20 Questions for the Nutists
Robert Harris
1. Dr. Luis Alvarez, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th
century, declared that Abraham Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at
Zframe, 285. Was he wrong?
2. Roy Kellerman said
(quote)
I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's
get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson,
this is Kellerman,"𡑕his is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit;
get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked
just now, a flurry of shells come into the car.
(unquote)
Was he wrong?
3. Bill Greer said, "The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one
behind the other.."
Was he wrong?
4. Nellie Connally reported the final two shots *after* she turned to look
back at JFK, which we know she did after Z-250, after her husband began to
shout, after the last time she looked to the rear, which we know was at
Z280.
Was she wrong?
5. Jackie Kennedy said she heard the "terrible noises" *after* she first
heard John Connally shouting. Was she wrong too?
6. SA Warren Taylor said, "In the instant that my left foot touched the
ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots."
But in the Altgens photo, taken at Z-255 we can clearly see that Taylor
has not yet stepped out of the car.
Was he wrong too?
7. SA George Hickey said, "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I
heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me
completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid
succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between
them."
Was he wrong?
8. Police officer Clyde Haygood said, "The last two were closer than the
first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the
other two were real close"
Was he wrong?
9. Reporter Mary Woodward said, "I heard a very loud noise. And I wasn't
sure what it was at that point, and I turned to my friends and asked 'what
was that? Is some jerk shooting off firecrackers?' And then I heard the
second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the
president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on
top of the second one."
Was she wrong?
10. Linda Willis - "Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time,
and then there were two real fast bullets together.."
Was she wrong?
11. Congressman Ralph Yarborough "..by my estimate𡑕o me there seemed to
be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time
between the second and third shots."
He was wrong too??
12. Edward Shields - "I said, 'the President has been shot'; we walked
back to the lot and where Tracey was. I heard one shot and then a pause
and then this repetition𡑕wo shots right behind the other.."
Was he wrong?
13. SA Forest Sorrels said "there was to me about twice as much time
between the first and second shots as there was between the second and
third shots. "
Was he wrong?
14. Billy Lovelady, "After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front
of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot
then the next two was right close together."
Was he wrong too?
15. Ladybird Johnson said, "..suddenly there was a sharp loud report卟
shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a
building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."
Was she wrong?
16. Reporter Robert Jackson, "I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4
seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and
third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together.."
Was he wrong?
17. Lee Bowers said, "I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then
two very close together."
He got it wrong too?
18. Mary Ann Mitchell - "there were three限負he second and third being
closer together than the first and second..."
Did she get it wrong?
19. Sheriff's deputy Allen Sweat, "the President's caravan had just passed
and about a minute or two, I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later
another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot."
Why did Sweat get it wrong?
20. Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell - "there was a longer pause between the
first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots.
They were in rather rapid succession."
The mayor blew it to, eh?
The Warren commission concluded that "most" witnesses agreed that the
final shots were closely bunched and much closer together than the first
two they heard.
Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles at one point, speculated that the number
of people recalling that shooting pattern may have been as high as 5:1
over all others.
Robert Harris
David VP
anyone should know, there is still way, way more evidence (than not) to
suggest that shots came from just a single, solitary location (from
behind the President).
And, of course, ALL of the actual PHYSICAL EVIDENCE points to only
Oswald. Obviously, witness testimony varies widely, and almost always
will (esp. when you've got hundreds of different folks trying to
describe a single "8 seconds in history").
But when you've got 95%+ (approx.) of the earwitnesses hearing shots
from ONE SINGLE DIRECTION (either front or rear), and when we KNOW that
some shots most certainly came FROM THE REAR, it tells a person with
some common sense that those measly 5 individual witnesses who make up
the slim "Two Directions" slice of this pie are more-than-likely just
simply mistaken......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Even if CTers want to think Mr. McAdams has deliberately skewed his
charts and stats in a Pro-LN manner.....why not, just for the sake of
argument in favor of such CT reasoning, TRIPLE that "2-Directions"
statistic. That should at least get a CTer "close" to "their" true
figure I would think (or pert-near). Tripling the miniscule 4.8% "2
direction" witness tally STILL only gets you to a very-low 14.4% of all
earwitnesses hearing shots from MORE THAN JUST A SINGLE DIRECTION IN
DEALEY PLAZA (out of 104 witnesses factored in to the J. McAdams
"Definitive" tabulation). Which would still indicate a very-high total
of 85.6% of the witnesses favoring a "shots-from-just-one-direction"
assassination.
--------------
Now, let me play the "LN Version" of Bob's little game........
James Romack (to WC):
Mr. BELIN. How many did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They
rang out pretty fast.
(Was Romack wrong?)
-------------------
Officer Marrion L. Baker (to WC):
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle,
I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.
(Was Baker wrong here too?)
-------------------
Tom Dillard (to WC):
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
(Dillard? Wrong?)
-------------------
Mal Couch (to WC):
Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second
shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have
been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.
(Is Couch an armchair kook too?)
-------------------
Nellie Connally (to WC):
Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.
(Is Nellie nuts here?)
-------------------
Emmett Hudson (to WC):
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
(Is Hudson ready for the rubber cell?)
-------------------
Harold Norman (Via his re-creations of what he heard):
Mr. NORMAN - Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom.
Norman always "re-created" his "Booms-Clicks-Clicks" in a
PERFECTLY-EVEN distribution of the gunshots.
(Is Harold just crackin' wise here?)
------------------
QUESTION -- "What was your impression then as to the source of the
{first} shot?"
GOV. CONNALLY -- "From back over my right shoulder which, again, was
where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as
coming, back over my right shoulder."
QUESTION -- "At an elevation?"
GOV. CONNALLY -- "At an elevation. I would have guessed at an
elevation."
QUESTION -- "Did you have an impression as to the source of the third
shot?"
GOV. CONNALLY -- "The same. I would say the same."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/connally.ram
(Are Nellie and her spouse full of shit here when they say, without
reservation, that ALL SHOTS CAME FROM BEHIND US?)
-----------------------
Additional Questions........
Is Howard Brennan wrong too (re. Oswald)? Naturally, CTers think so.
Are ALL of the Tippit witnesses wrong with respect to pinning that
murder on LHO?
Are ALL THREE autopsy doctors full of feces when they ALL signed off on
the most friggin' important report of their lives -- a report which
states, without ambiguity, that JFK was shot just twice, and only from
"behind and somewhat above" him?
Are ALL THREE autopsy doctors sacks of lying excrement when they ALL
have repeated the so-called "lies" of the autopsy report for decades
since 1963?
Does every member of the WC and the HSCA and the Ramsey Panel belong in
the "Liar" file drawer too, when each panel came to unambiguous
"Oswald's Guilty" or "The Pictures Are Real" declarations per they
appointed investigative duties?
Is ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases
REALLY all "faked", "planted", and/or "man-handled by cover-up
scumbags"...in order to pin both murders on some loser named Lee Harvey
Oswald?
Is this a "reasonable conclusion" to reach? Is it? If it's NOT
reasonable to say "It Was All Faked"...then the big question for CTers,
yet again, is and always will be I guess.....
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS THAT WEREN'T FIRED BY LEE HARVEY OSWALD OR
THROUGH LEE OSWALD'S RIFLE?
Robert Harris
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>Add another one:
>
>21. John Connally, who as a hunter immediately recognized a rifle shot when
>he heard one, said privately he never believed the conclusion of the WCR and
>he insisted until the day he died he did NOT get hit with the same shot that
>hit Kennedy.
> John Connally may have been something of a money scoundrel and too
>close to LBJ (opposite Sen. Ralph Yarborough in that feud that brought JFK
>to Texas), but he was a patriot and thereby refused to talk about his key
>dispute with LBJ and his WC in public.
>
> Was John Connally wrong?
Yes, actually he was.
JBC originally claimed that he looked over his *left* shoulder and
actually saw JFK.
Of course, we know that neither claim was correct, and that
undoubtedly, Nellie, who was in the hospital room with him at the
time, straightened him out on some of that.
In fact, with only one or two rather important exceptions, almost
everything JBC claimed after that point, was an echo of Nellie's
recollections.
JBC was a great guy, IMO, but I would never base my conclusions on the
recollections of a guy who passed out within seconds after the attack
began.
Robert Harris
>
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:reharris1-C0B57...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Robert:
>
>Over 80% of earwitnesses contemporaneously reported HEARING only three
>shots-in surveys done by researchers as diverse in opinion and final
>conclusion as Thompson-to-Posner.
>
>Are they wrong?
No, that was exactly what most of them heard.
Chuck, there is a serious problem here that no-one seems to want to
talk about. And that is the discrepancy between what we see in the
film and what the witnesses recalled.
Like Posner and Moore, I have no doubt that an early shot was fired
circa Z150, and that a second shot was fired at 223, which passed
through both victims.
But of the two, witnesses throughout DP only recalled one of those
early shots. Among the many law enforcement professionals who
described the shots, NOT ONE described the first shots being closer
than the final ones.
Even more significantly, these people did not exhibit reactions
following those early shots that were even remotely similar to their
reactions following 285 and 312.
If the first two shots were NOT fired from a low powered, silenced
weapon, then please provide a better explanation.
>
>Simple is better, and in this case, correct.
>
>Your co-conspirator conspiracists overly complicate things by trying to
>measure JFK's sweaty shirt movements from grainy photos to trying to
>read extra shots into the equation based on how an old man jerked his
>home movie camera.
Unless you want me to hold you accountable for everything Posner said,
you have no right to blame me for what people whom I totally disagree
with, say.
In fact, I AGREE with you guys on far more issues in this case than I
disagree.
But why do we have to label ourselves? Why can't we all just be
concerned Americans who want to know what happened that day?
>
>There is no balance in trying to understand what happened.
I don't know what you mean by "balance".
I am seeking answers, and by some fluke I guess, I managed to find a
few.
But let me ask you a question, Chuck. Why do you refuse to consider
any evidence that suggests Oswald had accomplices?
If he was an Al Quaida terrorist, would you still refuse to consider
that he might have worked with others?
Robert Harris
>Every
>inconsistancy is breathlessly reported as evidence of the MEGAPLOT.
>Understand that not everything can be known about a case so complex.
>
>The JFK case has moved to near-ancient history. We might as well be
>debating whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor or whether the Hearst
>newspaper chain knew that the battleship Maine was sunk by a faulty
>boiler and not a submerged Spanish mine.
>
>Your chance to 'prove' conspiracy has passed you by. There was no
>conspiracy. Lee Oswald did kill JFK and Tippit-no help, period.
>
>Ultimately, this is a case about a man in a building shooting at a man
>in a car.
>
>You have three spent shell casings on the sixth floor of the TSBD that
>ballistically match LHO's rifle, and LHO fleeing and killing a cop and
>telling numerous lies to police when arrested.
>
>Keep it simple. This was a terrible murder committed by one man bent on
>making his destructive mark on the world.
>
>He accomplished his twisted goal, and it's time we put the blame for
>all of this squarely where it belongs-on Lee Harvey Oswald's shoulders.
Robert Harris
>The LN side
What is the "LN side", David?
Why not come over to the "side" of Americans who simply want to learn
what happened that day?
David, we agree on far more than we disagree - including the SBT, the
guilt of Oswald, and the direction of the shot that blew up the
President's head.
What are the top three reasons that people on your "side" refuse to
simply work with others to arrive at an honest conclusion???
>can play your little game too, Bob (even more so).
Yes, with emphasis on the "more so" I am sure:-)
>As
>anyone should know, there is still way, way more evidence (than not) to
>suggest that shots came from just a single, solitary location (from
>behind the President).
I have repeatedly challenged this newsgroup to produce even ONE piece
of evidence that isolates Oswald as the only sniper.
I am eager to hear this, David:-)
>
>And, of course, ALL of the actual PHYSICAL EVIDENCE points to only
>Oswald.
Ok, David. I am sitting down.
Lay it on me!
> Obviously, witness testimony varies widely, and almost always
>will (esp. when you've got hundreds of different folks trying to
>describe a single "8 seconds in history").
That's nice David.
Umm.. pardon me for being impatient, but when are you going to reveal
this new evidence????
>
>But when you've got 95%+ (approx.) of the earwitnesses hearing shots
>from ONE SINGLE DIRECTION (either front or rear), and when we KNOW that
>some shots most certainly came FROM THE REAR, it tells a person with
>some common sense that those measly 5 individual witnesses who make up
>the slim "Two Directions" slice of this pie are more-than-likely just
>simply mistaken......
David, if memory serves, the split was about 60-40 in favor of the
TSBD/Daltex area, over the west end.
But when are you going to show us this evidence that isolates Oswald
as the only sniper??
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
Ok, I was wrong about the 60 percent.
Mcadams only said that 53 percent of the shots came from the Daltex or
TSBD.
But nothing there isolates Oswald.
When are you going to reveal this new evidence?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
David, there are no totals in that tabulation, but it looks to me as
though about half or maybe less, of the witnesses said they heard
shots from the Daltex/TSBD.
Here is a clue, David.
In any other crime, if roughly half the witnesses say they heard shots
from one area and half say another area, the police usually presume
that shots came from *BOTH* areas.
Surely, this is not the evidence y ou were referring to that proves
there was only one assassin??!!
>
>Even if CTers want to think Mr. McAdams has deliberately skewed his
>charts and stats in a Pro-LN manner.....why not, just for the sake of
>argument in favor of such CT reasoning, TRIPLE that "2-Directions"
>statistic. That should at least get a CTer "close" to "their" true
>figure I would think (or pert-near). Tripling the miniscule 4.8% "2
>direction" witness tally STILL only gets you to a very-low 14.4% of all
>earwitnesses hearing shots from MORE THAN JUST A SINGLE DIRECTION IN
>DEALEY PLAZA (out of 104 witnesses factored in to the J. McAdams
>"Definitive" tabulation). Which would still indicate a very-high total
>of 85.6% of the witnesses favoring a "shots-from-just-one-direction"
>assassination.
David, that is a silly argument and an outrageous fallacy that was
promoted by Gerald Posner.
If all the shots had come from the Depository or Daltex, then the
witnesses, or most of them, would have said that's where they all came
from.
The fact that they were almost evenly split, provides solid evidence
that they did indeed, come from two general areas.
The reason most people only referred to one direction, had a lot to do
with where they were standing at the time, and the way the question
was presented to them. This is what the HSCA concluded,
"The interviews of witnesses to the assassination may have reflected a
tendency to make a 'forced choice' between the two locations caused by
the actions of police and other spectators in Dealey Plaza indicating
the knoll and the depository were the two shooter locations, an
attitude that was substantiated by press reports of shooter locations
that, in some instances, preceded interviews with witnesses. "
David, every piece of evidence that you just cited, supports in
spades, the fact that shots came from two different directions.
The other problem, which is equally serious and easily proven, is the
fact that the final shots were much too close together for all of them
to have been fired from the alleged murder weapon. You really do need
to read this article:
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Gerry Simone
can be dismissed entirely when debris clearly blew rearward.
You must remember that the vast majority of rear-shot witnesses were
located at the top of Elm St or away from the Grassy Knoll.
Gerry Simone
the SBT.
[SIDEBAR BEGINS]
I'm not absolutely convinced that Z224 is the moment of that alleged
shot just because of what looks like a 'lapel flip' at that instant.
Professor Wrone explains that, inter alia, as a gust of wind (Bob, did
you show that the direction of the wind is evident from the way the
coats of bystanders were blowing, and wasn't that in the opposite
direction of the lapel flip?).
I'm convinced that Kennedy was ALREADY reacting to a shot prior to
Z224.
I still believe that Connally could have been hit separately.
CE 399 to me is evidence of evidence tampering. I'm not saying that
Frazier conspired to hide evidence of other shots, but there may be
other explanations for the existence of the wounds which may or may not
involve another assassin (i.e., head fragment shot exiting throat,
unaccounted for front to rear shot thru neck, one or two shots thru
JBC, the fragments found in the car may have been from bullets striking
Connally and that any JFK head shot fragments exited the vehicle,
etc.).
[SIDEBAR ENDS]
As you have demonstrated with your post of quotes by 'professional
witnesses', there is a myriad of CONSISTENT evidence that is contrary
with the LNAT that the official version cannot adequately address (even
Arlen Spectre said this case would be debated for many years to come).
If the response to your post is to dismiss the evidence you raise or to
accuse "CTers of being co-conspirators", then such people lack the
objectivity or the concern to even consider such contradictory
evidence.
Gerry Simone
Gerry Simone
On the one hand, you say that "simple is better, and in this case,
correct".
Then on the other hand, you say that "not everything can be known about
a case so complex".
So how can you be sure that you're view is correct if you dismiss this
as a simple case?
Robert Harris
Gerry,
I hope you don't take offense that I am not replying in detail to your
posts.
But taking on all these nutists is about all this tired old brain can
handle at one time.
Anyway, you seem to already realize that JFK was the victim of a
conspiracy, even if you might do so for the wrong reasons:-)
I will do battle with you sometime, on the SBT though, if you really
want to - I promise.
Robert Harris
On 2 Apr 2006 15:05:08 -0400, "Gerry Simone"
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> Twenty questions for the nutists.
How did I know Oswald wouldn`t be mentioned in any of the questions?
> 1. Dr. Luis Alvarez, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th
> century, declared that Abraham Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at
> Zframe, 285. Was he wrong?
>
> 2. Roy Kellerman said
> (quote)
>
> I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's
> get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson,
> this is Kellerman,"‹this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit;
> 11. Congressman Ralph Yarborough "..by my estimate‹to me there seemed to
> be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time
> between the second and third shots."
>
> He was wrong too??
>
> 12. Edward Shields - "I said, 'the President has been shot'; we walked
> back to the lot and where Tracey was. I heard one shot and then a pause
> and then this repetition‹two shots right behind the other.."
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 13. SA Forest Sorrels said "there was to me about twice as much time
> between the first and second shots as there was between the second and
> third shots. "
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 14. Billy Lovelady, "After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front
> of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot
> then the next two was right close together."
>
> Was he wrong too?
>
> 15. Ladybird Johnson said, "..suddenly there was a sharp loud report‹a
> shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a
> building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."
>
> Was she wrong?
>
> 16. Reporter Robert Jackson, "I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4
> seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and
> third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together.."
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 17. Lee Bowers said, "I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then
> two very close together."
>
> He got it wrong too?
>
> 18. Mary Ann Mitchell - "there were threethe second and third being
pjsp...@aol.com
Here's the section of my presentation that backs up Robert's argument.
While most conspiracy theorists ignore the inconvenient fact that most
witnesses heard only three shots, I decided to analyze the earwitnesses
from a fresh perspective and see if there was anything new to be learned.
As with my study of the autopsy photos, I found there was indeed. When one
breaks down the testimony of the earwitnesses of the assassination into a
few simple categories, and then makes maps of Dealey Plaza with marks
indicating how people in each location testified, one finds some very
interesting results. A summary of these results:
Although roughly 177 out of 195 witnesses heard three shots or less, with
another 6 saying they heard three or four, and only 12 publicly stated
they heard four shots or more, 6 out of the 13 pedestrian witnesses at the
corner of Houston and Elm (the red rectangle) said they heard four shots.
When compared to Houston and Main, just a block away (the blue square),
where over 40 witnesses said they heard three shots or less, and zero said
four, this has to be taken as a strong indication that a silenced weapon
was fired in this vicinity. Since 31 of the 32 witnesses inside or
directly in front of the Texas School Book Depository, on the west side of
Houston, reported three shots, the likelihood is that the source of the
fourth shot was on the east side of Houston, either from the Dal-Tex
Building or the County Records Building. In accordance with this is that
the one witness in front of the Depository to hear more than three shots,
James Worrell, was the one closest to the corner. That the Dal-Tex
Building, where mobster Jim Braden was arrested after the assassination,
is the likely source for this presumed fourth shot, is especially
intriguing. Amazingly, not one witness inside the Dal-Tex Building, and
only a handful outside, were ever interviewed. As to why the people on
this corner were able to hear this silenced shot so much better than
others, I think there could be two factors: one, they were the closest to
the Dal-Tex,; and two, they were directly to the left of the path of the
bullets fired from the sniper's nest, which meant they only heard the
muzzle blast of those sounds, and not the shock wave as the bullet passed
overhead. This would make the difference in volume of the four shots less
extreme than anywhere else in the Plaza.
