IMO, Mistake in the Anti-SBT Argument
black...@aol.com
to on the case as "The Assassination Files". Some great footage here.
Groden narrates as the car emerges from behind the sign that Kennedy is
hit, Connally is not. It is often stated in even stronger trems, like
this:
As the car emerges from behind the sign, Kennedy is OBVIOUSLY hit but
Connally is OBVIOUSLY unhit.
It may have looked that way in stills or on tenth generation film
copies, but it sure doesn't look that way in Groden's Weitzman copy or
the IOAA version. To my eye, they both seem to lurch at the same time,
beginning at about Z-223.
But even today, much of the anti-SBT argument is predicated on this
JFK-hit, JBC-unhit interpretation.
Barb Junkkarinen
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
Hiya,
JFK isn't visible at 223. Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
in a reactive posture? Compare to Connally. And what's Jackie looking
at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.
Hmmmm.
Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
Interesting. Of course you realize, I hope, that we can see part of
Connally before we see the President. So, according to the newest SBT
Connally emerges at Z-223 and then is hit at Z-224. Kennedy is not yet
completely visible so he had supposedly already been hit before we can
see him completely.
black...@aol.com
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> JFK isn't visible at 223.
It looks to me like Connally is starting what I see as a lurch of both
men at ABOUT 223. (Hard to be precise.)
Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
> in a reactive posture?
Yes and no. His movements suggest that he might be reacting to
something. Gunshot? Previous gunshot? I can't say what he is reacting
to.
In still frame, things are not easy to interpret. In motion, they both
seem (to me) to lurch at the same time. Thus, I think the previously
cited anti-SBT argument is flawed by postulating absolutes about the
film that are not so absolute.
Compare to Connally.
In still frame, one can see frames where JFK appears to be reacting and
JBC does not. But in motion, I see them reacting together.
And what's Jackie looking
> at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.
To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Barb :-)
> >
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Interesting. Of course you realize, I hope, that we can see part of
> Connally before we see the President. So, according to the newest SBT
> Connally emerges at Z-223 and then is hit at Z-224. Kennedy is not yet
> completely visible so he had supposedly already been hit before we can
> see him completely.
The question is not: At which precise frame were they hit? It is, do they
react at the same time, or close enough for it to be one bullet? To my
eye, the DO react at the same time. It is easier to see in motion than in
still frame. And Groden's optical rotoscope version makes it even more
apparent.
JOHN LARRABEE
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113938532....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > JFK isn't visible at 223.
>
> It looks to me like Connally is starting what I see as a lurch of both
> men at ABOUT 223. (Hard to be precise.)
>
> Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
> > in a reactive posture?
>
> Yes and no. His movements suggest that he might be reacting to
> something. Gunshot? Previous gunshot? I can't say what he is reacting
> to.
>
> In still frame, things are not easy to interpret. In motion, they both
> seem (to me) to lurch at the same time. Thus, I think the previously
> cited anti-SBT argument is flawed by postulating absolutes about the
> film that are not so absolute.
>
> Compare to Connally.
>
> In still frame, one can see frames where JFK appears to be reacting and
> JBC does not. But in motion, I see them reacting together.
Just a few comments from a frequent lurker. I've always contended that
the Z-film should be viewed at full speed to answer some questions and
studied frame-by-frame to answer others. Looking at one frame at a time,
it's nearly impossible to pinpoint when JBC was hit. When viewing the
film in motion, it certainly looks to me as if they are hit at the same
moment. Say "bang!" the split-second they emerge from behind the sign and
note their simultaneous reactions.
BTW, when JBC stated he was hit at about Z-230, was he looking at still
frames or the film in motion?
> And what's Jackie looking
> > at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.
>
> To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?
Excuse the graphic imagery, but I've often thought there is a moment when
JFK appears to be spitting up some blood.
> >
> > Hmmmm.
> >
> > Barb :-)
train
(JFK & Connally)=SBT. To others, the late Gov is startled from the
sound of gunfire.
The late Gov picked a spot where he was hit back in 1966 for Life
magazine that is about a second from when JFK is first visible emerging
from the sign.
For me, Nellie Connally is the best witness on this. If you match her
version of events to the Z-film, shot 1 hits JFK around Z-223/224 (as
jfk emerges from the sign). Shot 2 hits the late Govenor at around
Z-290. Shot 3 is the shot that killed JFK at Z-313.
Either 2 or more shooters or someone firing from the rear with an
automatic rifle (solo or in conjunction with the MC). Don't forget the
grassy knoll shooter.
No one will ever agree on this, but I believe Nellie has the best grip
on the reality of the situation. The assination occured in just a few
seconds, in real-time, not in frame by frame, not in slow motion, not
in freeze frame. Real time
Anthony Marsh
OK. Let's examine your concept. Connally is seen to be reacting to a
shot which you think happened at Z-224, according to Lattimer's theory.
