker or exhaust backfire,
therefore no emotional reaction to it. With the second shot there is a
whole different perception and the next sound is a frightening experience
that is visually shocking. All this happened in approximately 10 seconds.
The most curious perception is by those witnesses who thought the shots
were on top of each other. With the Zapruder film as a measurement tool
we can find no reason for this perception other than an echo or
combination of ballistic sounds from one shot.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 27, 2012, 9:59:27 PM8/27/12

to

Almost everyone in Dealey Plaza was caught by surprise. Only a couple of
people expected to head gunshots.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 28, 2012, 5:03:38 PM8/28/12

to

In article <5035...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Of course I didn't. I'm *STILL* speaking of the two fragments found in the
limo.

Can you support your claim, Tony?

Can you QUOTE any change of the topic?

>> Did you suddenly forget the topic?
>>
>
>No, you did.

Feel free to point out why you think that the topic has changed... QUOTE
the relevant section.

>> Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion,
>> EVEN AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?
>>
>
>I wanted to make sure YOU knew which two fragments were being discussed.

Sorry Tony, you just got through claiming that I've changed the topic.

Now you imply that you were just checking to make sure.

So tell everyone something that you can SUPPORT with quotes, Tony...

>> Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which
>> makes your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two
>> fragments are being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD
>> THIS POST.
>>
>
>Your posts have been confusing because you are not sure which two
>fragments we have been discussing.

No Tony... no-one is confused. You're *pretending* to be confused, but the
*same* two fragments found in the limo are *STILL* the ones being talked
about.

Now, tell us ... no, QUOTE us, what statement of mine led you to believe
that the topic had been changed...

But you won't.

>> But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing
>> those same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been
>> discussing all along.
>>
>>
>> Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there
>> *WAS* residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're
>> speaking about].
>>
>
>
>I did not limit it to only those two.

Then you should have said so, right?

Why did you imply that there was *NO* residue on those two, and when
contradicted by the testimony I quoted, then go on to claim that you don't
know what two fragments I'm speaking of?

>And again the salient question is

The one you were provably wrong on.

Indeed, that's why I quoted the testimony that contradicted what you
claimed.

>WHEN they ere contamination, how much, when they were cleaned and how
>well. You need to remember that the FBI search team did not find the two
>large fragments in the front seat area. They were recovered by the Secret
>Service. We simply don't know how carefully they were handled and
>processed by the Secret Service.

None of this matters if you don't know which fragments we are speaking
about, and cannot admit that the evidence shows that they *DID* have
residue on them.

Contrary to your statement... where you agreed with the poster, and

asserted that "There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the