Additionally, although many theorists believe an extra shot came from the
grassy knoll (the yellow hexagon), when one looks at the earwitness
testimony, one finds that of the 12 witnesses nearest the stockade fence,
7 of the witnesses heard only three shots-the other5 heard only two!
That one of the three shots heard by most was significantly softer than
the others is refuted by the fact that virtually all of the witnesses on
the railroad bridge further west of the knoll heard three or more shots,
and all those on the south side of the plaza reported three shots. That
the sounds of the motorcade blocked out the sound of one of the shots is
refuted by both the simulations conducted by the HSCA and the fact that
those standing at Houston and Main, directly adjacent to the middle of the
motorcade and a block away from the shots, almost unanimously heard three
shots. To wit, the firing of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is reputed to be
much louder than even a siren, as decibels are recorded on a similar scale
as earthquakes, whereby a ten decibel increase represents a ten-fold
increase in power, and a Mannlicher-Carcano was tested at 137 decibels,
compared to a loud siren's 120. Adding to this mystery is that the only
witnesses in the motorcade to say they heard two shots were in the
vicinity of the grassy knoll when the fatal shot arrived. It seems,
therefore, that it was the location of these witnesses that determined how
they heard these shots, and that they were somehow prevented from hearing
one of the shots.
I found a possible explanation for this after studying a map plotting out
the spacing of the shots. This map called into question Gerald Posner's
theory that there was a shot, a 3 ½ second wait, a second shot, and then
a 5 second wait before a third shot. Instead,the vast majority of
earwitnesses believed there to have been a shot, followed 4 or more
seconds later by two shots coming in on top of each other. Convincingly,
45 of the 65 witnesses who mentioned the spacing of the shots believed the
second two shots were bunched together. 13 believed they were evenly
spaced. Only 7 of 65 believed the first two shots were closer together, a
la Posner. Consequently, even if one were to toss the witnesses who said
the shots were evenly-spaced into the Posner pile, his theory is still at
odds with the majority of witnesses.
One might venture that those who believed they heard two shots almost on
top of each other really heard echoes on the third shot, and simply missed
the first shot altogether, but, if this were the case, they should have
heard echoes on the second shot as well, and concluded there were 4 shots.
Anyhow, this would be in contradiction with the expert testimony given to
the HSCA, which concluded that it was fairly easy to discern echoes from
shots in Dealey Plaza. Moreover, that 15 of the 17 earwitnesses back at
Houston and Main heard the second two shots bunched together is indicative
that this is how the shots actually occurred (excluding, of course, shots
fired by silenced weapons), as Houston and Main was nearly equidistant
from the grassy knoll, the Dal-Tex, and the Texas School Book Depository,
and there would be no timing distortions resultant from the witnesses'
proximity to those locations.
After spending a day at the library reading books on hearing, I began to
understand the scientific principles underlying the possibility of two
shots closely spaced together in time but coming from different
directions, "blurring" into one shot in the minds of those nearby. As it
turns out, the human ear is a far from accurate recording device and has a
tendency to "flinch" in self-defense when exposed to sudden loud noise.
This "flinching" not only hides other lesser noises beneath the loud noise
but it blocks out lesser sounds for up to a fifth of a second (3-4 frames
of the Zapruder film) afterwards and can prevent sounds that preceded the
loud noise by up to 20 ms (less than one frame) from even being processed
by the brain. This phenomenon is written about extensively in books on
hearing, and the specialized field of Psychoacoustics, and is known as
masking, with simultaneous masking occurring when one sound buries another
when the sounds overlap and temporal masking occurring when a louder sound
blocks out a sound that occurs before or after it. Significantly, the
length of the masking after the end of the noise is proportionate to the
length of the original noise, and the degree to which the two sounds share
tones. Consequently, a gunshot would be more likely to block out another
gunshot than a woman's scream. Furthermore, when one considers that the
human brain will automatically fill in short silent spaces between similar
tones so that the tones sound like one long sound rather than two shorter
bursts, then it becomes clear that those hearing two shots close together
would most likely interpret them as one shot. (Indeed, this may explain
why the shots "lingered" in the air for some back at Houston and Elm.)
On yet another map, I plotted the origin of the shots as determined by 120
witnesses. I separated the impressions of the earwitnesses into six
categories: 33 witnesses indicate the source of the shots was in the
TSBD; 21 indicate the source of the shots was either in the TSBD, or
possibly one of the other buildings at Houston and Elm; 44 indicate the
source was in the area west of the TSBD, including the grassy knoll; 6
indicate the source was in an area west of the TSBD or the TSBD; 10
indicate the shots came from both behind the limousine towards Houston and
Elm and in front of the limousine towards the grassy knoll and the
railroad bridge; and 6 indicate neither the area west of the TSBD nor the
TSBD itself. I removed some from the list when they either changed their
story or gave conflicting stories at the time.
There were quite a few surprises. Perhaps the main surprise was that,
while much has been made of the fact that so few heard shots from more
than one location, there were three men in the Secret Service car behind
the President (and virtually equidistant between the TSBD and the knoll
area) who heard shots from both behind and in front. This is significant
and seems to have been overlooked by most researchers. That there were two
additional earwitnesses who heard shots from both the west and the east
standing in the crowd nearby, and that these five earwitnesses are almost
in a line with one another (the pink belt) only adds to their credibility
(although the two additional witnesses' credibility on their own is not
high). It is especially remarkable since each of these witnesses, without
variance, heard the first shot fired from behind the limousine, near the
TSBD, and heard the last shot fired from somewhere to the west. Another
surprise was that by a decisive score of 16 to 9 more witnesses standing
in front of and inside the TSBD (the green triangle) thought shots came
from an area west of the TSBD than from the TSBD. This goes against the
argument that those in Dealey Plaza who thought shots came from the knoll
simply heard "echoes," as echoes would have been heard with a slight delay
and at a substantially lower volume than the shots directly overhead. That
virtually every one of these witnesses heard three shots as opposed to
four or six is an additional argument against their merely hearing echoes.
It seems, therefore, that some significant noise must have come from the
area west of the TSBD. But is there any established evidence supporting
such conjecture?
When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard
in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to
distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report,
Harvard Psychophysics Professor David Green, makes a particular point of
stating that although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was
unable to hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he
was nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast
with a similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the
trained observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office
Annex on the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot
fired from the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo,
but that someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the
original source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind
himself. Okay, so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on
the knoll were incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD?
Well, the report goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone
standing in front of the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high
overhead, and that some of the witnesses may have localized on a
subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a second later from the area of the
overpass "especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the
TSBD."
This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green doesn't really believe his
offered explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the
TSBD was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open
sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the room.
Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to shoot
accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes stacked in
front of the window for support, this statement argues against a lone
gunman's ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper's nest without
his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually
occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument
for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper
shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily
identifiable. Indeed, in his appearance before the committee, Green made
this point abundantly clear.
He said "there are certain locations that are best for observing certain
shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the
street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came
from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort
of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular
surface of the building and it was quite evident." Unstated but implied in
Green's report is his knowledge that 13 of the 18 witnesses in this
"general region" in front of the depository, including those on its front
steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 12
pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green's
attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was
fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical
possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less
noise-which was believed to have been beyond the "lone nut" Oswald's
capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last
sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative,
as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex
or County Records buildings would not necessarily be heard as coming from
those locations, even if the weapon was not equipped with a silencer. This
is significant.
But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no
rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and
the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to
distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with
over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots
from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the
rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one
sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80
times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at
the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll,
one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26
times, claiming that the un-silenced shots fired were readily identifiable
as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a shot coming from
that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including Abraham Zapruder,
believed the shots came from somewhere further back. (Why they failed to
perform tests using silenced weapons is never explained.) When one looks
only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood on the
street in front of the Depository, in addition, it reveals they correctly
identified the source 18 of 20 times.
These actual results reveal that the report's musings about people being
confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was
so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option
of defending the Warren Commission's conclusions. Instead, the results
reveal it's fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey
Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the lone nut theorists maintain
that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine who
heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the observers
were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6 witnesses on
the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were wrong, in a
location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times. These results
indicate that it is the lone nut theorists who are wrong, yet again.
That those convinced of a conspiracy have failed to embrace this report as
the convincing argument for a conspiracy that it is can only be explained
by their blind reluctance to embrace any evidence or testimony that calls
into doubt that the headshot came from the stockade fence.
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
firestick
Robert Harris wrote:
> Twenty questions for the nutists.
>
> 1. Dr. Luis Alvarez, one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th
> century, declared that Abraham Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at
> Zframe, 285. Was he wrong?
>
> 2. Roy Kellerman said
> (quote)
>
> I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's
> get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson,
> be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time
> between the second and third shots."
>
> He was wrong too??
>
> 12. Edward Shields - "I said, 'the President has been shot'; we walked
> back to the lot and where Tracey was. I heard one shot and then a pause
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 13. SA Forest Sorrels said "there was to me about twice as much time
> between the first and second shots as there was between the second and
> third shots. "
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 14. Billy Lovelady, "After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front
> of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot
> then the next two was right close together."
>
> Was he wrong too?
>
> shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a
> building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."
>
> Was she wrong?
>
> 16. Reporter Robert Jackson, "I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4
> seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and
> third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together.."
>
> Was he wrong?
>
> 17. Lee Bowers said, "I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then
> two very close together."
>
> He got it wrong too?
>
> closer together than the first and second..."
>
> Did she get it wrong?
>
> 19. Sheriff's deputy Allen Sweat, "the President's caravan had just passed
> and about a minute or two, I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later
> another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot."
>
> Why did Sweat get it wrong?
>
> 20. Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell - "there was a longer pause between the
> first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots.
> They were in rather rapid succession."
>
> The mayor blew it to, eh?
>
> The Warren commission concluded that "most" witnesses agreed that the
> final shots were closely bunched and much closer together than the first
> two they heard.
>
> Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles at one point, speculated that the number
> of people recalling that shooting pattern may have been as high as 5:1
> over all others.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
I'm not a LN or a CT, Mr. Harris. I'm more in the "confused" group.
I'd like to comment on #1. Zapruder had Marilyn Sitzman hanging onto
him for support. The Zapruder film is actually being filmed by 2 people
because each time Marilyn "flinched" or coughed or sneezed...etc... it
would certainly affect Zapruder's steadiness. The Z film is not the
steadiest film I've ever seen, in fact, it's far from it.
All the research I've seen on the Z-film "jumps" fails to take in
consideration that what one is seeing when viewing the Z-film is the
combined effort of 2 people, not just Zapruder.
There's just too much shakiness in the film to accurately pinpoint
gunshots IMHO
Firestick
mike macken
obcession with posts about it.
it over 40 years ago guys....is it interesting sure ......but talking
about it EVERY DAY ? Move on.
the only think i will say is that after 40 years if a person has taken
a stance you're not gonna change their mind about what happened.
no one will ever ever convince me Oswald acted alone.
Cliff
> On 2 Apr 2006 09:39:08 -0400, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert:
> >
> >Over 80% of earwitnesses contemporaneously reported HEARING only three
> >shots-in surveys done by researchers as diverse in opinion and final
> >conclusion as Thompson-to-Posner.
> >
> >Are they wrong?
Chuck, more than a dozen eye-witnesses described JFK's back
wound in the vicinity of T3.
Were they all liars? Did they conspire together to lie?
Or were they all delusional, a mass hallucination, perhaps?
>
> No, that was exactly what most of them heard.
>
> Chuck, there is a serious problem here that no-one seems to want to
> talk about. And that is the discrepancy between what we see in the
> film and what the witnesses recalled.
>
> Like Posner and Moore, I have no doubt that an early shot was fired
> circa Z150, and that a second shot was fired at 223, which passed
> through both victims.
Robert, in addition to the above mass hallucination of a dozen
eye-witnesses, throw on the pile of SBT absurdity a scenario that
involves 5 inches of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above
the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck -- and entirely below
the bottom of the jacket collar at the base of his neck.
Robert, should I start pestering you in the newgroups for an
explanation as to how this could possibly occur?
>
> But of the two, witnesses throughout DP only recalled one of those
> early shots. Among the many law enforcement professionals who
> described the shots, NOT ONE described the first shots being closer
> than the final ones.
>
> Even more significantly, these people did not exhibit reactions
> following those early shots that were even remotely similar to their
> reactions following 285 and 312.
>
> If the first two shots were NOT fired from a low powered, silenced
> weapon, then please provide a better explanation.
>
>
>
> >
> >Simple is better, and in this case, correct.
Simple is better.
I think the reason why the CT case is a bit stuck is because so
much time and energy is spent on foot-note worthy topics such
as the location of the head wound, the police dictabelt, the NAA
and the Garrison investigation.
"We must...not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence,"
Vince Salandria said to HSCA field investigator Gaeton Fonzi.
Fonzi cites the physical evidence of the holes in the clothes
as conclusive proof of more than 3 shots.
And with that fact we attack the cover-up...Everything else,
in words of Jim Marrs, is window-dressing.
> >
> >Your co-conspirator conspiracists overly complicate things by trying to
> >measure JFK's sweaty shirt movements from grainy photos
Observing a dry jacket in a very good film is the simplest thing
of all, Chuck.
Thanks for calling me out, btw. :->
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
You con't have any problem seeing JFK's shirt collar in this
film, right?
It's normal for a guy's shirt collar to show over the top of his
jacket collar -- so obviously JFK's jacket collar was in a normal
position at the base of his neck.
Chuck, how could 5 inches of clothing fabric bunch up
entirely above C7/T1 at the base of his neck but entirely
below the jacket collar at the base of his neck?
Please explain.
[snip]
> >
> >Keep it simple.
But you are NOT keeping it simple, Chuck.
The SBT needs a dozen people suffering from the same delusion,
and 5 inches of clothing fabric crammed into an inch and a half of
vertical space.
How much more complicated can you get?
Cliff Varnell
tomnln
That would be a GREAT way to avoid discussing Felonies by Officials.
Some of us Still believe in Truth/Justice.
"mike macken" <til...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nt1132lo6lp0clr0t...@4ax.com...
Robert Harris
Cliff,
Look at the reactions by Jackie and Kellerman, following the shot at
312. - PLEASE.
Now, look at the reactions by those same people, following 223 -
keeping in mind that the earlier shot would have been LOUDER if they
both came from the same rifle and building.
The reactions following 312, were predictable, because the shock wave
and muzzle blast were HUGE. They were earshattering.
But LOOK at Jackie and the others following 223.
Or if you don't place a shot at 223, then look at them ANY time prior
to Z285.
Why were the reactions nonexistent then??????
Look at all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after TWO high
powered rifle shots were supposed to have been fired.
Cliff, the first shots were fired from a low caliber weapon, that bore
a supressor. That's why the first shot missed everything and hit the
pavement. Those things are notorious for that.
And that shot DID NOT come from the depository. A line through the
known wounds points directly at the source of the shots - with no
zigzags and no need to change the position of any of the wounds.
You simply cannot understand the shooting that day, until you look at
the reactions and nonreactions of the people nearest Kennedy. They
hold a wealth of information that has been ignored for all these
years.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
cdddra...@yahoo.com
this post finds you and finds you all well and in good spirits . If
questions still remain in one's mind , about the ' Deed ' there are
other ways of getting around this ! . Don't get me wrong , questioning
this case , may have been useful in the first couple of years after the
Assassination , but it has now taken on a life of it's own . The
Kennedy Assassination Factoid Factory and Circus Performance , I see ,
is alive and well on this group . The questions now asked , have been
answered , in a thousand different ways , many , many times before .
The only thing that's missing , is the letting go of this ' need ' / '
want ' to have a cohesive narrative and meaning in a meaningles act ,
perpetrated by a single person . So trying to say LHO killed JFK and
Tippit by himself , to a die hard conspiracists , I know , is like
trying to convince a fanatical Funnymentalist Islamic Terrorist that
there won't be 40 black eyed virgins waiting for him , just before he
pulls the pin . So I Look to others that are perhaps a little smarter
, have sharper critical / classical thinking skills to sort out the
natural confusion , that occurs , whenever two or more people witness
something , let alone this case , which contains so many players , the
Bible looks barren , in comparison . I therefore find the WC version of
event's to be highly plausible and most probable . On the other hand
when you have too much useless information , useless speculation ,
useless theorizing , you end up with what the ' critical community '
deserves , a vast desert of conspiracy constructs , none being right or
even remotely feasable or logically possible . Thirty years of my own
investigation into this matter , reading both sides of the issue , have
lead me to the following conclusions : 95 % of the so called evidence
in this case is useless ( eye and ear witness especially ) 99.9 % of
the conspiracy writers wouldn't know an assassin, even if one were to
be shot in the rear end by one and 98 % don't get paid and are not
professional in the field they speak in . This case has been hi-jacked
by conpiracy writers who have mis-handled the evidence , building a '
Tempest in a Teapot ' upon a ' Mountain of Unfounded Speculation ' and
' Invalid Constructs ' . The saying ' Drink from the Fountain of
Knowledge ' has been replaced by ' Garglers ' , who , in this nation
and elsewhere , have apparently no care , as to the amount of confusion
and mayham it causes . This denial of LHO 's guilt , overwhelming
evidence against him and the reality of an assasination , that could of
happened only one way , is suggestive , for those disbelievers , to me
, of only two possible answers . They are either in denial , that
their failed world view has collapsed or that their parents engaged in
bad breeding habits that have effected their feeble minds , brought on
by , premature old age . Sincerely Tom Lowry cdddra...@yahoo.com
PS : All comments are welcome , especially from ' them ' , ' they ' and
' those over yonder ' , but remember to bring words , guns , swords ,
knives or fists finely tuned , for I'm an expert in all these area's ,
something I won't try to minimize by any sense of false modesty . Good
day , for I , God's gift to the feeble minded in regards to ' The
Kennedy Assassination ' have arrived to do battle ! Fire away .
David Wimp
> Cliff,
>
> Look at the reactions by Jackie and Kellerman, following the shot at
> 312. - PLEASE.
I don't know what to think of Jackie. She seems to be popping up when
everybody else is ducking. Yes, after the big blur at 318 is when you
see people lowering their heads. Except Jackie, that is.
>
> Now, look at the reactions by those same people, following 223 -
> keeping in mind that the earlier shot would have been LOUDER if they
> both came from the same rifle and building.
>
> The reactions following 312, were predictable, because the shock wave
> and muzzle blast were HUGE. They were earshattering.
I still remember Nellie describing the head shot as loud with some
emphasis on Larry King in 1991 (or maybe 92). Judging from Zapruder's
reaction, it was loud to him as well. Has Nellie described that shot as
loud at any other time, anybody? Could the extra loudness be because it
was a different rifle and a different location?
>
> But LOOK at Jackie and the others following 223.
>
> Or if you don't place a shot at 223, then look at them ANY time prior
> to Z285.
I think there was a shot there. It hit JFK. Zapruder definitely
flinches. It isn't just a matter of blurring. The sign moves relative
to the more distant background. It isn't visible directly, though. JBC
starts trying to look at JFK. JFK seems to react as well.
>
> Why were the reactions nonexistent then??????
>
> Look at all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after TWO high
> powered rifle shots were supposed to have been fired.
>
> Cliff, the first shots were fired from a low caliber weapon, that bore
> a supressor. That's why the first shot missed everything and hit the
> pavement. Those things are notorious for that.
Of course, how obvious.
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Cliff:
>
>I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
>but your argument is too clever by half.
>
>If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
>back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
>bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
>JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
>additional bullets or exit wounds. Explain to me why the autopsy photos
>don't jibe with your theory.
Chuck,
Please go to this website (I don't necessarily agree with the comments
there) and scroll down to the well known photo of the back, in which
someone is holding up a ruler.
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
Where exactly, do you place the back wound?
You do know the measured dimensions of that wound, don't you?
Robert Harris
>
>And Cliff, we only have three bullets to work with. The HSCA dictabelt
>stuff is discredited. There were three spent shells on the 6th floor.
>Earwitnesses on the fifth floor heard three shots, and heard a bolt work
>twice. Three shells were recovered by the DPD, matched to Lee's rifle with
>his palmprint. Some eyewitnesses saw a slender man firing a rifle from the
>same window later determined to be the sniper's nest. LHO was later picked
>out of a police line up and identified as the killer of Tippit. He was
>arrested with his pistol. Two of the bullets recoverered from JDT matched
>Lee's pistol ballistically.