But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225 which means the
shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222. The bullet
can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then Connally
at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> OK. Let's examine your concept.
Fair enough.
Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> shot which you think happened at Z-224
No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
start at around 223.
, according to Lattimer's theory.
> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
which means the
> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
The bullet
> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
Connally
> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
Mike Bull
I think there is no doubt she is looking at JFK -- she is reacting to
him showing distress.
Mike :-)
Brandon Alexander
Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
Al.
Barb Junkkarinen
<michaela...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Agreed! And she achieved that stance...and maintained it .... by about
Z207, as her hat indicates while she is behind the sign. JFK, imo, had
already been hit, she was looking at him trying to figure out what was
wrong (her testimony that he had a puzzled look on his face, like he
might have a slight headache, perhaps).....
Barb :-)
>
>
>
> Mike :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> OK. Let's examine your concept.
>
>Fair enough.
>
> Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>> shot which you think happened at Z-224
>
>No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
>start at around 223.
What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
lurch?
JFK isn't visible in 223.
>
>, according to Lattimer's theory.
>> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>
>Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
like they are "reacting" at the same time.
>
> which means the
>> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
>
>You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
>backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
The problem with that is that, as ITEK and others have noted, JFK is
already reacting when he becomes visible .... but Connally is
NOT...and Connally is visible frames before JFK. And then there's
Jackie .... already clearly looking at JFK with concern when *she*
first becomes visible, also a few frames before JFK appears.
>
> The bullet
>> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
>Connally
>> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
>
>Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
>reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
If you are going to posit only a 1/9 sec difference in reaction
between the 2 men, then you are positing that JFK is not only shot but
is also seen to have made *visible* major muscle movements all within
that same frame. Impossible.
And then you are also ignoring Jackie.
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
:-)
Barb :-)
>
>Al.
black...@aol.com
Blackburst: THAT's what I am disgreeing with, that JFK is reacting TO
AN INSHOOT while JBC is not.
black...@aol.com
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> OK. Let's examine your concept.
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> >> shot which you think happened at Z-224
> >
> >No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
to
> >start at around 223.
>
> What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
> lurch?
IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.
>
> JFK isn't visible in 223.
CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
MOTION.
> >
> >, according to Lattimer's theory.
> >> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
> >
> >Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
> >being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>
> Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
> either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
> like they are "reacting" at the same time.
I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.
JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.
> >
> > which means the
> >> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
> >
> >You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> >backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
>
> The problem with that is that, as ITEK and others have noted, JFK is
> already reacting when he becomes visible
QUITE POSSIBLE, BUT REACTING TO WHAT? MAYBE A MISSED SHOT? I THINK IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT THE "END" OF JFK'S STARTLE REACTION OVERLAPPED HIS
REACTION TO BEING HIT.
.... but Connally is
> NOT
CAPS ASIDE, I THINK HE LURCHES JUST AS HE COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE
SIGN.
...and Connally is visible frames before JFK. And then there's
> Jackie .... already clearly looking at JFK with concern when *she*
> first becomes visible, also a few frames before JFK appears.
BUT SHE COULD ALSO BE STARTLED BY A MISSED SHOT, LOOKING TO HIM TO SAY
WHASSUP?
> >
> > The bullet
> >> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
> >Connally
> >> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
> >
> >Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> >reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
>
> If you are going to posit only a 1/9 sec difference in reaction
> between the 2 men, then you are positing that JFK is not only shot
but
> is also seen to have made *visible* major muscle movements all within
> that same frame. Impossible.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I WAS USING ANTHONY'S FRAME OF
REFERENCE.
I SEE THEM LURCH AT THE SAME TIME.
JFK'S PRIOR REACTION MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION, "UNDERLAPPING" THE
ACTUAL STRIKE.
EVEN IF WE COULD PINPOINT EXACT FRAMES WHEN REACTIONS COMMENCED, A
DIFFERENCE OF A SECOND OR LESS WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A SINGLE SHOT.
>
> And then you are also ignoring Jackie.
SEE ABOVE. I THINK YOU ARE READING MORE INTO HER LOOKING AT HIM THAN
THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES. COULD SHE HAVE LOOKED HIS WAY FOR ANOTHER REASON
- STARTLED, PERHAPS?
I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD TO DISCREDIT THE ANTI-SBT ARGUMENT. I STILL
AM AMAZED THAT 399 HAD SUCH MINIMAL DAMAGE AND LOSS OF MASS. AND THERE
ARE TRAJECTORY ISSUES. BUT ONE OF THE CENTRAL POINTS OF THE ANTI-SBT
ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY APPEAR TO BE HIT BY SEPARATE BULLETS. I AM
CONTESTING THAT, SAYING, "NO, CLEARER COPIES OF THE FILM DO SEEM TO
SHOW THEM LURCH AT THE SAME TIME", WEAKENING THAT PART OF THE ARGUMENT.