>
>This is extremely compelling stuff, Cliff, and to discredit this evidence
>you need to shout "forged!" or "planted!" or "liars!"
>
>My version of the assassination is that a disgruntled punk smuggled his
>rifle to work that morning just months after taking a shot at another
>political figure-Walker-and snapped off three lucky (or unlucky) shots in
>around 8.3 seconds. No help. Ruby killed Oswald. No help. No plot.
>
>Please tell me why my version is more complicated than your version
>involving planted, forged, altered evidence, flat out lies by government
>officials, hidden snipers, secret collaborations within the governemnt
>between the FBI, CIA, military, other politicians, organized crime,
>Castro, etc.
>
>I truly do not understand your assertion that my version is more
>complicated than your version.
>
>Eyewitness and earwitness testimony can be, and is often very important
>Cliff, but it needs to be sorted for consistancy and measured against the
>known physical evidence.
>
>I'm sure SS agent Glen Bennett is on your list of witnesses that prove
>conspiracy, so let's review what he jotted in his notes just hours after
>the fatal shooting:
>
>He said the first shot sounded like a firecracker, and caused him to focus
>on JFK ahead of him. He then said, "At the moment I looked at the back of
>the President, I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the
>President about four inches down from the right shoulder." Bennett also
>went on to say that the third shot "hit the right rear high of the
>President's head."
>
>Here is what is important:
>
>Bennett wrote out his observations just hours after the shooting.
>
>His observations closely match the physical evidence.
>
>Like the vast majority of earwitnesses, he describes three shots.
>
>Incredibly, because he describes the second shot as four inches down from
>the shoulder, this is, in your book, further 'proof' of conspiracy.
>Instead of sorting through his testimony for consistancy in the face of
>the known physical evidence, one discrepancy is taken to heart in search
>of your elusive MEGAPLOT.
>
>Look, Cliff, if you want to find conspiracy, you can always find it. There
>is no way to DISPROVE conspiracy. It's always one cleverly hidden secret
>memo away. When faced with strong, powerful physical evidence, CT'ers just
>yell "forged!" and off they go speculating on snipers in storm drains,
>Corsican assassins, dart-firing umbrellas, LBJ, Hoover, etc. You get the
>idea.
>
>So, why don't the autopsy photos back your shirt theory up?
aeffects
Cliff
> Cliff:
>
> I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
> but your argument is too clever by half.
It has nothing to do with being clever, Chuck.
It's a simple observation: JFK's jacket dropped an inch from
Main St. to the Kill Zone.
>
> If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
> back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
> bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
> JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
> additional bullets or exit wounds.
Why would we expect the autopsy photos to show bullets?
> Explain to me why the autopsy photos don't jibe with your theory.
The HSCA dismissed the evidentiary value of the Fox 5
photo for the purpose of determining the location of the
back wound.
The autopsy photos don't have enough information to
contradict anything.
>
> And Cliff, we only have three bullets to work with.
Circular logic.
Given the high likelihood that CIA operatives were involved
in JFK's murder other possibilities come into play.
How could the conspirators assume that the first shot
would be a kill shot? How could they be absolutely
certain that an ex-military man like JFK wouldn't duck
for cover if hit with a non-fatal first shot?
The CIA had the capability of firing blood soluble rounds
to induce paralysis.
The autopsists themselves considered blood soluble rounds
a possibility the night of the autopsy. (They did NOT consider
the SBT scenario that night.)
And what do we see in the Zapruder film?
JFK was paralyzed.
What is the simplest explanation for his paralysis? He was
struck by rounds that paralyzed him.
This is consistent with the shallow back wound reported
by autopsy attendees.
> The HSCA dictabelt stuff is discredited.
Who cares? It's window dressing for people who would
rather argue over minutia than move the case forward.
Ditto for the debate over the location of the head wounds.
Same goes for the whole NAA pseudo-debate, which is
mostly a cock-up between Single Bullet Theorists.
And if I never heard the name "Jim Garrison" again I'd be a
very happy man.
> There were three spent shells on the 6th floor.
So? How does that preclude shots from other locations?
> Earwitnesses on the fifth floor heard three shots, and heard a bolt work twice.
How does that preclude shots from other locations?
> Three shells were recovered by the DPD, matched to Lee's rifle with
> his palmprint.
How does that preclude shots from other locations?
> Some eyewitnesses saw a slender man firing a rifle from the
> same window later determined to be the sniper's nest.
Another eye-witness saw a heavy set man in the sniper's nest.
> LHO was later picked
> out of a police line up and identified as the killer of Tippit.
What does this have to do with the murder of JFK?
> He was arrested with his pistol.
He also walked a mile along the shortest possible route
toward Jack Ruby's apartment. According to my count
LHO had 16 opportunities to change direction -- do you know
what the odds are of a man following one particular route
with 16 opportunities to change direction? Something like
30,000 to one.
Helluva co-incidence, eh?
> Two of the bullets recoverered from JDT matched
> Lee's pistol ballistically.
So? How does any of this preclude other shooters?
>
> This is extremely compelling stuff, Cliff, and to discredit this evidence
> you need to shout "forged!" or "planted!" or "liars!"
None of the "evidence" you cite precludes additional
shooters. You want to argue Oswald's guilt -- but I could
care less if Oswald was guilty or innocent. It's irrelevent.
And *I* don't yell "forged," "planted," or "liars."
It's SBT supporters who require more than a dozen eye-witnesses
to be liars or mass-delusional as to the location of the backwound.
It's SBT supporters who have to cry that the verified, documented
evidence of the T3 back wound was all somehow "mistaken."
>
> My version of the assassination is that a disgruntled punk smuggled his
> rifle to work that morning just months after taking a shot at another
> political figure-Walker-and snapped off three lucky (or unlucky) shots in
> around 8.3 seconds. No help. Ruby killed Oswald. No help. No plot.
Physically impossible given the location of the holes in the clothes.
You cannot reconcile any 3-shot scenario with the physical facts of
the case: 3 men, 9 wounds, the holes in JFK's clothes 4" below
the collars.
The Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows that JFK's jacket
dropped an inch from Main St. to the kill zone.
The SBT thus stands debunked.
>
> Please tell me why my version is more complicated than your version
It's physically impossible to bunch 5" of shirt and jacket
fabric entirely above C7/T1 at the base of the neck but
entirely below the jacket collar at the base of the neck.
> involving planted,
You're confusing my argument with someone else's.
I make no claims as to planted evidence, though I certainly
don't rule out the possibility.
> forged, altered evidence,
This has nothing to do with my argument. I don't call any of
the first day accounts lies or any of the first day evidence forgery.
Good arguments have been made about the lack of a chain of
possession for CE399, an issue best relegated to the foot-notes
of the case, but this has nothing to do with my argument.
YOU are the one with a scenario that requires more than
a dozen people to lie, or else they suffered the same
mass-delusion.
> flat out lies by government officials,
No!... I'm shocked -- shocked!
> hidden snipers,
Any such thing as an un-hidden sniper?
:->
> secret collaborations within the governemnt
> between the FBI, CIA, military, other politicians, organized crime,
> Castro, etc.
You can let me off here, Chuck.
You don't know what my "version" of the assassination is.
Mostly I don't discuss my "version" of the assassination because
it's a grave thing to accuse people of murder and treason.
I'll only go so far as stating that my reading of the case indicates
a high likelihood that 3 men lead the operation to murder JFK:
Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales.
Many people have reached this conclusion before me.
The intent of the operation was to pin the assassination of JFK
on Castro as a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba -- right out of the
Operation Northwoods playbook.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
Many people have reached this conclusion.
>
> I truly do not understand your assertion that my version is more
> complicated than your version.
Your version posits a physical impossibility: 5" of shirt and jacket
fabric bunched up in 1.5" of vertical space without pushing up on
the jacket collar.
>
> Eyewitness and earwitness testimony can be, and is often very important
> Cliff, but it needs to be sorted for consistancy and measured against the
> known physical evidence.
Exactly. The location of the holes in JFK's clothes is corroborated
by verified contemporaneous documents and more than a dozen
eye-witness descriptions of the back wound.
The physical evidence of the T3 back wound is perfectly harmonious
with all other first day evidence.
The back wound was shallow. JFK was paralyzed. There was a
bruised tip of the lung and a tiny fracture at T1 -- consistent with a
shot to the throat with a blood soluble round that caused JFK's
paralysis.
Simple.
>
> I'm sure SS agent Glen Bennett is on your list of witnesses that prove
> conspiracy, so let's review what he jotted in his notes just hours after
> the fatal shooting:
>
> He said the first shot sounded like a firecracker, and caused him to focus
> on JFK ahead of him. He then said, "At the moment I looked at the back of
> the President, I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the
> President about four inches down from the right shoulder." Bennett also
> went on to say that the third shot "hit the right rear high of the
> President's head."
>
> Here is what is important:
>
> Bennett wrote out his observations just hours after the shooting.
>
> His observations closely match the physical evidence.
>
> Like the vast majority of earwitnesses, he describes three shots.
A volley of shots will sound like a single report.
>
> Incredibly, because he describes the second shot as four inches down from
> the shoulder, this is, in your book, further 'proof' of conspiracy.
> Instead of sorting through his testimony for consistancy in the face of
> the known physical evidence,
I match his testimony with a dozen other people who describe
the back wound in a similar location.
Bennett said the shot hit 4" down from the shoulder and
the bullet holes in the clothes are 4" below the bottom of
the collars.
Utterly consistent.
> one discrepancy is taken to heart in search
> of your elusive MEGAPLOT.
Nothing elusive about it. Gaeton Fonzi had these guys
nailed but the HSCA didn't want to take on the CIA.
>
> Look, Cliff, if you want to find conspiracy, you can always find it.
Not me. I don't run my operation that way.
> There
> is no way to DISPROVE conspiracy.
The heavily corroborated physical evidence proves 4 shots,
at least, were fired to account for 9 wounds in 3 men.
> It's always one cleverly hidden secret memo away.
It's all out in the open now.
Operation Northwoods, like the JFK assassination, was
a plot to stage an attack on Americans on American soil
that could be linked to Castro:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
CJCS Gen Maxwell Taylor warned of a CIA coup plot on
the front page of the New York Times on 10/3/63.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
Two of Ed Lansdale's Pentagon colleagues put him in
Dealey Plaza soon after the assassination:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
A government memo links Lansdale with an operative
who fit the description of Oswald's alleged handler
Maurice Bishop.
Family members fingered David Atlee Phillips as Maurice
Bishop (see Gaeton Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION
pg. 315)
Close friends of David Sanchez Morales state he bragged
of involvement in JFK's killing (ibid. pg 390.)
Lansdale, Morales and Phillips all worked on Operation
Mongoose, which JFK shut down.
So they whacked him.
Simple.
> When faced with strong, powerful physical evidence, CT'ers just
> yell "forged!"
Not me, pal.
> and off they go speculating on snipers in storm drains,
I used to consider this, but not so much after visiting
Dealey a few weeks back.
> Corsican assassins,
I buy it.
> dart-firing umbrellas,
No, I think it was Black Dog Man who hit him in the throat.
> LBJ, Hoover, etc.
In order to understand LBJ and Hoover you need to read this:
Hoover was "confused." He wanted to press the case for a
commie conspiracy but at 10:01am on 11/23/63 LBJ called
and gave Hoover his marching orders: make the case for a
lone assassin.
Hoover was not happy.
> You get the idea.
You haven't accurately represented my case, eh?
>
> So, why don't the autopsy photos back your shirt theory up?
The HSCA concluded that the Fox 5 photo had little evidentiary value.
Vol 7 of the HSCA report concluded it was "difficult or impossible to
make accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound
in the upper back)" from the autopsy photos, especially Fox 5.
The evidence of 4+ shots is flat-out irrefutable.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> Cliff,
>
> Look at the reactions by Jackie and Kellerman, following the shot at
> 312. - PLEASE.
>
> Now, look at the reactions by those same people, following 223 -
> keeping in mind that the earlier shot would have been LOUDER if they
> both came from the same rifle and building.
>
> The reactions following 312, were predictable, because the shock wave
> and muzzle blast were HUGE. They were earshattering.
>
> But LOOK at Jackie and the others following 223.
What about them?
>
> Or if you don't place a shot at 223, then look at them ANY time prior
> to Z285.
>
> Why were the reactions nonexistent then??????
>
> Look at all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after TWO high
> powered rifle shots were supposed to have been fired.
>
> Cliff, the first shots were fired from a low caliber weapon, that bore
> a supressor. That's why the first shot missed everything and hit the
> pavement. Those things are notorious for that.
>
> And that shot DID NOT come from the depository. A line through the
> known wounds points directly at the source of the shots - with no
> zigzags and no need to change the position of any of the wounds.
No, Robert, with the inshoot at JFK's T3 a bullet would have to
zig-zag in mid-air to hit JBC.
>
> You simply cannot understand the shooting that day, until you look at
> the reactions and nonreactions of the people nearest Kennedy. They
> hold a wealth of information that has been ignored for all these
> years.
That may be, but Gaeton Fonzi resolved the quote-unquote
*question of conspiracy* in 1965.
Other than that, have at it.
Cliff Varnell
pjsp...@aol.com
Oh please, Mr. Lowry! All by your very self, you've come to the
conclusion that eyewitness and earwitness evidence is meaninglesss.
What is your basis for writing such a thing? You claim to be so
rational and yet what is your rationale for throwing out the evidence
that disagrees with your conclusions? Is it because the evidence
disagrees with your conclusions?
You seem to have been fooled into thinking all the questions have been
answered. Here's a simple one: where did the back wound bullet enter
and how did it exit Kennedy's throat without striking bone? Here's
another: where did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's skull? And
another: why was the bullet nose found on the front seat, which is
believed to have entered on the back of Kennedy's head and traversed
his brain, covered with skin?
If everything is so elementary, these answers should be rather
elementary.
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
Robert Harris
"TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:442ffa4c...@news20.forteinc.com...
> > On 2 Apr 2006 11:42:47 -0400, "TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >>
> >>Add another one:
> >>
> >>21. John Connally, who as a hunter immediately recognized a rifle shot
> >>when
> >>he heard one, said privately he never believed the conclusion of the WCR
> >>and
> >>he insisted until the day he died he did NOT get hit with the same shot
> >>that
> >>hit Kennedy.
> >> John Connally may have been something of a money scoundrel and too
> >>close to LBJ (opposite Sen. Ralph Yarborough in that feud that brought JFK
> >>to Texas), but he was a patriot and thereby refused to talk about his key
> >>dispute with LBJ and his WC in public.
> >>
> >> Was John Connally wrong?
> >
> > Yes, actually he was.
>
> You also left out the telltale Z-film, which JBC saw later.
Yes, but you see nothing in the Zapruder film until at least the first
fifty times you study it:-)
I was obsessed with it for about a year, in 1995. I probably examined it
several thousand times. But I occasionally find something new in it,
even today.
The Connally's testimonies suggest that they put none of the pieces
together when they viewed the film, which they probably did, no more
than once or twice.
Consider JBC's claim that he tried to look back at Kennedy.
When do you see him do more than just look to his right?
But look at him after he was wounded, twisting almost all the way back
toward JFK. That proves that he could have easily turned to his right
and seen Kennedy if that had been his goal.
His claim that he tried to spot Kennedy, could only have come from
Nellie, who thought that was what he was doing, circa Z235. But she
could only see his back and was unaware that he was wounded then.
Does that make sense?
Robert Harris
>
> > JBC originally claimed that he looked over his *left* shoulder and
> > actually saw JFK.
> >
> > Of course, we know that neither claim was correct, and that
> > undoubtedly, Nellie, who was in the hospital room with him at the
> > time, straightened him out on some of that.
> >
> > In fact, with only one or two rather important exceptions, almost
> > everything JBC claimed after that point, was an echo of Nellie's
> > recollections.
> >
> > JBC was a great guy, IMO, but I would never base my conclusions on the
> > recollections of a guy who passed out within seconds after the attack
> > began.
>
> With the Z-film (and other pics), you don't HAVE to be there.
> It's on the film for all eternity for everyone to see.
Robert Harris
Read my article, "Did Nellie refute the SBT".
But never, ever, ever think that the question of conspiracy is
contingent on the SBT.
In fact, that shot absolutely, did not come from the Depository and was
not fired from a high powered rifle.
That is quite easy to prove.
Robert Harris
In article <D06Yf.7$Es...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:442ffa4c...@news20.forteinc.com...
> > On 2 Apr 2006 11:42:47 -0400, "TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >>
> >>Add another one:
> >>
> >>21. John Connally, who as a hunter immediately recognized a rifle shot
> >>when
> >>he heard one, said privately he never believed the conclusion of the WCR
> >>and
> >>he insisted until the day he died he did NOT get hit with the same shot
> >>that
> >>hit Kennedy.
> >> John Connally may have been something of a money scoundrel and too
> >>close to LBJ (opposite Sen. Ralph Yarborough in that feud that brought JFK
> >>to Texas), but he was a patriot and thereby refused to talk about his key
> >>dispute with LBJ and his WC in public.
> >>
> >> Was John Connally wrong?
> >
> > Yes, actually he was.
>
> You also left out the telltale Z-film, which JBC saw later.
>
Chad Zimmerman
He thinks that the witnesses all had x-ray vision and that JFK was in a
completely neutral position when he was shot. It doesn't matter how many
times you actually try and explain this, he keeps coming back.
Chad
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1144124704.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Cliff:
>
> I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
> but your argument is too clever by half.
>
> If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
> back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
> bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
> JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
> additional bullets or exit wounds. Explain to me why the autopsy photos
> don't jibe with your theory.
>
> And Cliff, we only have three bullets to work with. The HSCA dictabelt
> stuff is discredited. There were three spent shells on the 6th floor.
> Earwitnesses on the fifth floor heard three shots, and heard a bolt work
> twice. Three shells were recovered by the DPD, matched to Lee's rifle with
> his palmprint. Some eyewitnesses saw a slender man firing a rifle from the
> same window later determined to be the sniper's nest. LHO was later picked
> out of a police line up and identified as the killer of Tippit. He was
> arrested with his pistol. Two of the bullets recoverered from JDT matched
> Lee's pistol ballistically.
>
> This is extremely compelling stuff, Cliff, and to discredit this evidence
> you need to shout "forged!" or "planted!" or "liars!"
>
> My version of the assassination is that a disgruntled punk smuggled his
> rifle to work that morning just months after taking a shot at another
> political figure-Walker-and snapped off three lucky (or unlucky) shots in
> around 8.3 seconds. No help. Ruby killed Oswald. No help. No plot.
>
> Please tell me why my version is more complicated than your version
> involving planted, forged, altered evidence, flat out lies by government
> officials, hidden snipers, secret collaborations within the governemnt
> between the FBI, CIA, military, other politicians, organized crime,
> Castro, etc.
>
> I truly do not understand your assertion that my version is more
> complicated than your version.
>
> Eyewitness and earwitness testimony can be, and is often very important
> Cliff, but it needs to be sorted for consistancy and measured against the
> known physical evidence.
>
> I'm sure SS agent Glen Bennett is on your list of witnesses that prove
> conspiracy, so let's review what he jotted in his notes just hours after
> the fatal shooting:
>
> He said the first shot sounded like a firecracker, and caused him to focus
> on JFK ahead of him. He then said, "At the moment I looked at the back of
> the President, I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the
> President about four inches down from the right shoulder." Bennett also
> went on to say that the third shot "hit the right rear high of the
> President's head."
>
> Here is what is important:
>
> Bennett wrote out his observations just hours after the shooting.
>
> His observations closely match the physical evidence.
>
> Like the vast majority of earwitnesses, he describes three shots.
>
> Incredibly, because he describes the second shot as four inches down from
> the shoulder, this is, in your book, further 'proof' of conspiracy.
> Instead of sorting through his testimony for consistancy in the face of
> the known physical evidence, one discrepancy is taken to heart in search
> of your elusive MEGAPLOT.
>
> Look, Cliff, if you want to find conspiracy, you can always find it. There
> is no way to DISPROVE conspiracy. It's always one cleverly hidden secret
> memo away. When faced with strong, powerful physical evidence, CT'ers just
> yell "forged!" and off they go speculating on snipers in storm drains,
> Corsican assassins, dart-firing umbrellas, LBJ, Hoover, etc. You get the
> idea.
>
Robert Harris
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> Cliff,
>>
>> Look at the reactions by Jackie and Kellerman, following the shot at
>> 312. - PLEASE.
>>
>> Now, look at the reactions by those same people, following 223 -
>> keeping in mind that the earlier shot would have been LOUDER if they
>> both came from the same rifle and building.
>>
>> The reactions following 312, were predictable, because the shock wave
>> and muzzle blast were HUGE. They were earshattering.
>>
>> But LOOK at Jackie and the others following 223.
>
>What about them?
They were NOT startled by a gunshot then, Cliff.
>
>>
>> Or if you don't place a shot at 223, then look at them ANY time prior
>> to Z285.
>>
>> Why were the reactions nonexistent then??????
>>
>> Look at all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after TWO high
>> powered rifle shots were supposed to have been fired.
>>
>> Cliff, the first shots were fired from a low caliber weapon, that bore
>> a supressor. That's why the first shot missed everything and hit the
>> pavement. Those things are notorious for that.
>>
>> And that shot DID NOT come from the depository. A line through the
>> known wounds points directly at the source of the shots - with no
>> zigzags and no need to change the position of any of the wounds.
>
>No, Robert, with the inshoot at JFK's T3 a bullet would have to
>zig-zag in mid-air to hit JBC.
No sir.
The third floor of the Daltex was much lower than the sixth floor of
the TSBD. Look at this illustration:
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/sbt-dal.gif
>
>
>>
>> You simply cannot understand the shooting that day, until you look at
>> the reactions and nonreactions of the people nearest Kennedy. They
>> hold a wealth of information that has been ignored for all these
>> years.
>
>That may be, but Gaeton Fonzi resolved the quote-unquote
>*question of conspiracy* in 1965.
Gaeton Fonzi was and is a liar. And you can tell him I said that.
He said the ONLY evidence of conspiracy was the testimony of Silvia
Odio, but covered up the fact that Odio originally stated that she saw
Oswald at several meetings of the Cuban exiles, including one *inside*
her home that was attended by Eugenio Cisneros and other exiles.
Fonzi lied when he claimed that Mrs. Connell changed her story, and he
wasn't even going to depose her doctor for the HSCA, until he put
Silvia on the phone with him, to talk him into changing his story as
well.
Ask me to prove all that, Cliff.
Robert Harris
>
>Other than that, have at it.
>
>Cliff Varnell
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Anthony Marsh
> Good luck with that, Chuck.
>
> He thinks that the witnesses all had x-ray vision and that JFK was in a
> completely neutral position when he was shot. It doesn't matter how many
> times you actually try and explain this, he keeps coming back.
>
Who claims what? Then you claim that we can not trust the autopsy photos
and that no one has ever been in a completely anatomically neutral
position. Your obsession with the later point indicates your agenda to
distort the evidence.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Anthony Marsh
> Read my article, "Did Nellie refute the SBT".
>
> But never, ever, ever think that the question of conspiracy is
> contingent on the SBT.
>
Why do I always have to keep reminding people that the HSCA found
conspiracy AND had its own SBT?
Anthony Marsh
> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> Cliff:
>>
>> I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
>> but your argument is too clever by half.
>
> It has nothing to do with being clever, Chuck.
>
> It's a simple observation: JFK's jacket dropped an inch from
> Main St. to the Kill Zone.
>
Jacket dropped? What do you think you mean by that?
>> If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
>> back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
>> bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
>> JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
>> additional bullets or exit wounds.
>
> Why would we expect the autopsy photos to show bullets?
>
>> Explain to me why the autopsy photos don't jibe with your theory.
>
> The HSCA dismissed the evidentiary value of the Fox 5
> photo for the purpose of determining the location of the
> back wound.
>
No.
> The autopsy photos don't have enough information to
> contradict anything.
>
They can easily contradict the WC fiction. Most people, excluding Chad
of course, are able to tell the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.
>
>> And Cliff, we only have three bullets to work with.
>
> Circular logic.
>
> Given the high likelihood that CIA operatives were involved
> in JFK's murder other possibilities come into play.
>
It does not rest on the CIA being involved.
> How could the conspirators assume that the first shot
> would be a kill shot? How could they be absolutely
> certain that an ex-military man like JFK wouldn't duck
> for cover if hit with a non-fatal first shot?
>
As in other assassinations, that is why you have an insurance shooter at
the end.
> The CIA had the capability of firing blood soluble rounds
> to induce paralysis.
>
Show me some of these blood soluble rounds and document their use,
range, accuracy, etc.
> The autopsists themselves considered blood soluble rounds
> a possibility the night of the autopsy. (They did NOT consider
> the SBT scenario that night.)
>
No, no one said anything about blood soluble rounds. You have said this
a few times, been challenged on it, and never documented it.
> And what do we see in the Zapruder film?
>
> JFK was paralyzed.
>
Not quite. We can see his hands fly up towards his throat. I would not
call that paralyzed. Also his leaning forward.
> What is the simplest explanation for his paralysis? He was
> struck by rounds that paralyzed him.
>
Extremely silly.
> This is consistent with the shallow back wound reported
> by autopsy attendees.
>
There was no shallow back wound. There were incompetent autopsy doctors.
Texas Tower?
Anthony Marsh
> On 4 Apr 2006 01:20:28 -0400, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cliff:
>>
>> I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
>> but your argument is too clever by half.
>>
>> If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
>> back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
>> bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
>> JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
>> additional bullets or exit wounds. Explain to me why the autopsy photos
>> don't jibe with your theory.
>
> Chuck,
>
> Please go to this website (I don't necessarily agree with the comments
> there) and scroll down to the well known photo of the back, in which
> someone is holding up a ruler.
>
> http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
>
> Where exactly, do you place the back wound?
>
Well, if he is a WC defender then he has to place the wound above the
top of the shoulders.
Anthony Marsh
> Robert Harris wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2006 09:39:08 -0400, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert:
>>>
>>> Over 80% of earwitnesses contemporaneously reported HEARING only three
>>> shots-in surveys done by researchers as diverse in opinion and final
>>> conclusion as Thompson-to-Posner.
>>>
>>> Are they wrong?
>
> Chuck, more than a dozen eye-witnesses described JFK's back
> wound in the vicinity of T3.
>
Why stop at a dozen? Why not claim hundreds, as if sheer numbers
establish reality? Like the back of the head witnesses?
> Were they all liars? Did they conspire together to lie?
>
Great idea. If you want to bolster your theory, dare people to call your
favorite witnesses liars. Or conspirators. The fact is that many people
can see the same thing and all be simply wrong about it. Like the kooks
who see the Virgin Mary on a door.
> Or were they all delusional, a mass hallucination, perhaps?
>
LSD, peyote?
Simple is simplistic.
> I think the reason why the CT case is a bit stuck is because so
> much time and energy is spent on foot-note worthy topics such
> as the location of the head wound, the police dictabelt, the NAA
> and the Garrison investigation.
>
It is stuck because of the continuing cover-up.
Cliff
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 01:22:40 -0400, "Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote:
>
> >Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Cliff,
> >>
> >> Look at the reactions by Jackie and Kellerman, following the shot at
> >> 312. - PLEASE.
> >>
> >> Now, look at the reactions by those same people, following 223 -
> >> keeping in mind that the earlier shot would have been LOUDER if they
> >> both came from the same rifle and building.
> >>
> >> The reactions following 312, were predictable, because the shock wave
> >> and muzzle blast were HUGE. They were earshattering.
> >>
> >> But LOOK at Jackie and the others following 223.
> >
> >What about them?
>
> They were NOT startled by a gunshot then, Cliff.
I agree. I think JFK was first struck with non-conventional rounds.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Or if you don't place a shot at 223, then look at them ANY time prior
> >> to Z285.
> >>
> >> Why were the reactions nonexistent then??????
> >>
> >> Look at all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after TWO high
> >> powered rifle shots were supposed to have been fired.
> >>
> >> Cliff, the first shots were fired from a low caliber weapon, that bore
> >> a supressor. That's why the first shot missed everything and hit the
> >> pavement. Those things are notorious for that.
> >>
> >> And that shot DID NOT come from the depository. A line through the
> >> known wounds points directly at the source of the shots - with no
> >> zigzags and no need to change the position of any of the wounds.
> >
> >No, Robert, with the inshoot at JFK's T3 a bullet would have to
> >zig-zag in mid-air to hit JBC.
>
> No sir.
>
> The third floor of the Daltex was much lower than the sixth floor of
> the TSBD. Look at this illustration:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/sbt-dal.gif
This still shows the back wound higher than the throat
wound -- a physical impossibility given the location of the
holes in the clothes.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You simply cannot understand the shooting that day, until you look at
> >> the reactions and nonreactions of the people nearest Kennedy. They
> >> hold a wealth of information that has been ignored for all these
> >> years.
> >
> >That may be, but Gaeton Fonzi resolved the quote-unquote
> >*question of conspiracy* in 1965.
>
>
> Gaeton Fonzi was and is a liar. And you can tell him I said that.
>
> He said the ONLY evidence of conspiracy was the testimony of Silvia
> Odio,
No, he didn't. He said the most compelling pieces of
evidence were the location of the holes in the clothes
and Mrs. Odio's statements.
He didn't say this was the *only* evidence.
> but covered up the fact that Odio originally stated that she saw
> Oswald at several meetings of the Cuban exiles, including one *inside*
> her home that was attended by Eugenio Cisneros and other exiles.
This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion -- the
holes in the clothes and the bogus SBT you and others peddle.
Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence
in 1965 and, like the "bunch theorists" of today, Specter had
no rebuttal.
>
> Fonzi lied when he claimed that Mrs. Connell changed her story, and he
> wasn't even going to depose her doctor for the HSCA, until he put
> Silvia on the phone with him, to talk him into changing his story as
> well.
>
> Ask me to prove all that, Cliff.
I'm not going to get in the way of you and your pet theories,
Robert, except to debunk the one under discussion.
Any shot entering JFK's back at a down-ward angle
would have to zig-zag in mid-air to hit JBC.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
> > chuck schuyler wrote:
> >> Cliff:
> >>
> >> I've followed your collar-proves-conspiracy analysis with some interest,
> >> but your argument is too clever by half.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with being clever, Chuck.
> >
> > It's a simple observation: JFK's jacket dropped an inch from
> > Main St. to the Kill Zone.
> >
>
> Jacket dropped? What do you think you mean by that?
That the jacket was elevated an inch on Main St.
and dropped -- what do you think I mean?
>
> >> If your theory is correct-that the holes in the jacket, shirt and in JFK's
> >> back don't line up to allow for the generally accepted 'nutter theory of a
> >> bullet fired from the TSBD and passing through the president and striking
> >> JBC-then you have a problem, because the autopsy photos do not show
> >> additional bullets or exit wounds.
> >
> > Why would we expect the autopsy photos to show bullets?
> >
> >> Explain to me why the autopsy photos don't jibe with your theory.
> >
> > The HSCA dismissed the evidentiary value of the Fox 5
> > photo for the purpose of determining the location of the
> > back wound.
> >
>
> No.
We have to go over this again, Anthony?
Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the
direction of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
"Difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements
of critical features such as the wound in the upper back."
The autopsy photos cannot be used to accurately
determine the location of the back wound.
>
> > The autopsy photos don't have enough information to
> > contradict anything.
> >
>
> They can easily contradict the WC fiction. Most people, excluding Chad
> of course, are able to tell the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.
You forgot Chad's stock answer to all things JFK -- his fictional
"not in a neutral position" dodge.
>
> >
> >> And Cliff, we only have three bullets to work with.
> >
> > Circular logic.
> >
> > Given the high likelihood that CIA operatives were involved
> > in JFK's murder other possibilities come into play.
> >
>
> It does not rest on the CIA being involved.
What doesn't?
>
> > How could the conspirators assume that the first shot
> > would be a kill shot? How could they be absolutely
> > certain that an ex-military man like JFK wouldn't duck
> > for cover if hit with a non-fatal first shot?
> >
>
> As in other assassinations, that is why you have an insurance shooter at
> the end.
Wouldn't do any good if he ducked down and covered up.
>
> > The CIA had the capability of firing blood soluble rounds
> > to induce paralysis.
> >
>
> Show me some of these blood soluble rounds and document their use,
> range, accuracy, etc.
James Sibert's affidavit:
(quote on)
I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection
with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.
They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with
a metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far
and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both
Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet
through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection
of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was
also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.
(quote off)
What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
(quote on)
DART GUN
The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass
stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer
M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...
If left in the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable
on X-ray.
An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
(quote off)
This example is much smaller, but clearly the technology existed.
>
> > The autopsists themselves considered blood soluble rounds
> > a possibility the night of the autopsy. (They did NOT consider
> > the SBT scenario that night.)
> >
>
> No, no one said anything about blood soluble rounds. You have said this
> a few times, been challenged on it, and never documented it.
(quote on from the Silbert affidavit)
Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
fragments completely.
(quote off)
>
> > And what do we see in the Zapruder film?
> >
> > JFK was paralyzed.
> >
>
> Not quite. We can see his hands fly up towards his throat. I would not
> call that paralyzed. Also his leaning forward.
He stayed locked into that position until he was shot
in the head -- I'd call that paralyzed.
>
> > What is the simplest explanation for his paralysis? He was
> > struck by rounds that paralyzed him.
> >
>
> Extremely silly.
More contentless dismissal.
>
> > This is consistent with the shallow back wound reported
> > by autopsy attendees.
> >
>
> There was no shallow back wound. There were incompetent autopsy doctors.
And James Curtis Jenkins was hallucinating when he
observed the following:
(quote on)
I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the
probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You
could actually see where it was making an indentation...where
it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest
cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited
in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...
somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the
main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in
the lungs.
(quote off)
It's amazing how much mass hallucination went on at Bethesda
and Parkland -- all because witness statements don't match
people's pet theories.
Cliff
> Good luck with that, Chuck.
>
> He thinks that the witnesses all had x-ray vision
Reed and Boyers used the upper margin of the scapula
to locate the wound.
O'Neill, Sibert, Kellerman and Jenkins drew diagrams.
Sibert and O'Neill wrote in the FBI autopsy report:
(quote on)
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes
located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole
which was below the shoulders.
(quote off)
Bowron and Reibe described the wound as appearing
lower than the wound in the Fox 5 autopsy photo.
Hill put the wound 6" below the "neckline."
Bennett put the wound 4" below the shoulder-line.
Rudnicki put it "several inches down on the back."
Only the Death Certificate and Dr. John Ebersole
related the back wound to a vertebral level.
Ebersole put the wound at T4, the Death Certificate
put it "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra".
Where does any one of them claim to have had x-ray vision,
Chad?
3 contemporaneous, verified official documents (make
that 4 if you count Humes initial autopsy report) and
more than a dozen witnesses all describe the wound
in their different, individual ways and all of them are
consistent with a wound in the the vicinity of T3 -- an
amazing mass hallucination, if you believe Chad
Zimmerman.
> and that JFK was in a completely neutral position
A raised shoulder-tip has no impact on the spine or
the position of the clothing collars.
Here's JFK in Fort Worth the morning of 11/22/63:
The amount of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his
neck -- 1/2 inch.
Distance from shirt collar top to hairline -- more than 1/2 inch
but less than 1 inch.
Here's JFK in the Dallas motorcade:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MCade.htm
Note his hairline behind his left ear.
Note the distance between the top of the clothing collars and
the hairline -- a fraction of an inch, same as when standing.
Given the location of the wound less than two inches
right of midline, a raised shoulder tip does not change
the distance between the clothing collars and T3.
Cliff Varnell
Peter Makres
Chuck,
Very well said, as usual. I've really liked reading your
posts. This one is another good case in point. The very idea of trying to
stage this type of plot, in broad daylight, with hundreds of witnesses, by
multiple shooters would be so risky that it wouldn't be tried. Not to even
mention the advance planning that would be needed, and getting shooters
into buildings, etc. without being detected. It's amazing that so many
don't see the truth that is, and has been, in plain sight. And then you
have Oswald, who shot at Walker months before, and whose rifle and shell
casings were found in the TSBD, etc, etc...but even in the face of that,
and much more, the conspiracy theories continue to thrive.
I believe you are correct, that it is just too difficult for
many to accept that this enormous crime was carried out by a twisted punk
with a mail order rifle. Frightening as that thought is, that is what
happened on November 22,1963.
Keep up the good postings, Chuck.
Peter M.
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1144274067....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
>
> Earlier you wrote:
>
> ...None of the "evidence" you cite precludes additional shooters. You
> want to argue Oswald's guilt -- but I could care less if Oswald was guilty
> or innocent. It's irrelevant...
>
> Why could you care less if Oswald is guilty or innocent? Why is it
> irrelevant?
>
> Using your twisted logic, why is it relevant if the CIA was involved?
>
> In your view, some type of coup d'etat took place in Dealey Plaza that
> day. Dramatic stuff, Cliff, but apparently the coup failed. Power changed
> hands constitutionally that afternoon. There was no Cuba invasion.
> Lansdale and company failed.
>
> And yet, despite your coup theory, there were no recriminations within the
> CIA for this failed coup. No deserters among the plotters.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and JDT all by himself. It was natural and
> prudent at the time of the killings for our government to consider the
> possibility of foreign or even domestic involvment, and given the heinous
> nature of the crime, natural for many people to be skeptical that one man
> could create such havoc with a cheap rifle.
>
> At a certain point, though, you need to step back and look at the case and
> realize that even a small plot involving some cooperation or collusion
> between a few intelligence agencies, the Mob several shooters, etc. would
> involve dozens of people in some capacity or another.
>
> Killing a POTUS from multiple locations by gunshot in a well populated
> plaza in broad daylight surrounded by several hundred citizens armed with
> cameras and movie cameras and trailed by the nation's press corp is nuts.
> There are dozens of ways the plotters could've neutralized JFK without
> risking exposure on a sunny plaza knoll.
>
> Why not wait to see if he even gets re-elected in 1964?
>
> I'll bet, Cliff, that you believe that the Twin Towers were brought down
> by controlled demolitions at that the war on terror is part of the
> Bush/Cheney plan to usurp oil from the middle east.
>
> I'm going to guess that you believe that the government has the Flying
> Saucer from Roswell and faked the moon landings, too.
>
> Earlier, you speculated on why Oswald didn't change directions on his walk
> before he encountered JD Tippit.
>
> Do you know why LHO didn't change directions?
>
> Because he didn't. It's that simple.
>
> Cliff, you are so wrapped up in exotic theories involving bunched shirts,
> blood soluble bullets, poison darts, CIA coups, etc. that you can't see
> the plan truth in front of you.
>
>
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> >> On 2 Apr 2006 09:39:08 -0400, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert:> >>>
> >>> Over 80% of earwitnesses contemporaneously reported HEARING only three
> >>> shots-in surveys done by researchers as diverse in opinion and final
> >>> conclusion as Thompson-to-Posner.
> >>>
> >>> Are they wrong?
> >
> > Chuck, more than a dozen eye-witnesses described JFK's back
> > wound in the vicinity of T3.
> >
>
> Why stop at a dozen?
Because I like to cite actual witness statements.
> Why not claim hundreds, as if sheer numbers establish reality?
Anthony, I think you need to weigh the witness testimony
more carefully.
If there's a car accident, for instance, a dozen people
might recall this momentary event differently and
perhaps they'd all get it wrong.
But the Kennedy back wound was stationary and most witnesses
got a chance to see it for a prolonged period of time.
Hill and Kellerman went to the morgue for the express
purpose of viewing the wounds, and their accounts are
consistent with everyone else.
There is NO contrary eye-witness statement that puts the
back wound above the throat wound.
So according to your wacky theory *everyone* was mistaken,
*no one* got it right. Silly in the extreme.
> Like the back of the head witnesses?
Same deal. Mass hallucination, apparently.
>
> > Were they all liars? Did they conspire together to lie?
> >
>
> Great idea. If you want to bolster your theory, dare people to call your
> favorite witnesses liars.
Do you have any *favorite* witnesses who describe the back
wound higher than the throat wound?