Lab4man
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114096634.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
But that would preclude Oswald making two shots so quickly that the startle
reaction is still in progress when the second shot is fired.
Anthony Marsh
> MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY - I AM NOT SHOUTING!
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
>><black...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. Let's examine your concept.
>>>
>>>Fair enough.
>>>
>>>Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>>>
>>>>shot which you think happened at Z-224
>>>
>>>No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
>
> to
>
>>>start at around 223.
>>
>>What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
>>lurch?
>
>
> IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
> HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.
>
>>JFK isn't visible in 223.
>
>
> CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
> BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
> MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
> POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
> MOTION.
>
If you think that Connally is reacting at Z-223, then that means that
the bullet hit him several frames earlier. So how do you then explain
the apparent lapel flip which Lattimer and others say proves that
Connally was hit at Z-224?
>>>, according to Lattimer's theory.
>>>
>>>>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>>>
>>>Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>>>being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>>
>>Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
>>either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
>>like they are "reacting" at the same time.
>
>
> I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
> IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
> SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
> SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.
Just as the HSCA said that they saw a reaction which they believed was
to a shot at Z-190. That might have been a reaction to HEARING an
earlier shot, not to being hit by a bullet.
>
> JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
> REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
> IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
> TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.
>
But that distracting jitter leads to the jiggle analysis which fits in
quite well with JFK being hit at Z-210 and Connally at Z-230.
Only if you accept the FBI and WC fiction about the condition of CE 399.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>
>>OK. Let's examine your concept.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>
>>shot which you think happened at Z-224
>
>
> No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
> start at around 223.
>
Let me get this straight. You claim to see a lurch by President Kennedy
at Z-223?
You seem to be extraordinary researcher. Are you blessed with X-ray vision?
> , according to Lattimer's theory.
>
>>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>
>
> Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
> being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
Reacting to the excitement of a couple of his cervical vertebrae by the
close passage of a bullet.
His right hand jerking up quickly.
>
> which means the
>
>>shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
>
>
> You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
>
Not exactly. I could not pinpoint the exact frame numbers until I did
further analysis on the acoustical evidence. It was just coincidental
that it worked out to be Kennedy hit at Z-210 ( the earliest possible
frame according to the WC) and Connally hit at Z-230 (which is about
when he thought he was hit). Don Thomas's timing places a SBT shot
hitting both men at Z-224.
> The bullet
>
>>can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
>
> Connally
>
>>at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
>
>
> Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
>
Yes. The bullet will go through both men in less time than that.
>
Steve
the Z-film should be viewed at full speed to answer some questions and
studied frame-by-frame to answer others.
SB: This is a very good point! Thanks!
Looking at one frame at a time,
it's nearly impossible to pinpoint when JBC was hit. When viewing the
film in motion, it certainly looks to me as if they are hit at the same
moment. Say "bang!" the split-second they emerge from behind the sign
and
note their simultaneous reactions.
SB: another excellent point, and I agree!
BTW, when JBC stated he was hit at about Z-230, was he looking at still
frames or the film in motion?
SB: Excellent question. He was examining blow ups of singular frames
from the film, which, as you pointed out, when viewing the film in
single frames, one can obviously reach differnt conclusions than when
viewing the film at correct speed.
> And what's Jackie looking
> > at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.
> To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?
Excuse the graphic imagery, but I've often thought there is a moment
when
JFK appears to be spitting up some blood.
SB: Again, you are right on the money. Several of us in here
discussed at one time that JFK looks like he is gagging, which would
account for the two sudden motions where he thrusts his upper body
forward after being struck by the bullet and then into his raised
hands. His right hand actually appears to be covering his mouth, even
though it may not be, which indicates that he is not "clutching his
throat" as Mrs. Connally erroneously has stated. He very well could be
spitting up blood, and it would seem possible being that the bullet
ripped through his throat.
Your keen observations make for excellent conversation.
Steve
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
jessie
At frame 225 JFK is no longer looking at the crowd. His face is to
the front and he is no longer waving to the crowd, but his hand has
been pulled back to his chest area. These two changes took place
behind the sign and prior to frame 225.
At frame 225 JBC is still looking out to the crowd and appears
unbothered by anything.
At frame 226 to 227 JBC's head moves quickly from the crowd to the
front and then he faces the front for several frames. At frame 230
JBC begins show signs of his shoulders and arms reacting and in the
following frames JBC begins to turn back towards the crown and to
continue that motion into a slump. It is almost impossible to tell
exactly which frame that JBC was shot in due to the poor quality of
the film and his reactions not being very dramatic or animated.
While the film does not conclusively rule out the SBT, it certainly
casts serious doubt on it as the indications of two separate bullets
hitting both JFK and JBC have much greater support in the Zapruder
film.