No, you don't. The people who handled JFK's body *all* had to be
mistaken, or Anthony Marsh's pet theory is wrong.
Not much of a choice here, Tony, given the location of the
holes in the clothes, irrefutable physical corroboration of
the witness statements.
> Or conspirators. The fact is that many people
> can see the same thing and all be simply wrong about it.
Is that a fact? Take 12 credible people -- those without a
vested interest -- and put them on the stand, each describing
the same thing in their own words with no contrary testimony.
Think the jury will buy it?
Of course. 12 people describing the same stationary thing without
contradiction wins the day in any court in the country.
One or two people could be *mistaken* -- but a dozen?
No way.
> Like the kooks who see the Virgin Mary on a door.
Terrible analogy since the kooks who see the Virgin Mary
on a piece of toast *want* to see the Virgin Mary on a
piece of toast.
Do you think the dozen-plus people who observed the
Kennedy back wound *wanted* to put it 2-3 inches lower
than C7/T1?
Of course not.
>
> > Or were they all delusional, a mass hallucination, perhaps?
> >
>
> LSD, peyote?
You tell me. I don't go around accusing people of being delusional .
And making the case needlessly complex is to serve the cover-up.
>
> > I think the reason why the CT case is a bit stuck is because so
> > much time and energy is spent on foot-note worthy topics such
> > as the location of the head wound, the police dictabelt, the NAA
> > and the Garrison investigation.
> >
>
> It is stuck because of the continuing cover-up.
And a research community in love with window-dressing
like the police dictabelt, the NAA, and the location of the
head wounds.
Cliff
> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
It's their scenario, not mine.
The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
it be logical to do so?
Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
>
> Earlier you wrote:
>
> ...None of the "evidence" you cite precludes additional shooters. You
> want to argue Oswald's guilt -- but I could care less if Oswald was guilty
> or innocent. It's irrelevant...
>
> Why could you care less if Oswald is guilty or innocent? Why is it
> irrelevant?
Same reason the names of the shooters are irrelevent.
Oswald was sheep-dipped to fit the agent-of-Castro profile,
what part he actually played is of peripheral interest, at best.
>
> Using your twisted logic,
You're accusing me of using twisted logic before I get a chance
to argue my point?
Slow down, Chuck. Damn...
> why is it relevant if the CIA was involved?
Some CTs may argue that it *isn't* relevent.
It may be that Lansdale, Phillips and Morales were not just
some rogue outfit, but were following orders from on high.
Maxwell Taylor, however, seemed to think the CIA had the motive,
means, and opportunity to do it on their own.
I think the revelations in the Northwoods documents are consistent
with the view that this was an operation designed to provide a
rationale for the invasion of Cuba, and designed to change the
course of American involvement in Vietnam.
Vietnam they got, Cuba they didn't.
>
> In your view, some type of coup d'etat took place in Dealey Plaza that day.
That's the view of half of America, yes.
> Dramatic stuff, Cliff, but apparently the coup failed.
Tell that to 55 thousand dead Americans and a couple
of million dead Vietnamese.
> Power changed hands constitutionally that afternoon.
Power changed hands by the barrel of a gun that afternoon.
> There was no Cuba invasion.
Correct!
And why was there no Cuban invasion? Because the patsy
Oswald survived to be captured. If Lee Harvey Oswald had
been gunned down the afternoon of 11/22/63 instead of Officer
JD Tippit -- Cuba would have been, in the words of Richard Helms,
bombed back into the middle ages.
> Lansdale and company failed.
They failed to provide a dead patsy, but they did deliver a dead
President. As a result, LBJ did an immediate one-eighty on
Vietnam.
A very successful coup, in that regard.
>
> And yet, despite your coup theory, there were no recriminations within the
> CIA for this failed coup.
Recriminations? You gotta be kidding! By 1966 the CIA had one
of their own back as DCI -- Richard Helms -- after spending 4 and 1/2
years with outsiders at the helm of the CIA, following the sacking
of Allen Dulles in the fall of '61.
The CIA never had it so good as under LBJ.
> No deserters among the plotters.
I draw the line at calling 3 men traitors -- I won't speculate
on any other potential co-conspirators.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and JDT all by himself.
As for the latter -- I have no idea -- as for the former,
that's physically impossible.
You absolutely cannot reconcile a 3 shot scenario with
the physical facts of the case: 9 wounds in 3 men, and the
bullet holes in JFK's clothes significantly below his throat
wound.
It's that simple.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> TOP POST
>
> Chuck,
> Very well said, as usual. I've really liked reading your
> posts. This one is another good case in point. The very idea of trying to
> stage this type of plot, in broad daylight, with hundreds of witnesses, by
> multiple shooters would be so risky that it wouldn't be tried.
You cannot understand the JFK assassination outside of the historical
context provided by the Operation Northwoods documents.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
It was SUPPOSED to look like a conspiracy -- by Fidel Castro.
> Not to even
> mention the advance planning that would be needed, and getting shooters
> into buildings, etc. without being detected.
What's so hard about that?
> It's amazing that so many
> don't see the truth that is, and has been, in plain sight. And then you
> have Oswald, who shot at Walker months before,
After this alleged Walker shooting took place Oswald was reportedly
all worked up and wild-eyed.
And yet a minute and a half after killing Kennedy he was
calm and composed and sipping a coke?
That dog don't hunt...
> and whose rifle and shell
> casings were found in the TSBD, etc, etc...but even in the face of that,
> and much more, the conspiracy theories continue to thrive.
Because the physical evidence leads to no other conclusion.
Please explain how a dozen people suffered the same hallucination,
and then explain how you get 5 inches of clothing fabric bunched
up in an inch and a half of vertical space.
You can't reconcile a 3 shot scenario with the physical facts
of the case.
Simple.
Cliff Varnell
curtj...@webtv.net
> Here's the section of my presentation that backs up Robert's argument.
>
> While most conspiracy theorists ignore the inconvenient fact that most
> witnesses heard only three shots, I decided to analyze the earwitnesses
> from a fresh perspective and see if there was anything new to be learned.
> As with my study of the autopsy photos, I found there was indeed. When one
> breaks down the testimony of the earwitnesses of the assassination into a
> few simple categories, and then makes maps of Dealey Plaza with marks
> indicating how people in each location testified, one finds some very
> interesting results. A summary of these results:
>
> Although roughly 177 out of 195 witnesses heard three shots or less, with
> another 6 saying they heard three or four, and only 12 publicly stated
> they heard four shots or more, 6 out of the 13 pedestrian witnesses at the
> corner of Houston and Elm (the red rectangle) said they heard four shots.
> When compared to Houston and Main, just a block away (the blue square),
> where over 40 witnesses said they heard three shots or less, and zero said
> four, this has to be taken as a strong indication that a silenced weapon
> was fired in this vicinity. Since 31 of the 32 witnesses inside or
> directly in front of the Texas School Book Depository, on the west side of
> Houston, reported three shots, the likelihood is that the source of the
> fourth shot was on the east side of Houston, either from the Dal-Tex
> Building or the County Records Building. In accordance with this is that
> the one witness in front of the Depository to hear more than three shots,
> James Worrell, was the one closest to the corner. That the Dal-Tex
> Building, where mobster Jim Braden was arrested after the assassination,
> is the likely source for this presumed fourth shot, is especially
> intriguing. Amazingly, not one witness inside the Dal-Tex Building, and
> only a handful outside, were ever interviewed. As to why the people on
> this corner were able to hear this silenced shot so much better than
> others, I think there could be two factors: one, they were the closest to
> the Dal-Tex,; and two, they were directly to the left of the path of the
> bullets fired from the sniper's nest, which meant they only heard the
> muzzle blast of those sounds, and not the shock wave as the bullet passed
> overhead. This would make the difference in volume of the four shots less
> extreme than anywhere else in the Plaza.
>
> Additionally, although many theorists believe an extra shot came from the
> grassy knoll (the yellow hexagon), when one looks at the earwitness
> testimony, one finds that of the 12 witnesses nearest the stockade fence,
> 7 of the witnesses heard only three shots-the other5 heard only two!
> That one of the three shots heard by most was significantly softer than
> the others is refuted by the fact that virtually all of the witnesses on
> the railroad bridge further west of the knoll heard three or more shots,
> and all those on the south side of the plaza reported three shots. That
> the sounds of the motorcade blocked out the sound of one of the shots is
> refuted by both the simulations conducted by the HSCA and the fact that
> those standing at Houston and Main, directly adjacent to the middle of the
> motorcade and a block away from the shots, almost unanimously heard three
> shots. To wit, the firing of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is reputed to be
> much louder than even a siren, as decibels are recorded on a similar scale
> as earthquakes, whereby a ten decibel increase represents a ten-fold
> increase in power, and a Mannlicher-Carcano was tested at 137 decibels,
> compared to a loud siren's 120. Adding to this mystery is that the only
> witnesses in the motorcade to say they heard two shots were in the
> vicinity of the grassy knoll when the fatal shot arrived. It seems,
> therefore, that it was the location of these witnesses that determined how
> they heard these shots, and that they were somehow prevented from hearing
> one of the shots.
>
> I found a possible explanation for this after studying a map plotting out
> the spacing of the shots. This map called into question Gerald Posner's
> theory that there was a shot, a 3 ½ second wait, a second shot, and then
> a 5 second wait before a third shot. Instead,the vast majority of
> earwitnesses believed there to have been a shot, followed 4 or more
> seconds later by two shots coming in on top of each other. Convincingly,
> 45 of the 65 witnesses who mentioned the spacing of the shots believed the
> second two shots were bunched together. 13 believed they were evenly
> spaced. Only 7 of 65 believed the first two shots were closer together, a
> la Posner. Consequently, even if one were to toss the witnesses who said
> the shots were evenly-spaced into the Posner pile, his theory is still at
> odds with the majority of witnesses.
>
> One might venture that those who believed they heard two shots almost on
> top of each other really heard echoes on the third shot, and simply missed
> the first shot altogether, but, if this were the case, they should have
> heard echoes on the second shot as well, and concluded there were 4 shots.
> Anyhow, this would be in contradiction with the expert testimony given to
> the HSCA, which concluded that it was fairly easy to discern echoes from
> shots in Dealey Plaza. Moreover, that 15 of the 17 earwitnesses back at
> Houston and Main heard the second two shots bunched together is indicative
> that this is how the shots actually occurred (excluding, of course, shots
> fired by silenced weapons), as Houston and Main was nearly equidistant
> from the grassy knoll, the Dal-Tex, and the Texas School Book Depository,
> and there would be no timing distortions resultant from the witnesses'
> proximity to those locations.
>
> After spending a day at the library reading books on hearing, I began to
> understand the scientific principles underlying the possibility of two
> shots closely spaced together in time but coming from different
> directions, "blurring" into one shot in the minds of those nearby. As it
> turns out, the human ear is a far from accurate recording device and has a
> tendency to "flinch" in self-defense when exposed to sudden loud noise.
> This "flinching" not only hides other lesser noises beneath the loud noise
> but it blocks out lesser sounds for up to a fifth of a second (3-4 frames
> of the Zapruder film) afterwards and can prevent sounds that preceded the
> loud noise by up to 20 ms (less than one frame) from even being processed
> by the brain. This phenomenon is written about extensively in books on
> hearing, and the specialized field of Psychoacoustics, and is known as
> masking, with simultaneous masking occurring when one sound buries another
> when the sounds overlap and temporal masking occurring when a louder sound
> blocks out a sound that occurs before or after it. Significantly, the
> length of the masking after the end of the noise is proportionate to the
> length of the original noise, and the degree to which the two sounds share
> tones. Consequently, a gunshot would be more likely to block out another
> gunshot than a woman's scream. Furthermore, when one considers that the
> human brain will automatically fill in short silent spaces between similar
> tones so that the tones sound like one long sound rather than two shorter
> bursts, then it becomes clear that those hearing two shots close together
> would most likely interpret them as one shot. (Indeed, this may explain
> why the shots "lingered" in the air for some back at Houston and Elm.)
>
> On yet another map, I plotted the origin of the shots as determined by 120
> witnesses. I separated the impressions of the earwitnesses into six
> categories: 33 witnesses indicate the source of the shots was in the
> TSBD; 21 indicate the source of the shots was either in the TSBD, or
> possibly one of the other buildings at Houston and Elm; 44 indicate the
> source was in the area west of the TSBD, including the grassy knoll; 6
> indicate the source was in an area west of the TSBD or the TSBD; 10
> indicate the shots came from both behind the limousine towards Houston and
> Elm and in front of the limousine towards the grassy knoll and the
> railroad bridge; and 6 indicate neither the area west of the TSBD nor the
> TSBD itself. I removed some from the list when they either changed their
> story or gave conflicting stories at the time.
>
>
> There were quite a few surprises. Perhaps the main surprise was that,
> while much has been made of the fact that so few heard shots from more
> than one location, there were three men in the Secret Service car behind
> the President (and virtually equidistant between the TSBD and the knoll
> area) who heard shots from both behind and in front. This is significant
> and seems to have been overlooked by most researchers. That there were two
> additional earwitnesses who heard shots from both the west and the east
> standing in the crowd nearby, and that these five earwitnesses are almost
> in a line with one another (the pink belt) only adds to their credibility
> (although the two additional witnesses' credibility on their own is not
> high). It is especially remarkable since each of these witnesses, without
> variance, heard the first shot fired from behind the limousine, near the
> TSBD, and heard the last shot fired from somewhere to the west. Another
> surprise was that by a decisive score of 16 to 9 more witnesses standing
> in front of and inside the TSBD (the green triangle) thought shots came
> from an area west of the TSBD than from the TSBD. This goes against the
> argument that those in Dealey Plaza who thought shots came from the knoll
> simply heard "echoes," as echoes would have been heard with a slight delay
> and at a substantially lower volume than the shots directly overhead. That
> virtually every one of these witnesses heard three shots as opposed to
> four or six is an additional argument against their merely hearing echoes.
> It seems, therefore, that some significant noise must have come from the
> area west of the TSBD. But is there any established evidence supporting
> such conjecture?
>
> When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard
> in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to
> distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report,
> Harvard Psychophysics Professor David Green, makes a particular point of
> stating that although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was
> unable to hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he
> was nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast
> with a similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the
> trained observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office
> Annex on the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot
> fired from the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo,
> but that someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the
> original source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind
> himself. Okay, so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on
> the knoll were incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD?
> Well, the report goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone
> standing in front of the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high
> overhead, and that some of the witnesses may have localized on a
> subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a second later from the area of the
> overpass "especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the
> TSBD."
>
> This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green doesn't really believe his
> offered explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the
> TSBD was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open
> sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the room.
> Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to shoot
> accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes stacked in
> front of the window for support, this statement argues against a lone
> gunman's ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper's nest without
> his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually
> occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument
> for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper
> shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily
> identifiable. Indeed, in his appearance before the committee, Green made
> this point abundantly clear.
>
> He said "there are certain locations that are best for observing certain
> shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the
> street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came
> from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort
> of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular
> surface of the building and it was quite evident." Unstated but implied in
> Green's report is his knowledge that 13 of the 18 witnesses in this
> "general region" in front of the depository, including those on its front
> steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 12
> pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green's
> attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was
> fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical
> possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less
> noise-which was believed to have been beyond the "lone nut" Oswald's
> capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last
> sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative,
> as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex
> or County Records buildings would not necessarily be heard as coming from
> those locations, even if the weapon was not equipped with a silencer. This
> is significant.
>
> But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no
> rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and
> the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to
> distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with
> over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots
> from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the
> rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one
> sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80
> times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at
> the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll,
> one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26
> times, claiming that the un-silenced shots fired were readily identifiable
> as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a shot coming from
> that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including Abraham Zapruder,
> believed the shots came from somewhere further back. (Why they failed to
> perform tests using silenced weapons is never explained.) When one looks
> only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood on the
> street in front of the Depository, in addition, it reveals they correctly
> identified the source 18 of 20 times.
>
> These actual results reveal that the report's musings about people being
> confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was
> so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option
> of defending the Warren Commission's conclusions. Instead, the results
> reveal it's fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey
> Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the lone nut theorists maintain
> that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine who
> heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the observers
> were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6 witnesses on
> the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were wrong, in a
> location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times. These results
> indicate that it is the lone nut theorists who are wrong, yet again.
> That those convinced of a conspiracy have failed to embrace this report as
> the convincing argument for a conspiracy that it is can only be explained
> by their blind reluctance to embrace any evidence or testimony that calls
> into doubt that the headshot came from the stockade fence.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
Very good here, but also consider another quadrant of the Triple
Underpass where the railroad workers were lined up with a ring side
seat. You have an unanimous shot and besides earwitnessing an almost
unananymity in seeing smoke as well. Also you have a contingency from
the passing vehicles and people investigating on the Knoll that had
smelled gunpowder. Seems unlikely that the aroma would have wafted
down six stories from the TSBD for that little whiff, eh? Of course
when they conveniently 'dismissed' Holland from the Triple Underpass
they headed off disaster by not calling the other ones that were there.
Also to take into consideration is A.J. Millican that was from the
Brennan work crew. He heard 8 shots (from both directions) and he was
postitioned between the TSBD and the GK. His work crew member Speaker
heard five shots. Hearing shots is not the only criteria as it must be
assumed that one or non-different weapons or bullets were used. Also
if a volley were virtually on top of each other, how many of those
witnesses would have heard that as just one? If one must go to the
postition that one shooter must have shot one set of shots, then you
might as well get a bullet from that weapon and put it in a hospital
where the victim was shot to pin it on him.
CJ
tomnln
Apparently you haven't read the Church Committees 14 volumes Either.
They include testimony of former CIA Director Colby.
Colby testified that back in 1963, the CIA did indeed have an "Operational
Umbrella Gun".
It fired Fleshettes.
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1144274067....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
>
> Earlier you wrote:
>
> ...None of the "evidence" you cite precludes additional shooters. You
> want to argue Oswald's guilt -- but I could care less if Oswald was guilty
> or innocent. It's irrelevant...
>
> Why could you care less if Oswald is guilty or innocent? Why is it
> irrelevant?
>
> Using your twisted logic, why is it relevant if the CIA was involved?
>
> In your view, some type of coup d'etat took place in Dealey Plaza that
> day. Dramatic stuff, Cliff, but apparently the coup failed. Power changed
> hands constitutionally that afternoon. There was no Cuba invasion.
> Lansdale and company failed.
>
> And yet, despite your coup theory, there were no recriminations within the
Anthony Marsh
> Hey chuck;
> Apparently you haven't read the Church Committees 14 volumes Either.
> They include testimony of former CIA Director Colby.
>
> Colby testified that back in 1963, the CIA did indeed have an "Operational
> Umbrella Gun".
> It fired Fleshettes.
>
>
Something like that. Close enough. The word is French. "Flechettes" with
a "c" not with an "s."
pjsp...@aol.com
the Incredible Shrinking President slide, I demonstrate how both the
Warren Commision's Rydberg drawings and the Clark Panel's measurements
called for the President's skull and neck to have been 50% larger than
life. They made so many errors it would have been funny if it weren't
so damned tragic. In the Single-Bullet Theory section, I have a few
slides called Coat Check; these slides demonstrate Cliff's point--that
the accepted bullet entrance on Kennedy's clothing is lower than his
throat wound in the anatomically neiutral position, and would have to
have been raised WAY UP to overlay an entrance on a trajectory
connecting the sniper's nest with the throat wound.
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
> Cliff:
>
> I'm just curious as to why you rely so heavily on eyewitness accounts
> regarding the back-of-the-neck entrance and front-of-the-neck exit.
>
> Here's what the Warren report said, courtesy of John's website:
>
> The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the
> scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the
> supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
> This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
> and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
> missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
> damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
> the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543.
>
> Here's part of what the Clark Panel said:
>
> There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the
> back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial
> process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below
> the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm.
> below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can
> also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an
> anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to
> compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the
> horizontal plane of the body.
>
> A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back
> wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies
> it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a
> bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures
> approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions
> of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound
> produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE
> 399.
>
> At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the
> front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the
> circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of
> which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet.
> The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the
> surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The
> center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm.
> below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a
> preceding paragraph. THIS INDICATES THAT THE BULLET WHICH PRODUCED THE
> TWO WOUNDS FOLLOWED A COURSE DOWNWARD AND TO THE LEFT IN ITS PASSAGE
> THROUGH THE BODY (emphasis mine).
>
> The HSCA folks went to great pains in re-examining the X-ray photos
> from the autopsy, and the photos of JFK were examined to make sure it
> really was JFK-no body doubles, etc. Forensic pathologists concluded it
> was the late POTUS, and photogrametrically it was determined that the
> photos were real and unaltered. They concluded that the POTUS was hit
> by only two shots-both from behind and above, with one shot blowing out
> his head and the other shot striking him from behind in the lower neck
> and penetrating his body and exiting his front lower neck.
>
> Why do you doubt such clear, compelling, straight forward medical
> evidence looked at by dozens of M.D.'s and experts from all sorts of
> different disciplines?
>
> Cliff, this trumps your shirt theory, and it trumps your eyewitness
> accounts, or relying on the autopsy face sheets that were not drawn to
> scale.
Anthony Marsh
Why do you doubt clear, compelling, straight forward medical evidence
from dozens of forensic pathologists that the back wound was lower than
the throat wound? That alone makes the SBT impossible.
> Cliff, this trumps your shirt theory, and it trumps your eyewitness
> accounts, or relying on the autopsy face sheets that were not drawn to
> scale.
>
>
Cliff
> Cliff:
>
> I'm just curious as to why you rely so heavily on eyewitness accounts
> regarding the back-of-the-neck entrance and front-of-the-neck exit.
I don't.
I rely on the holes in the clothes and the motorcade films
and photos that show JFK's jacket dropping an inch from
Main Street to the Kill Zone.
>
> Here's what the Warren report said, courtesy of John's website:
>
> The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the
> scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the
> supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
And what evidence was this based on? The autopsy photos?
Why should we buy a government analysis based on evidence
the government doesn't endorse?
The HSCA didn't endorse the Fox 5 photo as proof
of the location of the back wound, even though they
guessed C7/T1 on the basis of that photo.
Go figure.
> This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
> and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
> missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
> damaged the trachea
All of which is consistent with a shot to the throat from
the front.
> and made its exit through the anterior surface of
> the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543.
But it could only have exited on an upward trajectory.
Exit SBT.
>
> Here's part of what the Clark Panel said:
>
> There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin
Elliptical, eh?
You LN guys like to cite JBC's elliptical wound
as evidence the bullet hit something else first.
What did the bullet go through before it hit JFK?
> of the
> back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial
> process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below
> the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm.
> below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck.
How was this determination made if not from the autopsy
photos?
The HSCA disputed the evidentiary value of the Fox 5
photo -- singled it out as "difficult or impossible" to
determine the location of the back wound.
How can an improperly produced, poor quality autopsy photo
(for which there is no chain of evidence, btw) trump the fact you
can't bunch 5 inches of clothing into an inch and a half of
vertical space?
> This fold can
> also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an
> anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to
> compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the
> horizontal plane of the body.
>
> A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back
> wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies
> it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a
> bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures
> approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions
> of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound
> produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE
> 399.
>
> At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the
> front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the
> circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of
> which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet.
> The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the
> surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The
> center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm.
> below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a
> preceding paragraph. THIS INDICATES THAT THE BULLET WHICH PRODUCED THE
> TWO WOUNDS FOLLOWED A COURSE DOWNWARD AND TO THE LEFT IN ITS PASSAGE
> THROUGH THE BODY (emphasis mine).
But this is based on a convenient reading of the degraded
Fox 5 autopsy photo.
They got it wrong. Big deal.
>
> The HSCA folks went to great pains in re-examining the X-ray photos
> from the autopsy, and the photos of JFK were examined to make sure it
> really was JFK-no body doubles, etc. Forensic pathologists concluded it
> was the late POTUS, and photogrametrically it was determined that the
> photos were real and unaltered.
Fine by me. The HSCA also described these photos thusly:
Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National
Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs
taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs
as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been
described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the
direction of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when
present, WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE
WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL
LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
(quote off)
> They concluded that the POTUS was hit
> by only two shots-both from behind and above, with one shot blowing out
> his head and the other shot striking him from behind in the lower neck
> and penetrating his body and exiting his front lower neck.
They concluded wrong.
>
> Why do you doubt such clear, compelling, straight forward medical
> evidence looked at by dozens of M.D.'s and experts from all sorts of
> different disciplines?
Because they relied on a "guess-analysis" of improperly
produced, poor quality autopsy photos.
The ignored the documentary evidence, the witness testimony,
and the physical evidence.
It's called a cover-up.
>
> Cliff, this trumps your shirt theory,
What does? TWrong-headed interpretations of the
evidence by a bunch of government hacks?
> and it trumps your eyewitness accounts, or relying on the autopsy
> face sheets that were not drawn to scale.
Oh, I see. You like to cherry pick the autopsy for
evidence you think supports your argument, but when
evidence from the autopsy doesn't support your argument
you throw it out.
Faulty conclusions, drawn by government hacks from evidence
even the government couldn't endorse, trumps nothing.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
>
>
> Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
>
No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
> It's their scenario, not mine.
>
No, it is not.
> The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
> thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
> to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
>
There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
> Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
>
> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
> it be logical to do so?
>
Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex and reveals conspiracy.
> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
>
Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
Cliff
Chuck, that's a pretty big snip there.
If you're going to keep using the word *silly* you'd better
apply it to the autopsists, because they took this scenario
quite seriously.
> Cliff wrote:
>
> ...Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
>
> Exactly, Cliff.
Exactly what? Read James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS
pg. 84 -- and tell me *what*, exactly?
This made sound "silly" to you, Chuck, but it is a documented
fact that in 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the entire top rung of
the US military -- was rooting for John Glenn's space capsule to
explode. Why? They were prepared to explain the explosion as
Castro's aggressive use of "electronic transmissions" against the
United States -- a bogus charge they thought they could make
stick
On 11/22/63 they were prepared to use a dead patsy to implicate
Castro -- hell, that story still has legs. But Oswald's murder didn't
happen on time.
>
> Cliff wrote:
>
> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
> it be logical to do so?
>
> (No.)
No?
You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
Not me.
>
>
> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
>
> (Scorpions aren't people. Silly.)
They're predators. That's what assassins are.
>
> So was this whole thing about Vietnam or Cuba? Or both?
Both.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
> > chuck schuyler wrote:
> >> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
> >
> >
> > Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
> >
>
> No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
Again? I posted this once already.
James Sibert's affidavit:
(quote on)
(quote off)
(quote on)
DART GUN
(quote off)
>
> > It's their scenario, not mine.
> >
>
> No, it is not.
"Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
fragments completely."
What else do you suppose they were talking about?
According to Francis O'Neill, Sibert called FBI HQ to
inquire about blood soluble rounds.
I'm sorry this is inconvenient to your pet theory, Anthony.
>
> > The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
> > thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
> > to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
> >
>
> There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
"Bullets that fragment completely." Sibert inquired about
blood soluble rounds.
>
> > Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
> > that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
> >
> > The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
> > it be logical to do so?
> >
>
> Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex
You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
Not me.
> and reveals conspiracy.
How would it reveal anything if it didn't show up on x-ray?
>
> > Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
> >
>
> Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
Perfect analogy -- paralyze the target and then move in.
I definitely wouldn't plan an assassination with you, Anthony.
:->
Cliff
> I'm sure the CIA has all sorts of wiz-bang James Bond-like weapons and
> gadgets. I hope you are not insinuating that a poison dart was fired at
> JFK that day.
>
> Chuck Schuyler, Author of:
>
> "Watch Out JFK! There's a Poison Dart Headed Your Way!"
JFK acted paralyzed in the limo.
What's the simplest explanation for a guy acting paralyzed?
He is paralyzed.
Spence
Detrick:
It was in my own office, in a part of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, in the Pentagon in 1960 that I first saw an early version of
the weapon fired. On July 29, 1960 I flew to Fort Detrick, Maryland by
helicopter from the Pentagon to see developments of this and other new
weapons at that top secret installation. I am able *from personal and
official experience* to support the Sprague- Cutler thesis that an
umbrella weapon was used as part of the JFK murder plot.
The inventor of the flechette rocket was shown into my office by a
fellow staff member, and I was told that he had something he wanted to
demonstrate to the military to see if it could be developed into some
useful tactical weapon system. In his hand he held several small
plastic tubes which looked to me like soda straws, about "thick malt
shake" size. Then he showed me a small plastic, nylon perhaps, rocket.
It was a perfectly shaped, miniature rocket, complete with tail fins.
Inside was a tiny charge of propellant.
Did they find any "tiny fins" sticking out of the President's neck?
Here is the story as told by Richard Sprague:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Cliff wrote:
>>> chuck schuyler wrote:
>>>> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
>>>
>>> Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
>>>
>> No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
>
> Again? I posted this once already.
>
It doesn't matter if you post it 100 times. It is not to the point.
YOU were the one thinking up the idea of a blood soluble round. Not
Humes. He said nothing about blood soluble rounds.
> James Sibert's affidavit:
>
> (quote on)
>
> I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection
> with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.
> They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with
> a metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far
> and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both
> Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet
> through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection
> of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was
> also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.
>
> (quote off)
>
> What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
>
A frangible bullet. An explosive bullet. A divided core bullet.
How many hundreds of times do I have to answer your stupid questions?
> CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
> H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
>
> (quote on)
>
> DART GUN
>
> The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass
> stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer
> M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...
> If left in the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable
> on X-ray.
>
> An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
> obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
>
> (quote off)
>
> This example is much smaller, but clearly the technology existed.
>
When? Show that it existed in 1963. And I would be a little suspicious
of your source if it really said ".03-caliber."
>>> It's their scenario, not mine.
>>>
>> No, it is not.
>
> "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
> fragments completely."
>
> What else do you suppose they were talking about?
>
A bullet.
> According to Francis O'Neill, Sibert called FBI HQ to
> inquire about blood soluble rounds.
>
No, he asked about the feasibility of an ice bullet. Do you think an ice
bullet is practical?
> I'm sorry this is inconvenient to your pet theory, Anthony.
>
Explain my pet theory.
>
>>> The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
>>> thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
>>> to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
>>>
>> There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
>
> "Bullets that fragment completely." Sibert inquired about
> blood soluble rounds.
>
No. He asked about an ice bullet.
>>> Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
>>> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
>>>
>>> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
>>> it be logical to do so?
>>>
>> Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex
>
> You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
>
No, that's why they have an insurance shooter.
> Not me.
>
>> and reveals conspiracy.
>
>
> How would it reveal anything if it didn't show up on x-ray?
>
Reveal does not mean X-ray. Reveal the nature of the conspiracy.
>
>>> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
>>>
>> Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
>
> Perfect analogy -- paralyze the target and then move in.
>
The scorpion's venom KILLS the target. Then it moves in to eat the
already dead victim.
> I definitely wouldn't plan an assassination with you, Anthony.
>
You need to study some historical examples.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>I asked you earlier and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again.
>
>Do you believe the U.S. government:
>
>A.) Specifically knew about or was complicit in the 9-11 terror
>attacks?
>
>B.) Recovered wreckage or helped hide evidence of an alien crash
>landing in Roswell New Mexico?
>
>C.) Faked the Apollo moon landings?
Did you forget?
This newsgroup is about the JFK Assassination.
Are you trying to smear by association?
Do you make the false assumption that someone who allows for the
possibility of a plot in the JFK assassination must also believe in
some other wacky theories?
Let me ask you:
Because you believe in the WC report, do you believe the government:
A.) Knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before it occurred?
B.) Believes cigarettes do not cause cancer?
C.) Believes Canada is controlled by a small clique in Georgia?
PF
pjsp...@aol.com
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Pjspeare:
>
> On your Thursday, Apr 6 8:24pm post, you agree with Cliff that the JFK
> back wound was lower than the throat wound, thus no SBT.
>
> Where did that bullet go?
>
> Where did the throat shot come from and where did it go?
When I looked at the SBT, I came to the conclusion that the trajectory
didn't quite work and that bone would have been in the way. I also came to
the conclusion that CE399 was probably found in the car and placed on a
stretcher, neither Connally's nor Kennedy's. This bullet seemed to me a
likely candidate for the bullet striking Kennedy in the back. When I
looked at the head wounds, I came to the conclusion that the large defect
was a tangential wound, and that the bullet creating the small entrance
near the hairline did not penetrate the brain. This left me with a small
entrance on the back of the head and a small hole (exit? entrance?) on
Kennedy's throat. At first, I didn't believe the two could be connected,
but the more I read the more I came to believe that a bullet entering
Kennedy's hairline around frame 224 could have been deflected down his
neck and out his throat. Evidence for this included the fact that there
is a bullet track visible on the x-ray which appears to come down the
neck, starting much higher than C7, or T1 (the HSCA explained this by
saying it was air that had leaked back into Kennedy's neck from the hole
in his trachea, after his TIE HAD SEALED OFF THE THROAT EXIT.). Other
evidence for this comes from the Dallas doctors--many of whom intially
believed a bullet entering Kennedy's throat had went up his neck, and the
FBI, which asserted that a fragment from the head shot had traveled down
the neck. I also found evidence of Battle's Sign behind Kennedy's
ear--this is a bruise that demonstrates a skull base fracture--and blood
beneath the tissue in his upper neck. When I plotted out this trajectory I
found, furthermore, that such a trajectory would pass under the right
cerebellum. Dr. Humes and the HSCA mentioned minor damage to the bottom of
the right cerebellum. When I read about the observable results of
cerebellar damage and skull base fracture, I found that they described
Kennedy's actions between 224 and 312 to perfection, i.e. the inability to
grasp objects, the inability to speak, an abnormal head attitude, and a
noticeable lean to the side opposite the bullet's impact. While some will
think I drank the Kool-Aid, the truth is I talked myself into it. It
sounded wacky to me, but everything added up.
I go into far more detail on these issues in the New Views on the Same
Scene section of my presentation:
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
John Canal
Can you give me a citation re. your statement that Humes and the HSCA
mentaioned damage to the BOTTOM [my emphasis] of the right cerebellum.
If they said that, not only did I miss it (it wouldn't be the first time
I did that, nor will it be the last), but it also would be inconsistent
with their (the autopsists and the FPP's) other conclusions.
One more request, if you don't mind. Why were the findings of HB&F so
vastly different from yours? Do you think they were grossly incompetent
or do you think they were in on a cover-up?
Thanks.
John Canal
paul seaton
There was / is no bullet hole in the base of the skull , & consequently no
path for any bullet from the rear skull to the throat. Also, of course,
bullet travelling from the eop to the throat would neccessarily pass right
through the cerebellum.
Odd how people reject a scenario that they see as somewhat unlikely in
favour of one that is downright impossible.
--
Paul Seaton
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1144543060.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Lowry
is that not all evidence is created equal , especially eye and ear
witness ! ( The biggest cause of mis-carriage of justice in the United
States today is eye-witness testamony ) That's something CT's just
can't seem to grasp . 98% of the so called evidence can now be
discarded . You don't need to know were the bullets entered or exited ,
if you realize the conclusions of the NAA revised report , it becomes
unimportant . See : Monograph length treasty (
Karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/jfk.html ) bottom of first page . Same goes with
head wound , no need to argue endlessly about inshoot or outshoot or
skin on a bullet or any other such rubbish . See above : Monograph
length treasty [ ( Two phase head movement ) also on bottom of page one
] that shows it takes only one MC bullet to explain all movements of
JFK 's head after the fatal head shot . All else is unimportant . Solid
physic's , peer reviewed , here on my side and now you were saying
something about elementary............? Tom Lowry
Tom Lowry
Tom Lowry
aeffects
John Canal
more moderators.
:-)
John Canal
Peter Fokes
We are bumble bees, not hornets!
PF
Cliff
> Cliff:
>
> Do you really, really believe that a poison dart was fired at the
> President to paralyze him for the kill shot?
JFK acted paralyzed in the limo.
Acting paralyzed is consistent with being paralyzed.
If I had access to technology that allowed me to paralyze
a target sitting in an open limo, I'm going to use it.
> Was that Oswald in the doorway in the Altgen photo?
I seriously doubt it.
> Is Badgeman in the Moorman photo a real assassin firing at
> the limo?
I don't know.
I don't have all the answers to the case, far from it, I just
don't think that a lot of it matters.
>
> Is there any part of the MEGAPLOT that you have discarded over the
> years?
What megaplot?
I named 3 guys who worked for the CIA.
> I think you've read 'Crossfire' by Jim Marrs once too often.
>
> I asked you earlier and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again.
>
> Do you believe the U.S. government:
I don't "believe" anything.
My approach is to look for consistencies. If there
are enough consistencies in an argument, I may
draw a conclusion.
>
> A.) Specifically knew about or was complicit in the 9-11 terror
> attacks?
Find out what Dick Cheney was doing on Sept. 11 2001
and we'll have the answer to that question.
>
> B.) Recovered wreckage or helped hide evidence of an alien crash
> landing in Roswell New Mexico?
I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
>
> C.) Faked the Apollo moon landings?
See B.)
>
> Also, just to clarify for me, you believe that there was one hole in
> JFK's back, and one hole in JFK's front-of-neck.
>
> Please tell me what happened to those bullets.
I've answered this already. The autopsists thought it might
have "dissolved after contact."
>
> Put away your dog-eared copy of Crossfire and your 40th anniversary DVD
> of the movie JFK.
As I've said before, if I never hear the name Jim Garrison again
I'll be a happy man.
>
> LHO killed JFK.
I don't know about that, all I know is that the physical
evidence of 4 shots is irrefutable.
If you can put a rifle in Oswald's hands that could
get 4 shots off, you might have an argument.
> Everything else sounds ridiculous 42 years after the event.
Your scenario posits 5 inches of clothing fabric bunched up
in 1.5 inches of vertical space between C7/T1 and the bottom
of the jacket collar.
Ridiculous.
>
> By the way, those 58,000 American men you mentioned in an earlier post,
> died in Vietnam because we as a nation made a political decision to try
> and halt Communist aggression in the region
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm
Right out of the Operation Northwoods play-book.
If it's true that Dick Cheney was in charge of a Air Force
exercise simulating hi-jacked aircraft the morning of 9/11/01,
in effect running interference for the hi-jackers, then I'd have
to conclude that the Towers fell the way they did due to
pre-planted explosions
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Cheney hobbled America's ability to respond to the
hi-jackings, consistent with his foreknowledge of the
plot and the pre-planting of explosions.
Blame it on Saddam -- right out of the Operation Northwoods
playbook.
There's a direct line from Dealey Plaza to Baghdad thru the
Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero.
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Cliff wrote:
> >>> chuck schuyler wrote:
> >>>> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
> >>>
> >>> Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
> >>>
> >> No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
> >
> > Again? I posted this once already.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter if you post it 100 times.
Evidently not.
> It is not to the point.
It certainly is. The "doctors" Sibert referred to were HB&F.
It was HB&F who considered the "ice bullet scenario."
> YOU were the one thinking up the idea of a blood soluble round.
Wrong.
>>From Francis X O'Neill's Nov. 6, 1978 HSCA affidavit:
(quote on)
Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration
of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy
that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion
concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been
a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
contact.
(quote off)
So that's two concurring statements from the FBI guys:
"Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
fragments completely."
"There was discussion concerning the back wound that
the bullet could have been a 'plastic' type or an 'ice'
bullet, one which dissolves after contact."
Of course, a type of bullet that "dissolves after contact"
would be a blood soluble round.
> Not Humes. He said nothing about blood soluble rounds.
You attended the autposy taking notes on what Humes said?
Sibert and O'Neill were, which is inconvenient to your pet
theories.
>
> > James Sibert's affidavit:
> >
> > (quote on)
> >
> > I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection
> > with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.
> > They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with
> > a metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far
> > and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both
> > Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet
> > through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection
> > of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was
> > also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.
> >
> > (quote off)
> >
> > What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
> >
>
> A frangible bullet.
That only penetrates a few inches?
> An explosive bullet.
That only penetrates a few inches?
> A divided core bullet.
That only penetrates a few inches?
> How many hundreds of times do I have to answer your stupid questions?
Do your homework and I won't have to repeat myself.
>
> > CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
> > H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
> >
> > (quote on)
> >
> > DART GUN
> >
> > The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass
> > stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer
> > M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...