If you add this together with the absolute physical certainty that the
bullet found on the stretcher at the hospital could not have possibly
traversed JFK and hit rib bone and wrist bone in JBC and have
maintained so much of its shape and weight, the SBT is less than 1
chance in a million. Even a FMJ bullet traveling at about 2000 FPS
would have been severely deformed and would have left several pieces
of steel in both JFK and JBC. The bullet that hit JFK's skull would
have been even more deformed and deteriorated from the impact with
bone.
The last shot that literally explodes JFK's head came in frame 313.
JFK's head is slumped forward with his chin down on his chest. This
last shot hits him from the front right and literally lifts JFK up and
throws him back from the impact. The blood spray from the impact is
huge and indicative of a front hit also. The movement is so violent
it moves Jackie also as she was attending to him at that point. Then
his head falls back down to the front as gravity over takes the power
of the impact. It is difficult to image anything but a sewer shot or
a low level shot being able to do this. If you add the car slowing
right by the sewer, the odds of a sewer being the location of that
shooter are tremendous and it also brings the driver into serious
question as being part of the conspiracy, and I don't think theory
should be used at this point. The only part that is theoretical is
how many and who was involved, not if it was a conspiracy.
One thing that bothers me is that when a bullet hits a body it makes
an auditable and loud sound. Not like the shot but the thud or thump
can be heard for one or two hundred yards when hunting. Given the
noise of the occasion, it would still have been auditable to anyone in
that car.
jessie
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> If you think that Connally is reacting at Z-223, then that means that
> the bullet hit him several frames earlier. So how do you then explain
> the apparent lapel flip which Lattimer and others say proves that
> Connally was hit at Z-224?
I'm not sure if I buy the lapel flap, especially given the wind. I'm
just saying I see a simultaneous lurch. But it is hard to peg it to a
particular frame, as motion is continuous/contiguous.
>
> Just as the HSCA said that they saw a reaction which they believed
was
> to a shot at Z-190. That might have been a reaction to HEARING an
> earlier shot, not to being hit by a bullet.
I agree.
>
>
> But that distracting jitter leads to the jiggle analysis which fits
in
> quite well with JFK being hit at Z-210 and Connally at Z-230.
Sure, for jiggle analysis, the original film is the best source,
although I think jiggle is hard to interpret definitively. But for the
motions of the victims, the rotoscope can't be beat.
>
> > I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD TO DISCREDIT THE ANTI-SBT ARGUMENT. I
STILL
> > AM AMAZED THAT 399 HAD SUCH MINIMAL DAMAGE AND LOSS OF MASS. AND
THERE
>
> Only if you accept the FBI and WC fiction about the condition of CE
399.
>
I've examined 399 in person. I don't think it's impossible for it to
have hit both men, but I would expect more in the way of deformation
and loss of mass.
jessie
wrote:
If you look frame by frame you can see the car jerking from 221
through 228, which appears to be due to movement of the hand held
camera. This movement makes it difficult to follow their movements
in those frames and may well account for some perceived reaction by
JBC in those frames. At least I hope camera movement causes it.
jessie
black...@aol.com
> >
> > EVEN IF WE COULD PINPOINT EXACT FRAMES WHEN REACTIONS COMMENCED, A
> > DIFFERENCE OF A SECOND OR LESS WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A SINGLE SHOT.
>
> But that would preclude Oswald making two shots so quickly that the
startle
> reaction is still in progress when the second shot is fired.
You state it as an absolute. Using still fames, the timing in the Zfilm
seems to take an eternity, but in motion, these are very short times.
IF a 6th floor gunman missed an earlier shot and IF it hit the pavement
near the rear of the car as some said, a startle reaction of even 3 or
4 seconds is possible. Especially if a few fragments of pavement came
into the limo.
Look at the film in full motion, the Groden stabilized version if
possible. Imagine an early miss and JFK reacting: What the heck was
THAT? Jackie looks toward him. Connally starts to look back, but turns
the other way. Now a shot hits both men. Not an impossible scenario.
Mike Bull
"Brandon Alexander" <bank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i7gd61hcjqg5vusf8...@4ax.com...
I have glasses, and don't see what you see. Perhaps it it you who is in
denial.
Mike :-)
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***JFK's left elbo is beginning to move away from his side at Z225.
Connally's right hand/hat are below the side of the car at the same frame.
In the next frame, JFK's arm is accellerated and Connally's hat in hand is
accelerating upward as well. The indication is that both men are
simultaneously reacting frame for frame.
***Ron Judge
Robert Harris
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
I explained all this to you before, Barbara. Remember when you became so
angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?
The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
directll to the elbow extensors.
And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
later.
Robert Harris
>
> Barb :-)
> >
> >Al.
>
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random Signatures" into your Preferences folder.
Brandon Alexander
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)
How long were they behind the sign?
Al.