> > If left in the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable
> > on X-ray.
> >
> > An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
> > obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
> >
> > (quote off)
> >
> > This example is much smaller, but clearly the technology existed.
> >
>
> When? Show that it existed in 1963.
CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT was published in 1965.
> And I would be a little suspicious
> of your source if it really said ".03-caliber."
Richard Helms wrote the forward to the book I cite.
>
> >>> It's their scenario, not mine.
> >>>
> >> No, it is not.
> >
> > "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
> > fragments completely."
> >
> > What else do you suppose they were talking about?
> >
>
> A bullet.
A bullet that "dissolves after contact."
>
> > According to Francis O'Neill, Sibert called FBI HQ to
> > inquire about blood soluble rounds.
> >
>
> No, he asked about the feasibility of an ice bullet.
What the hell do you think we're discussing?
This "ice bullet" business didn't start with me, Anthony.
> Do you think an ice bullet is practical?
Do I think it's practical to paralyze a guy riding in an
open limo before you blow his brains out?
Of course.
What, do you think they were talking about a bullet actually
made of ice?
No, Anthony, they were talking about blood soluble
rounds -- ones that "dissolve after contact."
>
> > I'm sorry this is inconvenient to your pet theory, Anthony.
> >
>
> Explain my pet theory.
A bullet struck JFK at T1 and exited his throat.
>
> >
> >>> The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
> >>> thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
> >>> to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
> >>>
> >> There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
> >
> > "Bullets that fragment completely." Sibert inquired about
> > blood soluble rounds.
> >
>
> No. He asked about an ice bullet.
Same thing.
>
> >>> Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
> >>> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
> >>>
> >>> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
> >>> it be logical to do so?
> >>>
> >> Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex
> >
> > You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
> >
>
> No, that's why they have an insurance shooter.
And if the target is winged in the first volley and ducks
down -- what then?
Hand grenades?
Or do you hire Mitch WerBell to develope a weapon to deliver a
paralyzing agent in a blood soluble round?
The technology existed -- more than likely they used it.
>
> > Not me.
> >
> >> and reveals conspiracy.
> >
> >
> > How would it reveal anything if it didn't show up on x-ray?
> >
>
> Reveal does not mean X-ray. Reveal the nature of the conspiracy.
How would it reveal the nature of the conspiracy when it no
longer existed?
>
> >
> >>> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
> >>>
> >> Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
> >
> > Perfect analogy -- paralyze the target and then move in.
> >
>
> The scorpion's venom KILLS the target.
Only the smaller targets. From Wikipedia:
(quote on)
Scorpions first catch their prey in their claws. If their prey is
strong, they will paralyze it with their stinger.
(quote off)
> Then it moves in to eat the already dead victim.
Or, if the target is larger, it moves in on the paralyzed victim.
Hard to argue with scopion logic.
Cliff Varnell
pjsp...@aol.com
and New Views sections, you'll see that 1. neither a cowlick entry nor
an EOP entry leading to the large defect makes sense when one looks at
the damage to the brain. 2. A cowlick entry would have blown the back
top of Kennedy's head off and not traversed the brain at all, which is
why Canning fudged his calibration photo. 3. an EOP entry at frame 224
and heading down the neck would have passed just below the cerebellum.
YES, it is "Odd how people reject a scenario that they see as somewhat
unlikely in favour of one that is downright impossible".
John, here's my comments on the cerebellum.
Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past
the cerebellum, if not actually striking it, I decided to look back
through the literature to see if there was any indication something
like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with
the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, "the right cerebellum has
been partially disrupted, yes." I also found that Dr. Peters, one of
the President's doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in
1988 and shared Humes' appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone
that "the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared
to the left." I then recalled the HSCA's declaration that "the
posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum" was "virtually
intact...It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration,
fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior
aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the
bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report."
This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said "virtually
intact," which indicates some damage. They also said there was
certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the
autopsy report, which makes sense. After all, the bullet trajectory
implied in the autopsy report would have the bullet heading straight
into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA lead me to believe
the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet's
having headed down into the neck.
At the risk of pulling a Lattimer, who desperately tried to link
Kennedy's movements after this shot to something he called
Thorburn's response, I decided to see if the President's behavior
after frame 224 was consistent with someone suffering damage to his
cerebellum. According to the available literature, the symptoms of
cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering
the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement
at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects
(ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye
movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the
President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is
obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of
his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat,
slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden
weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as
a scream. Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York
Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly
believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of
the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the
top of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: "If
the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet
that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged.
Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention
type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or
grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied
by a loss of equilibrium."
Should one be unsatisfied with that explanation, there is also the
possibility Kennedy was afflicted with Jugular Foramen Syndrome.
Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston's Pocket Medical
Dictionary as "Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus,
and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular
foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture." According to the online
article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and
the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would
manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis
of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a
paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the
strernocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle,
which rotates it. The result is a "weakness in contralateral head
rotation and shoulder elevation." Contralateral, of course, means
affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well,
Kennedy turned toward his left and his left shoulder dipped in his
final, silent, moments.
Anthony Marsh
> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> Pjspeare:
>>
>> On your Thursday, Apr 6 8:24pm post, you agree with Cliff that the JFK
>> back wound was lower than the throat wound, thus no SBT.
>>
>> Where did that bullet go?
>>
>> Where did the throat shot come from and where did it go?
>
> When I looked at the SBT, I came to the conclusion that the trajectory
> didn't quite work and that bone would have been in the way. I also came to
> the conclusion that CE399 was probably found in the car and placed on a
CE 399 is without doubt a WCC M-C bullet fired from Oswald's rifle.
> stretcher, neither Connally's nor Kennedy's. This bullet seemed to me a
> likely candidate for the bullet striking Kennedy in the back. When I
If CE 399 struck Kennedy in the back, and there is NO evidence that it
did, it would have to transit and exit. There was one doctor who
proposed that such a bullet would exit the throat and drop to the floor,
but that is not possible with that particular type of bullet.
> looked at the head wounds, I came to the conclusion that the large defect
> was a tangential wound, and that the bullet creating the small entrance
> near the hairline did not penetrate the brain. This left me with a small
> entrance on the back of the head and a small hole (exit? entrance?) on
> Kennedy's throat. At first, I didn't believe the two could be connected,
> but the more I read the more I came to believe that a bullet entering
> Kennedy's hairline around frame 224 could have been deflected down his
> neck and out his throat. Evidence for this included the fact that there
> is a bullet track visible on the x-ray which appears to come down the
> neck, starting much higher than C7, or T1 (the HSCA explained this by
> saying it was air that had leaked back into Kennedy's neck from the hole
> in his trachea, after his TIE HAD SEALED OFF THE THROAT EXIT.). Other
One of the very first theories was that a bullet hit the head and a
fragment from it exited the throat.
But JFK was already reacting to the throat wound long before the head shot.
> evidence for this comes from the Dallas doctors--many of whom intially
> believed a bullet entering Kennedy's throat had went up his neck, and the
> FBI, which asserted that a fragment from the head shot had traveled down
> the neck. I also found evidence of Battle's Sign behind Kennedy's
> ear--this is a bruise that demonstrates a skull base fracture--and blood
> beneath the tissue in his upper neck. When I plotted out this trajectory I
> found, furthermore, that such a trajectory would pass under the right
> cerebellum. Dr. Humes and the HSCA mentioned minor damage to the bottom of
> the right cerebellum. When I read about the observable results of
> cerebellar damage and skull base fracture, I found that they described
> Kennedy's actions between 224 and 312 to perfection, i.e. the inability to
> grasp objects, the inability to speak, an abnormal head attitude, and a
> noticeable lean to the side opposite the bullet's impact. While some will
> think I drank the Kool-Aid, the truth is I talked myself into it. It
> sounded wacky to me, but everything added up.
>
>
> I go into far more detail on these issues in the New Views on the Same
> Scene section of my presentation:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
>
>
David Wimp
I don't know what JFK's left arm is doing, but his right hand goes limp
at the head shot and drops straight down. After the big blur, his hand
has poped up, not just relative to his arm, but actually ends up higher.
His right shoulder is moves up after the head shot as well. There is
a possible mechanical explanation for what you are saying above and what
I have added. A force to the head from the right would push the head
over to the left and rotate the body that way as well moving his right
shoulder up. A force from the front or right would cause the elbow to
move up and the arm to move forward or to the right depending on a
frontal or lateral force. The arm starting to fall would tend to make
the hand rotate up at the wrist. A bump from Jackie might be needed to
produce some of this or at least the magnitude of some of the motion.
It definitely works better if the limo is braking just before and at the
head shot. It seems clear that JFK's back is moving forward after the
head shot and after his head is moving backwards. I think the back is
moving forward a couple of frames before the shot, but that is hard to
establish.
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>Paul, if you will take a look at my presentation, in The Tangled Web
>and New Views sections, you'll see that 1. neither a cowlick entry nor
>an EOP entry leading to the large defect makes sense when one looks at
>the damage to the brain. 2. A cowlick entry would have blown the back
>top of Kennedy's head off and not traversed the brain at all, which is
>why Canning fudged his calibration photo. 3. an EOP entry at frame 224
>and heading down the neck would have passed just below the cerebellum.
>YES, it is "Odd how people reject a scenario that they see as somewhat
>unlikely in favour of one that is downright impossible".
>
>John, here's my comments on the cerebellum.
>
>Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past
>the cerebellum, if not actually striking it, I decided to look back
>through the literature to see if there was any indication something
>like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with
>the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, "the right cerebellum has
>been partially disrupted, yes." I also found that Dr. Peters, one of
>the President's doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in
>1988 and shared Humes' appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone
>that "the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared
>to the left." I then recalled the HSCA's declaration that "the
>posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum" was "virtually
>intact...
Hold the phone a minute, Pat....I ask you for a citation that supports your
statement the the BOTTOM of the right cerebellum was damaged and you give me
your recollection that the HSCA said "the posterior-inferior portion of the
cerebellum was virtually intact"???? IOW, you didn't give me the citation (just
your recollection) and then you transpose "virtually intact" to mean damaged?
Good grief, Pat...and I criticized McAdams for insisting that "to the vicinity
of the Lamboid suture" meant only to a point a few centimeteres above the
Lamboid suture. Sorry, .john, relatively speaking, you don't spin the facts your
way.
>It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration,
>fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior
>aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the
>bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report."
If the bullet wound were as described in the autopsy report (THE WAY THEY SAW IT
ON THE BODY)...and the exit was at the "beveled" corner (the same place where
the metalic residue was seen) of the large skull piece that fit along the
coronal suture...then the bullet would have just skirted along the top of the
tentorium...probably only badly bruising the right cerebellum. Get out Gray's
Anatomy and drwa a line from slightly above the EOP to the exit where Angel's
placement of the aforementioned skull piece put it....see what I mean? I didn't
think so. :-(
>This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said "virtually
>intact," which indicates some damage. They also said there was
>certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the
>autopsy report, which makes sense. After all, the bullet trajectory
>implied in the autopsy report would have the bullet heading straight
>into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA lead me to believe
>the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet's
>having headed down into the neck.
Did you decide my simple question to you was not worthy of you taking the time
to answer? I'll repeat it and tell you that I'd appreciate an answer. Here it
is.
Considering that the autopsy report (re. the head shot) does not come close to
being consistent with your theory, do you think that HB&F were grossly
incompetent or in on a conspiracy? And, what is your proof for whichever choice
you've made?
John Canal
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
pjsp...@aol.com
going to be rejected by a team of scientists. NAA has been discontinued
by the FBI. The National Academy of Sciences has written a lengthy report
on why it can't be trusted, etc... Not that you'll find any reference to
this on Rahn's site.
As far as eyewitnesses, I agree that individual recollections can be
discounted, but to discard ALL eyewitness evidence. That's foolish. It has
to be taken in context. This may surprise you but I don't believe
Kennedy's wounds were altered, nor do I believe the autopsy photos were
altered. So how do I explain that so many in Dallas saw a large wound on
the back of Kennedy's head? By looking at the big picture and realizing
that the eyewitnesses in Dallas all saw Kennedy while he was on his back.
I studied memory errors and realized that rotation errors are among the
most common. Eyewitness testimony, like NAA tests, have to be properly
interpreted. Only someone starving for a simple world will dismiss it out
of hand.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Cliff wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>>> chuck schuyler wrote:
>>>>>> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
>>>>> Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.
>>>>>
>>>> No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
>>> Again? I posted this once already.
>>>
>> It doesn't matter if you post it 100 times.
>
>
> Evidently not.
>
>
>> It is not to the point.
>
>
> It certainly is. The "doctors" Sibert referred to were HB&F.
>
He doesn't say it was the doctors who brought it up.
> It was HB&F who considered the "ice bullet scenario."
Not really. They had no clue about such things.
>
>> YOU were the one thinking up the idea of a blood soluble round.
>
> Wrong.
>
They did not use the term blood soluble round.
>> >From Francis X O'Neill's Nov. 6, 1978 HSCA affidavit:
>
> (quote on)
>
> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration
> of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy
> that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion
And there you have it folks. They were talking about a soft-nosed bullet.
> concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been
> a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> contact.
>
So, now you are going to add "plastic." You might as well characterize
that as being a flechette and claim that Humes was the first to claim
that a flechette was used. That is your tactic.
> (quote off)
>
> So that's two concurring statements from the FBI guys:
>
> "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
> fragments completely."
>
> "There was discussion concerning the back wound that
> the bullet could have been a 'plastic' type or an 'ice'
> bullet, one which dissolves after contact."
>
> Of course, a type of bullet that "dissolves after contact"
> would be a blood soluble round.
>
But a plastic bullet or an ice bullet is not the same thing as your
blood soluble round.
>
>> Not Humes. He said nothing about blood soluble rounds.
>
> You attended the autposy taking notes on what Humes said?
>
Sibert did. I trust him.
> Sibert and O'Neill were, which is inconvenient to your pet
> theories.
>
On the contrary, I rely on their report for many facts. Also their ARRB
testimony.
>>> James Sibert's affidavit:
>>>
>>> (quote on)
>>>
>>> I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection
>>> with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.
>>> They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with
>>> a metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far
>>> and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both
>>> Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet
>>> through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection
>>> of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was
>>> also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.
>>>
>>> (quote off)
>>>
>>> What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
>>>
>> A frangible bullet.
>
> That only penetrates a few inches?
>
Yes, some.
>> An explosive bullet.
>
> That only penetrates a few inches?
>
Yes.
>> A divided core bullet.
>
> That only penetrates a few inches?
>
Not usually. But it breaks up and creates divergent paths.
>> How many hundreds of times do I have to answer your stupid questions?
>
>
> Do your homework and I won't have to repeat myself.
>
I was doing my homework long before you heard of this case. I have
brought up things that you never heard about before.
>
>>> CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
>>> H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
>>>
>>> (quote on)
>>>
>>> DART GUN
>>>
>>> The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass
>>> stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer
>>> M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...
>>> If left in the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable
>>> on X-ray.
>>>
>>> An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
>>> obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
>>>
>>> (quote off)
>>>
>>> This example is much smaller, but clearly the technology existed.
>>>
>> When? Show that it existed in 1963.
>
>
> CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT was published in 1965.
>
>
Again, show that this particular weapon existed in 1963.
>> And I would be a little suspicious
>> of your source if it really said ".03-caliber."
>
>
> Richard Helms wrote the forward to the book I cite.
>
And you quoted it accurately as .03-caliber? Do you even know how small
.03-caliber would be? No, of course not. Because you know absolutely
nothing about ballistics. Like the local reporter who wrote bogus true
crime stories and in one of them kept referring to a gang famous for
using a .9 mm pistol.
And of course the billion dollar newspaper can't even afford a
proofreader and considered it an insult to proofread his columns.
>>>>> It's their scenario, not mine.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is not.
>>> "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
>>> fragments completely."
>>>
>>> What else do you suppose they were talking about?
>>>
>> A bullet.
>
> A bullet that "dissolves after contact."
>
Yes, a "bullet." Not a "blood soluble round." That is your invention.
The stuff of cheap detective novels.
>>> According to Francis O'Neill, Sibert called FBI HQ to
>>> inquire about blood soluble rounds.
>>>
>> No, he asked about the feasibility of an ice bullet.
>
> What the hell do you think we're discussing?
>
I don't mind discussing an ice bullet no matter how silly that notion
is. But don't call it the blood soluble round and claim that Humes was
the first to suggest that it was a blood soluble round. Two different
animals.
> This "ice bullet" business didn't start with me, Anthony.
>
And the JFK case is not the only time people have brought it up. There
is a famous trick question about finding a dead body with a shallow
bullet wound, but no bullet is found, only a small pool of water. It
doesn't work that way in real life.
>
>> Do you think an ice bullet is practical?
>
> Do I think it's practical to paralyze a guy riding in an
> open limo before you blow his brains out?
>
That was not the question. Answer the question. Do you think an ice
bullet is practical? Yes or no?
> Of course.
>
Nothing wrong with the concept, just that it does not work so well in
real life. And you'll never be able to point to another case where such
a thing was proposed. What do you think the CIA paralyzing darts were
used for?
> What, do you think they were talking about a bullet actually
> made of ice?
>
Someone was.
> No, Anthony, they were talking about blood soluble
> rounds -- ones that "dissolve after contact."
>
No.
>>> I'm sorry this is inconvenient to your pet theory, Anthony.
>>>
>> Explain my pet theory.
>
> A bullet struck JFK at T1 and exited his throat.
>
Yes. The damage proves that.
>
>>>>> The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
>>>>> thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
>>>>> to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
>>>>>
>>>> There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
>>> "Bullets that fragment completely." Sibert inquired about
>>> blood soluble rounds.
>>>
>> No. He asked about an ice bullet.
>
>
> Same thing.
>
No, and that is the point. You have a peculiar habit of introducing your
idea and claiming that is what was meant.
>
>>>>> Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
>>>>> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
>>>>>
>>>>> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
>>>>> it be logical to do so?
>>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex
>>> You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
>>>
>> No, that's why they have an insurance shooter.
>
> And if the target is winged in the first volley and ducks
> down -- what then?
>
The insurance shooter should be able to take care of that given his
position above and in front.
You could also ask what if the bubble top had been put on.
> Hand grenades?
>
They have been used in some assassinations. Why are they not used in all
assassinations? Why could they not be used in the JFK assassination?
Kinda hard to frame a lone nut patsy by lobbing in hand grenades from
the street.
BTW, do you know the story about the man who planned to do a suicide
assassination on Kennedy using dynamite?
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031121/NEWS08/111210127
> Or do you hire Mitch WerBell to develope a weapon to deliver a
> paralyzing agent in a blood soluble round?
>
I don't think you contract it out. You get the TSD to develop it.
There were also rumors that the TSD was asked to develop an explosive
bullet for the Mannlicher-Carcano.
> The technology existed -- more than likely they used it.
>
Definitely they used it. But not in 1963 and not primarily as an
assassination weapon.
>>> Not me.
>>>
>>>> and reveals conspiracy.
>>>
>>> How would it reveal anything if it didn't show up on x-ray?
>>>
>> Reveal does not mean X-ray. Reveal the nature of the conspiracy.
>
> How would it reveal the nature of the conspiracy when it no
> longer existed?
>
It would be an indication of a different type of ammo being fired from a
different location than the sniper's nest. Two shooters means
conspiracy. The exotic nature of such a round would reveal that it had
some connections to some intelligence agency. Just try walking into your
neighborhood gun store and ask to buy some "blood soluble rounds." Then
run before they call the police.
>>>>> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
>>>>>
>>>> Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
>>> Perfect analogy -- paralyze the target and then move in.
>>>
>> The scorpion's venom KILLS the target.
>
> Only the smaller targets. From Wikipedia:
>
> (quote on)
>
> Scorpions first catch their prey in their claws. If their prey is
> strong, they will paralyze it with their stinger.
>
> (quote off)
>
>> Then it moves in to eat the already dead victim.
>
> Or, if the target is larger, it moves in on the paralyzed victim.
>
Silly concept. Moves in to do what? Shoot it with its Mannlicher-Carcano?
> Hard to argue with scopion logic.
>
Hard to argue without logic.