.
Brandon Alexander
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)
How long were they behind the sign?
Al.
.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
You "explain" a lot of things to people .... and you are entitled to
your opinion. It's not necessarily worth more than that to others. :-)
>Remember when you became so
>angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?
No, actually, I don't recall that. Why would I be angry about talking
to a neurologist ... with 25+ years working in a doctor's world, I'm
hardly doctor-shy ...nor short on resources.
>
>The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
>response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
>in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
>directll to the elbow extensors.
Did you miss the import of the comments above? Apparently. Not about
any one person's particular movements and what may or may have not
caused them .... but merely noting one is reacting when he comes from
behind the sign ... and one is not.
>
>And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
>we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
>Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
>later.
Oh, I see, you're still on that......
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
1 full second + --- depending on where you consider them "behind" the
sign because they are at least partially obscured by the sign for many
frames before being totally obscured. Connally is first visible again
at 223; he's just going behind the sign at 195, he's totally gone by
208 with just varying degrees of the top of his head visible for
several frames before that .... essentially, we can't really see
anything about him in those frames leading up to that, but there are
those who, I have no doubtm, would argue he's not hidden by the sign
til later rather than earlier.
Barb :-)
>
>Al.
>
>
>
>.
Brandon Alexander
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)
How long were they behind the sign?
Al.
.
black...@aol.com
jessie wrote:
>
> If you look frame by frame you can see the car jerking from 221
> through 228, which appears to be due to movement of the hand held
> camera. This movement makes it difficult to follow their movements
> in those frames and may well account for some perceived reaction by
> JBC in those frames. At least I hope camera movement causes it.
>
> jessie
I can see the simultaneous lurch in the IOAA original, but this is why
Groden's optical rotoscope version is so handy. He "reframes" each frame
to position the car in essestially the same spot, removing or minimizing
most of the movement, allowing the viewer to focus on the actual content
of the film, the reactions of the occupants. It is almost as though
Zapruder had used a tripod, zoomed in a bit and kept the occupants
centered.
I'm NOT saying the SBT absolutely happened. I AM saying that the mistakem
notion of a significant gap in reaction time is due to critics watching
multi-generation copies of a jerky film. Or watching still frames, which
do not tell the same story as the film in MOTION. Both men lurch at the
same or nearly the same instant. I CAN'T say it means they were both hit
with the same shot, but I do feel that the classic SBT argument may well
be wrong: "In frame 225, we see JFK obviously reacting to a shot, but
Connally is obviously unhit", etc.
Just my opinion, but I'm sure others disagree.
Jean Davison
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
>> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK. Let's examine your concept.
>> >
>> >Fair enough.
>> >
>> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>> >> shot which you think happened at Z-224
>> >
>> >No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
> to
>> >start at around 223.
>>
>> What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
>> lurch?
>
> IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
> HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.
>>
>> JFK isn't visible in 223.
>
> CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
> BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
> MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
> POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
> MOTION.
This is consistent with the ITEK study. From McAdams' site:
QUOTE:
>>>>
By frame 232-234 there is strong evidence that the Governor is reacting
to a significant effect on his body; or from other data, to a bullet
wound. He placed the time of his reaction at 234. We studied the film in
this area to determine if there were any striking changes in his physical
appearance which could be interpreted as the onset of a reaction. Five
photo analysts studied the original film from frames 222-240. ***They all
concluded independently that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of
the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and
appearance.
*** Some of their comments are paraphrased below.
- As Connally first clears the obscuring sign on frame 221, his facial
features are not discernable or distinct. Frames 222 and 223 show no
unusual action and Connally's face and features remain frozen (normal).
With frame 224, I observe a slight grimace, a minor body twist, a slight
arching of the back and a rearward head motion. These reactions continue
on frame 225 which includes a slight hiking up in the seat. By frame 226
Connally's head is turned forward which I judged to be a rapid reaction.
Frame 227 yields no information due to the high amount of smear, but the
following frames 228, 9 and 30 indicate a rapid reaction of the hand
holding the Stetson which was flicked up and down quickly.
- I observe a rotation of the Governor's body from right to left
beginning at frame 223. It isn't obvious that this is significant relative
to the study objective, however I also observe what I would consider an
involuntary and unusual motion of his right hand and arm at 225. Before
225, his hand is hidden from Zapruder's view, down below the edge of the
door. At 225-226 it can be seen to travel repidly upward until it is about
level with his chin in 228. From 228-230 he flips his hat rapidly. At 229
it appears upside down in his hand with the thin edge of the brim
extending toward Zapruder. By 230 the hat has flipped so that one can now
see into it. This all takes place within less than 1/3 of a second so it
would appear to be somewhat unusual.
- At frame #223 he is turned in the jump seat sitting well into the
car. I noticed a facial expression changing between #223 and 224 to a
grimacing look. His body has moved forward (toward the edge of the car)
with his right shoulder twisting to his left and downward. Between frames
#225 and 226 a rapid motion of the Governor's right hand begins, i.e. #225
- his hand inside of car, #226 - his Stetson hat appears over the edge of
the car, #228 - the hat is up in front of his chin concealing it. At #229
and 230 he flips his hat from edge on to a view of looking at the inside
of it.
Source: "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis" - Itek Corporation, May
2, 1976, pp. 36-39 (***Emphasis in original)
>>>>
UNQUOTE
>> >
>> >, according to Lattimer's theory.
>> >> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>> >
>> >Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>> >being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>>
>> Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
>> either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
>> like they are "reacting" at the same time.
>
> I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
> IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
> SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
> SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.
>
> JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
> REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
> IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
> TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.
I agree, and as I recall, this simultaneous reaction is visible
even in Stone's "JFK," oddly enough.
Jean
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
Did you miss my reply to this earlier today? This is the third time
I've seen this...
Barb :-)
>
>Al.
>
>
>
>.
jim....@fuse.net
reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film. Many other
eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
stated so. John Connally also heard the first shot but testified many
times that he was not wounded by the first shot which wounded JFK in
the throat. Therefore JFK and JBC were not wounded by the same bullet
at the same time as some researchers conjecture. Connally has stated
many times that he was wounded by another shot after the first shot
which the Elm Street witnesses say hit JFK in the throat. While there
have been and will be many issues about this assassination that remain
unresolved, this issue is not one of them. Neither the Itek experts
nor anyone else, for that matter, can refute the Elm Street witnesses
and John Connally's first hand accounts of when the shooting started
and who was wounded by the first shot. Regards, Jim
Robert Harris
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm sure it is worth nothing to you Barbara.
But it is correct.
>
>>Remember when you became so
>>angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?
>
>No, actually, I don't recall that.
IC, so you just forgot that I recommended you speak to a neurologist
to determine how much time would be expected to elapse between a
bullet strike and a neurological response.
Well, it has been a few years Barbara, hasn't it?
But surely, being in the medical field you have figured out by
yourself that you should ask neurologists about this.
Did you?
What did they say?
>Why would I be angry about talking
>to a neurologist ... with 25+ years working in a doctor's world, I'm
>hardly doctor-shy ...nor short on resources.
I'm afraid you will have to answer that one :-)
>>
>>The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
>>response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
>>in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
>>directll to the elbow extensors.
>
>Did you miss the import of the comments above? Apparently. Not about
>any one person's particular movements and what may or may have not
>caused them .... but merely noting one is reacting when he comes from
>behind the sign ... and one is not.
Yes, I guess I did miss the import of that.
Are you really sure that the reason one was reacting and the other
not, was that one emerged before the other:-)
Yes, JFK could be reacting at 224, but the elbows don't go up until a
frame or two later, so that reaction was extremely early. This is why
you have to talk to the neurologists Barbara. You will learn that the
very earliest reactions really could be within the first frame.
It is also possible that they were hit as early as 222, or I suppose,
even 221 although I would doubt 221.
>>
>>And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
>>we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
>>Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
>>later.
>
>Oh, I see, you're still on that......
I'm not sure I understand what "that" is. Can you be more specific?
And can you also explain why we should not "still be on" the fact that
JFK's elbows flew upward immediately after a bullet strike right next
to nerves in the vertebrae that connected to and controlled the
elbows?
I think you realize that JFK's arms did NOT rise for the purpose of
reaching for his neck.
So why did they rise, Barbara?
Robert Harris
>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Robert Harris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Barb :-)
>>> >
>>> >Al.
>>>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
Kennedy was out of view for about 13 frames - 18 or 19 if we add the
missing frames.
Robert Harris
>
>Al.
Jean Davison
<jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
> reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
> established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
Jim,
I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him? Mrs. Kennedy and
the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
Here's Zapruder frame 193, which shows Connally and Jackie turned
right, as they have been for several frames.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z193.jpg
Many other
> eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
> observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
> stated so.
If only eyewitnesses were always consistent and correct, but alas,
they aren't. In recent threads another poster here is arguing that many
witnesses heard what *they* called "the first shot" at about Z285. Other
witnesses placed it closer to the corner, soon after the limo turned onto
Elm Street. Since the evidence is inconclusive, IMO, I don't know exactly
when the first shot was fired, but I believe if was earlier than Willis
believed.
>John Connally also heard the first shot but testified many
> times that he was not wounded by the first shot which wounded JFK in
> the throat. Therefore JFK and JBC were not wounded by the same bullet
> at the same time as some researchers conjecture. Connally has stated
> many times that he was wounded by another shot after the first shot
> which the Elm Street witnesses say hit JFK in the throat. While there
> have been and will be many issues about this assassination that remain
> unresolved, this issue is not one of them. Neither the Itek experts
> nor anyone else, for that matter, can refute the Elm Street witnesses
> and John Connally's first hand accounts of when the shooting started
> and who was wounded by the first shot.