David Wimp
> pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> chuck schuyler wrote:
>>> Pjspeare:
>>>
>>> On your Thursday, Apr 6 8:24pm post, you agree with Cliff that the JFK
>>> back wound was lower than the throat wound, thus no SBT.
>>>
>>> Where did that bullet go?
>>>
>>> Where did the throat shot come from and where did it go?
>>
>> When I looked at the SBT, I came to the conclusion that the trajectory
>> didn't quite work and that bone would have been in the way. I also
>> came to the conclusion that CE399 was probably found in the car and
>> placed on a
>
> CE 399 is without doubt a WCC M-C bullet fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
How do you say it is without doubt WCC?
paul seaton
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1144698307.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
[..]
These statements by the HSCA lead me to believe
> the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet's
> having headed down into the neck.
You mean, it entered the skull at the eop, fragmented, and then headed more
or less vertically downwards within the skull (without leaving a track
through the cerebellum!) , came out through the base of the skull (without
leaving a bullet hole!) , then whipped vertically down through the neck (
without ripping everything in there to shreds!) and came out through a nice
neat hole at the the throat ?
I'm afraid this whole 'theory' is so contrary to the evidence that no-one
without a proprietory interest in it is going to take it seriously for 5
seconds.
--
Paul Seaton
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Cliff wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> Cliff wrote:
> >>>>> chuck schuyler wrote:
> >>>>>> Dart guns. Blood soluble bullets. Silly, silly stuff, Cliff.
> >>>>> Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't think it was silly.> >>>>>
> >>>> No, they did not think this up. Please document your claim.
> >>> Again? I posted this once already.
> >>>
> >> It doesn't matter if you post it 100 times.
> >
> >
> > Evidently not.
> >
> >
> >> It is not to the point.
> >
> >
> > It certainly is. The "doctors" Sibert referred to were HB&F.
> >
>
> He doesn't say it was the doctors who brought it up.
>
> > It was HB&F who considered the "ice bullet scenario."
>
> Not really. They had no clue about such things.
>
> >
> >> YOU were the one thinking up the idea of a blood soluble round.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
>
> They did not use the term blood soluble round.
That's what they described: "an 'ice' bullet, one which
dissolves after contact."
How does the bullet dissolve if it isn't blood soluble?
Quit trying to fit the evidence to your pet theory and deal
with what O'Neill actually wrote. He used the word "dissolves" --
what would it "dissolve" in if not blood?
>
> >> >From Francis X O'Neill's Nov. 6, 1978 HSCA affidavit:
> >
> > (quote on)
> >
> > Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration
> > of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy
> > that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion
>
> And there you have it folks. They were talking about a soft-nosed bullet.
Among other things, like a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet,"
one that dissolves after contact, i.e., blood soluble.
>
> > concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been
> > a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> > contact.
> >
>
> So, now you are going to add "plastic."
Excuse me? You attribute the words of the witnesses to me for
the purpose of attacking my point.
*I* didn't cite "plastic bullets -- O'Neill did.
*I* didn't cite "ice" bullets, "one which dissolves after contact."
Tell us what such a bullet dissolves in if not blood, Anthony.
> You might as well characterize
> that as being a flechette and claim that Humes was the first to claim
> that a flechette was used. That is your tactic.
You can't face the actual testimony so you invent something
that isn't in the testimony.
Where did O'Neill or Sibert mention a "flechette"?
O'Neill said "one which dissolves after contact."
What part of this don't you get?
>
> > (quote off)
> >
> > So that's two concurring statements from the FBI guys:
> >
> > "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
> > fragments completely."
> >
> > "There was discussion concerning the back wound that
> > the bullet could have been a 'plastic' type or an 'ice'
> > bullet, one which dissolves after contact."
> >
> > Of course, a type of bullet that "dissolves after contact"
> > would be a blood soluble round.
> >
>
> But a plastic bullet or an ice bullet is not the same thing as your
> blood soluble round.
An "ice" bullet, one that dissolves after contact, would have
to be blood soluble.
Did the bullet dissolve in JFK's sweat?
;->
>
> >
> >> Not Humes. He said nothing about blood soluble rounds.
> >
> > You attended the autposy taking notes on what Humes said?
> >
>
> Sibert did. I trust him.
Good. I can't stand the invective LNers and CTs alike
sling at the witnesses.
Seems like there's more and more invective hurled at the
witnesses all the time.
>
> > Sibert and O'Neill were, which is inconvenient to your pet
> > theories.
> >
>
> On the contrary, I rely on their report for many facts. Also their ARRB
> testimony.
And how about O'Neill's HSCA affidavit wherein he defined
"ice" bullet as one which dissolves after contact?
If not blood soluble -- what-soluble?
>
> >>> James Sibert's affidavit:
> >>>
> >>> (quote on)
> >>>
> >>> I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection
> >>> with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.
> >>> They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with
> >>> a metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far
> >>> and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both
> >>> Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet
> >>> through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection
> >>> of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was
> >>> also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.
> >>>
> >>> (quote off)
> >>>
> >>> What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
> >>>
> >> A frangible bullet.
> >
> > That only penetrates a few inches?
> >
>
> Yes, some.
Then why do you insist the bullet transited, that the back wound
wasn't shallow?
>
> >> An explosive bullet.
> >
> > That only penetrates a few inches?
> >
>
> Yes.
Then why do you insist the bullet transited, that the back wound
wasn't shallow?
>
> >> A divided core bullet.
> >
> > That only penetrates a few inches?
> >
>
> Not usually. But it breaks up and creates divergent paths.
>
> >> How many hundreds of times do I have to answer your stupid questions?
> >
> >
> > Do your homework and I won't have to repeat myself.
> >
>
> I was doing my homework long before you heard of this case.
Get a dictionary, then.
> I have brought up things that you never heard about before.
See above.
>
> >
> >>> CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
> >>> H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
> >>>
> >>> (quote on)
> >>>
> >>> DART GUN
> >>>
> >>> The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass
> >>> stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer
> >>> M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...
> >>> If left in the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable
> >>> on X-ray.
> >>>
> >>> An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
> >>> obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
> >>>
> >>> (quote off)
> >>>
> >>> This example is much smaller, but clearly the technology existed.
> >>>
> >> When? Show that it existed in 1963.
> >
> >
> > CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT was published in 1965.
> >
> >
>
> Again, show that this particular weapon existed in 1963.
For its existence to have been made known to the public in 1965,
the technology had to be in development long before.
Ever hear of Mitch WerBell?
>
> >> And I would be a little suspicious
> >> of your source if it really said ".03-caliber."
> >
> >
> > Richard Helms wrote the forward to the book I cite.
> >
>
> And you quoted it accurately as .03-caliber? Do you even know how small
> .03-caliber would be?
I acknowledged that it's small.
> No, of course not.
Of course you disregard my disclaimer that the caliber was small.
I cite this book to show that blood soluble rounds existed.
> Because you know absolutely
> nothing about ballistics.
And apparently you know nothing of Mitch WerBell.
> Like the local reporter who wrote bogus true
> crime stories and in one of them kept referring to a gang famous for
> using a .9 mm pistol.
> And of course the billion dollar newspaper can't even afford a
> proofreader and considered it an insult to proofread his columns.
I acknowledged that the caliber cited was small -- but rather
than deal with the argument I present, you grandstand.
>
> >>>>> It's their scenario, not mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, it is not.
> >>> "Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
> >>> fragments completely."
> >>>
> >>> What else do you suppose they were talking about?
> >>>
> >> A bullet.
> >
> > A bullet that "dissolves after contact."
> >
>
> Yes, a "bullet." Not a "blood soluble round."
Gimme a break.
"Bullet that dissolves after contact" is perfectly
synonymous with "blood-soluble round."
What else would the bullet dissolve in?
>From Thesaurus.com:
(quote on, emphasis added)
Main Entry: ammunition
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: projectiles
Synonyms: armament, ball, bomb, buckshot, BULLET,
cannonball, cartridge, charge, chemical, confetti, explosive,
fuse, grenade, gunpowder, iron rations, materiel, missile,
munition, napalm, powder, rocket, ROUND, shell, shot,
shrapnel, torpedo.
(quote off)
>From Dictionary.com
(quote on, no emphasis needed)
sol·u·ble
adj.
1. That can be dissolved, especially easily dissolved:
(quote off)
> That is your invention.
I cite O'Neill's testimony and the only way you can
attack it is to attribute O'Neill's words to me.
Not much of a tactic, really...
> The stuff of cheap detective novels.
"Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact.
After contact with -- *what?* -- Anthony?
>
> >>> According to Francis O'Neill, Sibert called FBI HQ to
> >>> inquire about blood soluble rounds.
> >>>
> >> No, he asked about the feasibility of an ice bullet.
> >
> > What the hell do you think we're discussing?
> >
>
> I don't mind discussing an ice bullet no matter how silly that notion
> is. But don't call it the blood soluble round and claim that Humes was
> the first to suggest that it was a blood soluble round. Two different
> animals.
See above.
>
>
> > This "ice bullet" business didn't start with me, Anthony.
> >
>
> And the JFK case is not the only time people have brought it up. There
> is a famous trick question about finding a dead body with a shallow
> bullet wound, but no bullet is found, only a small pool of water. It
> doesn't work that way in real life.
You're claiming that this technology was beyond the
ability of Mitch WerBell to develop?
>
> >
> >> Do you think an ice bullet is practical?
> >
> > Do I think it's practical to paralyze a guy riding in an
> > open limo before you blow his brains out?
> >
>
> That was not the question.
The guy who got his brains blown out is not the question?
It is to me. Yes, if I had access to an "ice" bullet (one
which dissolves after contact with the blood) and I gave
the development contract to a guy like WerBell, a master
of advanced weapons technology, I'd find it practical.
> Answer the question.
Taken outside the context of the Kennedy assassination
your question is silly.
> Do you think an ice
> bullet is practical? Yes or no?
You and I have a completely different approach to the evidence.
I look for strings of consistencies.
I find this scenario fits lots of other evidence. JFK acting
paralyzed in the kill zone, the shallow back wound, Roy Hargraves
of INTERPEN fingering WerBell as the guy who developed the JFK
assassination silencers.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm
The FBI guys at the autopsy wrote that the autopsists, in an
attempt to explain the shallow back wound, considered a bullet
which dissolves after contact.
Since the word "dissolves" was used, it is logical to look for
bullets -- or *rounds* -- that are blood soluble.
I've never heard of any sweat soluble bullets.
>
> > Of course.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with the concept, just that it does not work so well in
> real life. And you'll never be able to point to another case where such
> a thing was proposed. What do you think the CIA paralyzing darts were
> used for?
To paralyze JFK.
I'd speculate that Mitch WerBell was asked to develop
the weapon technology to fire blood soluble rounds.
Doesn't mean that he was in on it, necessarily, they may have never
told him what it was for. He was obviously known to Phillips et al.
>
> > What, do you think they were talking about a bullet actually
> > made of ice?
> >
>
> Someone was.
No, there were quotation marks around "ice" -- meaning
that it was a colloquial expression.
"One which dissolves after contact."
Blood soluble.
>
> > No, Anthony, they were talking about blood soluble
> > rounds -- ones that "dissolve after contact."
> >
>
> No.
No *what*?
What does the word "dissolve" mean? What does the word
"soluble" mean? What in the body would an "ice" bullet
"dissolve" in if not the blood?
Damn, this can't be any more obvious...
>
> >>> I'm sorry this is inconvenient to your pet theory, Anthony.
> >>>
> >> Explain my pet theory.
> >
> > A bullet struck JFK at T1 and exited his throat.
> >
>
> Yes. The damage proves that.
Wrong. The damage is just as consistent with a shot from the
front to the throat.
You have to believe that a dozen people who described the back
wound in the vicinity of T3 were hallucinating -- and the wacky theory
that 5 inches of JFK's clothes were bunched up in a 1.5" vertical space
without pushing up on the jacket collar.
Silly in the extreme, your pet theory, Anthony.
>
> >
> >>>>> The two FBI guys at the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill,
> >>>>> thought this scenario was very possible, and called FBI HQ
> >>>>> to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds.
> >>>>>
> >>>> There is no mention of blood soluble rounds.
> >>> "Bullets that fragment completely." Sibert inquired about
> >>> blood soluble rounds.
> >>>
> >> No. He asked about an ice bullet.
> >
> >
> > Same thing.
> >
>
> No, and that is the point. You have a peculiar habit of introducing your
> idea and claiming that is what was meant.
And you have a peculiar habit of ignoring the language O'Neill used.
"Dissolves" = "soluble"
He wasn't talking about a bullet actually made of ice -- that's
why he put quotation marks around the word.
>
> >
> >>>>> Chuck, ask yourself: Why would Lansdale take the chance
> >>>>> that JFK might survive the first volley and duck out of danger?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The CIA had the technology to paralyze the target first, so wouldn't
> >>>>> it be logical to do so?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not necessarily. Unnecessarily complex
> >>> You're going to bet your life on a first-shot/kill-shot?
> >>>
> >> No, that's why they have an insurance shooter.
> >
> > And if the target is winged in the first volley and ducks
> > down -- what then?
> >
>
> The insurance shooter should be able to take care of that given his
> position above and in front.
*Should be*??
Not good enough. I'm not going to chance my neck
at the end of a rope on *should be.*
> You could also ask what if the bubble top had been put on.
The worst that could happen was they'd abort and try again
in Los Angeles or Chicago.
>
> > Hand grenades?
> >
>
> They have been used in some assassinations. Why are they not used in all
> assassinations? Why could they not be used in the JFK assassination?
> Kinda hard to frame a lone nut patsy by lobbing in hand grenades from
> the street.
> BTW, do you know the story about the man who planned to do a suicide
> assassination on Kennedy using dynamite?
>
> http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031121/NEWS08/111210127
>
>
> > Or do you hire Mitch WerBell to develope a weapon to deliver a
> > paralyzing agent in a blood soluble round?
> >
>
> I don't think you contract it out. You get the TSD to develop it.
Hell no! Those guys down in the Louisiana swamps wouldn't
have gone to Langley -- they'd have gone to WerBell.
> There were also rumors that the TSD was asked to develop an explosive
> bullet for the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> > The technology existed -- more than likely they used it.
> >
>
> Definitely they used it. But not in 1963
If the public was informed of blood soluble rounds in 1965,
that technology had to have been in development for some
time.
Was the 1965 Mustang designed in 1965?
> and not primarily as an
> assassination weapon.
Mitch WerBell was capable of adapting the existing technology,
I'm pretty sure.
Besides, no other scenario fits the known evidence as well.
>
> >>> Not me.
> >>>
> >>>> and reveals conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>> How would it reveal anything if it didn't show up on x-ray?
> >>>
> >> Reveal does not mean X-ray. Reveal the nature of the conspiracy.
> >
> > How would it reveal the nature of the conspiracy when it no
> > longer existed?
> >
>
> It would be an indication of a different type of ammo being fired from a
> different location than the sniper's nest.
What "indication"? When they can't find the bullet in the body they
might start speculating about a lot of things, including blood soluble
rounds.
Oh!...Yeah, that *is* what happened, eh?
> Two shooters means
> conspiracy. The exotic nature of such a round would reveal that it had
> some connections to some intelligence agency.
How do you ascertrain the nature of something that no longer exists?
It would be left to a variety of speculation -- which, of course,
is exactly what happened.
> Just try walking into your
> neighborhood gun store and ask to buy some "blood soluble rounds." Then
> run before they call the police.
Just try going to Mitch WerBell in 1963 and ask him to
develope a weapon that would deliver blood soluble rounds.
>
> >>>>> Scorpions do it. What's so silly about a scorpion, Chuck?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Silly analogy. It is the scorpion's main weapon.
> >>> Perfect analogy -- paralyze the target and then move in.
> >>>
> >> The scorpion's venom KILLS the target.
> >
> > Only the smaller targets. From Wikipedia:
> >
> > (quote on)
> >
> > Scorpions first catch their prey in their claws. If their prey is
> > strong, they will paralyze it with their stinger.
> >
> > (quote off)
> >
> >> Then it moves in to eat the already dead victim.
> >
> > Or, if the target is larger, it moves in on the paralyzed victim.
> >
>
> Silly concept. Moves in to do what?
Kill the target.
> Shoot it with its Mannlicher-Carcano?
Pinchers. What's the diff?
>
> > Hard to argue with scopion logic.
> >
>
> Hard to argue without logic.
Dissolves is a synonym for soluble. Get over it.
You think "ice" bullet refers to a bullet made out of real "ice"?
Don't be so damn literal.
Cliff
pjsp...@aol.com
firecracker, it seems likely the first shot was undercharged or a
misfire. At the autopsy, all 3 doctors concluded the bullet creating
the back wound fell out, and only changed thier minds the next day
after finding out about the throat wound. The FBI, which knew quite a
bit about gunshot wounds, continued to insist that the bullet creating
the back wound fell out, even after they knew about the throat wound.
People who insist the bullet creating the back wound passed through and
exited Kennedy's throat and that this bullet was CE399 need to show how
this could have happened without the bullet striking bone. Until
someone shows how this could have happened the single-bullet theory has
as much credibility as the Easter Bunny. IMO
pjsp...@aol.com
deliberately screwed up. It's a very complicated case. Humes, who had
never inspected missile wounds, saw an entrance at the back of the
head. Finck got a look at the beveled fragment and said well here's our
exit. Humes thought one entrance in the head plus one exit in the
head=one bullet. He then had a wound of entrance on the back, but no
exit. The next day, when told about the throat wound, he said "well,
that's it; there's the exit for the bullet which entered the back."
Unfortunately, I think he was wrong on both conclusions. If Dr. Finck
had been allowed to dissect the neck, or shown the Harper fragment, or
if Humes had even been allowed to look at the photos the next day, and
compare the levels of the back wound with the throat wound, and compare
that to the angle from the sniper's nest, he may have come to a
different conclusion. As to his competence??? He admits in his
testimony that he has little understanding of angles and
trajectories... As to his honesty??? Although I believe he was
basically honest, he told three outright lies: 1) he told the Warren
Commission that the autopsy measurements were used to create the
Rydberg drawings (I prove this false in my presentation, Rydberg also
denies this.); 2) he told the Warren Commission that the neck wound on
the Rydberg drawing corresponded to the entrance hole on Kennedy's
clothing (everyone with eyes knows this is false); and 3), he told CBS
in 1967 that the autopsy photos confirmed the location of the neck
entrance on the Rydberg drawings (everyone with eyes knows this is
false as well). I think you and I agree that he was pressured into
telling these lies.
As to the possibility that he KNEW the bullet entering near the
hairline went down the neck? Two witnesses to the autopsy, Richard
Lipsey and Tom Robinson, said so. Dr. Burkley said he'd suspected there
were two head wounds, but never spelled out exactly what he saw to make
him suspect as much.
As far as your trajectories??? A bullet entering near the EOP and
heading up in the skull would pass right through the cerebellum. I've
looked through dozens of anatomy books and anatomy websites. and this
conclusion is inescapable. The HSCA was unanimous on this as well. Even
if it passed above the cerebellum, however, it would have undoubtedly
entered at the bottom of the right cerebrum and have exploded upwards
through the cerebrum. All reports on the brain reflect that the damage
was on the top half of the right cerebrum. No entrance at the bottom
of the right cerebrum, no cone-shaped missile path heading at an
upwards angle across the cerebrum. Furthermore, when your friend Larry
Sturdivan took a look at the x-rays in front of the HSCA, he said that
they were inconsistent with the WC trajectory. On this point we agree.
pjsp...@aol.com
Contrary to what evidence???? The Dallas doctors and the FBI both
concluded something traveled up or down the neck. Two witnesses to the
autopsy said that H, B, & F also came to this conclusion. The x-rays
depict an air shadow in the neck that The Clark Panel, Dr. Lattimer,
and Sturdivan all claim as a wound track. In Sturdivan's book he
discusses the fact that the dura was not removed. Humes admitted there
were mass fractures on the base of the skull. The autopsy photos show
evidence of "Battle's Sign," an indication of skull base fracture. The
HSCA radiologist Dr. Davis noted air in the subdural space of the
spine, an indication that the air in the neck had come down from above.
Believe it or not, there's more evidence for this trajectory than that
a bullet entering the back of Kennedy's head exited at the large
defect, and WAY more evidence for this trajectory than that a bullet
entering Kennedy's back exited the middle of his throat (without
striking bone).