True, Connally said that he and JFK were hit by separate shots,
but there's a problem -- he also said that after he heard the first shot,
he wasn't able to turn far enough to ever see JFK, so how on Earth could
he know whether or not JFK was hit by that shot? He couldn't know that,
as he admitted when he testified to the HSCA:
QUOTE:
>>I don't know what the first shot did. All I know, all I am certain of in
>>my own mind is that the first shot did not hit me.<<
UNQUOTE
I agree that Connally wasn't hit by the first shot, because we can
see him turning to try to see JFK before he reacts to being wounded.
But, all this is really a different subject than the point I was
responding to -- that is, the virtually simultaneous reaction of Connally
and JFK on the Z film, as noted by ITEK.
Regards,
Jean
Barb Junkkarinen
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
><jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>> reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>> established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>
>Jim,
>
> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
>of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
>there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him?
Hi Jean ... long time no medical debate.<g>
What if there are other eyewitnesses that corroborate him? Like Betner
... for just one. His photo corresponds to 186 and he said he took his
photo just before he heard the firsty shot.
> Mrs. Kennedy and
>the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
>right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:
C'mon, Jean, do you think maybe they are all looking somewhat to their
right because of the line of people waving and clapping at them?<g>
>
>http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>
> Here's Zapruder frame 193, which shows Connally and Jackie turned
>right, as they have been for several frames.
>
>http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z193.jpg
Hey, now you're getong into my first shot territory, but at 193
they're still watching the people, don't you think?
>
>
> Many other
>> eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
>> observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
>> stated so.
>
> If only eyewitnesses were always consistent and correct, but alas,
>they aren't.
Fortunately some photos are "witnesses" too .... and when you have
several independent witnesses all saying the same thing, it's pretty
doubtful they are all incorrect ..... alas.
> In recent threads another poster here is arguing that many
>witnesses heard what *they* called "the first shot" at about Z285. Other
>witnesses placed it closer to the corner, soon after the limo turned onto
>Elm Street. Since the evidence is inconclusive, IMO, I don't know exactly
>when the first shot was fired, but I believe if was earlier than Willis
>believed.
Why?
ITEK also said JFK was already clearly wounded and reacting when he
came from behind the sign.
Barb :-)
> Regards,
> Jean
jim....@fuse.net
Jean, Its not a different subject. The Itek folks are ignoring the
first shot location and are conjecturing about Kennedy and Connaly
maybe being hit by the same bullet at Z223/224 because of some
movements by the two men that "appear" to be simultaneous. The cause
and effect connection they are trying to make is obvious, although
still conjecture, when compared to the eyewitness' testimony including
Connally himself. When Kennedy was struck at approximately Zframe 202
and Connally was not Connally doesn't need to "see" Kennedy for his
observation and testimony to be true because the other witnesses on
both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and saw JFK's reaction to
it at that time and location. So whatever happened subsequent to that
first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
Connally's wounds? That sounds a lot like that Theory that couldn't
shoot straight, doesn't it? If not, then what are you and they
referring to in the interpretation of the shooting sequence? If JFK
was hit before Connally, which he was, then the apparent movement by
both men at Zf223/224 is long after that first shot and was not caused
by what they want to believe:ie, a single shot that wounds both men at
approximately Z223/224. JFK and JBC were hit by two different bullets
regardless of what the Itek people think they see. Regards, Jim
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>OK. Let's examine your concept.
> >
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> >
> >>shot which you think happened at Z-224
> >
> >
> > No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
to
> > start at around 223.
> >
>
> Let me get this straight. You claim to see a lurch by President
Kennedy
> at Z-223?
> You seem to be extraordinary researcher. Are you blessed with X-ray
vision?
No, as I said above, I see a simultaneous lurch by BOTH beginning at
about 223 (Connally) and continuing on to both men.
I brought the Groden and IOAA DVDs to work with me. I'll try to
describe the lurches later today.
>
> > , according to Lattimer's theory.
> >
> >>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
> >
> >
> > Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting
to
> > being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>
> Reacting to the excitement of a couple of his cervical vertebrae by
the
> close passage of a bullet.
> His right hand jerking up quickly
We can't say definitively what he is reacting to, leading up to 223. He
could be reacting to a missed shot, he could be reacting to being shot.
>
>
>
> >
> > which means the
> >
> >>shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
> >
> >
> > You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> > backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
> >
>
> Not exactly. I could not pinpoint the exact frame numbers until I did
> further analysis on the acoustical evidence. It was just coincidental
> that it worked out to be Kennedy hit at Z-210 ( the earliest possible
> frame according to the WC) and Connally hit at Z-230 (which is about
> when he thought he was hit). Don Thomas's timing places a SBT shot
> hitting both men at Z-224.
I am not convinced that JFK was hit at 210 and Connally at 230.
>
> > The bullet
> >
> >>can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
> >
> > Connally
> >
> >>at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
> >
> >
> > Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> > reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
> >
>
> Yes. The bullet will go through both men in less time than that.
It is absolutely impossible for two men hit by the same bullet to SHOW
reactions 1/9 of a second apart?
>
> >
Anthony Marsh
> <jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>>reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>>established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
> of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
On what basis do you consider the witness mistaken?
You don't have to believe that he meant that JFK was hit by that shot
that he heard. There could have been an early missed shot.
> there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him? Mrs. Kennedy and
> the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
> right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:
>
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>
They could have had different rates of reaction. Arguendo they could
have been within the cone of the shock wave and reacted earlier than
Willis if Willis was just outside the cone of the shock wave.
Maybe because he qualified his statement and he gave more than just the
one statement that you have quoted. Perhaps in other statements he made
the distinction that he could not clearly see the President, but in his
peripheral vision it appeared to him that the President had slumped in
his seat.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***As Z202 was "eons" before Z224, Kennedy would not be just beginning
to reflexively react to his wound at Z225. If Kennedy was struck by a
bullet at about Z202, he would have already reflexively reacted to the
sharp pain in his throat at the time he was beginning to pass behind
the sign.
***Ron Judge
jim....@fuse.net
your equasion. It might confuse those who don't know the difference. We
can all see from the Zapruder film POV JFK's head is seen at the top of
the left post of the back of the Stemmons sign at Zf 202. At that point
JFK is already 7 Z frames into the left side of the sign (from Zapruder's
position). Considering Zapruder's camera exposes 18.3 frames per second
that means from Zf 202 to Zf 223 is 21 Z frames or just over one second.
So tell me Ron, just how many Z frames did you calculate for the reflexive
reaction time for JFK? Three fourths of a second, one half of a second,
one third of a second, one quarter of a second, one eithteenth of a second
or none of those times? Regards,
Jim
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>black...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. Let's examine your concept.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fair enough.
>>>
>>> Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>>>
>>>
>>>>shot which you think happened at Z-224
>>>
>>>
>>>No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
>
> to
>
>>>start at around 223.
>>>
>>
>>Let me get this straight. You claim to see a lurch by President
>
> Kennedy
>
>>at Z-223?
>>You seem to be extraordinary researcher. Are you blessed with X-ray
>
> vision?
>
> No, as I said above, I see a simultaneous lurch by BOTH beginning at
> about 223 (Connally) and continuing on to both men.
>
Thanks. So when do you see JFK beginning to lurch?
> I brought the Groden and IOAA DVDs to work with me. I'll try to
> describe the lurches later today.
>
>>>, according to Lattimer's theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>>>
>>>
>>>Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting
>
> to
>
>>>being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>>
>>Reacting to the excitement of a couple of his cervical vertebrae by
>
> the
>
>>close passage of a bullet.
>>His right hand jerking up quickly
>
>
> We can't say definitively what he is reacting to, leading up to 223. He
> could be reacting to a missed shot, he could be reacting to being shot.
>
I think he hand movement is an involuntary movement.
>>
>>
>>> which means the
>>>
>>>
>>>>shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
>>>backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
>>>
>>
>>Not exactly. I could not pinpoint the exact frame numbers until I did
>
>
>>further analysis on the acoustical evidence. It was just coincidental
>
>
>>that it worked out to be Kennedy hit at Z-210 ( the earliest possible
>
>
>>frame according to the WC) and Connally hit at Z-230 (which is about
>>when he thought he was hit). Don Thomas's timing places a SBT shot
>>hitting both men at Z-224.
>
>
> I am not convinced that JFK was hit at 210 and Connally at 230.
>
>
>>> The bullet
>>>
>>>
>>>>can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
>>>
>>>Connally
>>>
>>>
>>>>at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
>>>reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
>>>
>>
>>Yes. The bullet will go through both men in less time than that.
>
>
> It is absolutely impossible for two men hit by the same bullet to SHOW
> reactions 1/9 of a second apart?
>
No. Especially when we can see Connally before we see JFK.
>
>
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
So when do you see JFK beginning to lurch?
OK, I pulled out my best Z copies. This is what I see:
As JFK emerges, his right hand is up as if in a wave and his left is
lower. At 226, both elbows rise and his hands come up near his face or
neck, as he lurches backward.
At 224, JBC's left shoulder begins to rise quickly. Starting at 226,
his hat flips up and, though blurry, he appears to be exclaiming,
perhaps "oh".
Upon examination, I was off by one frame. I see a simultaneous lurch
beginning at 224: JBC at 224, JFK at 226. Two frames, 1/9 of a second.
This is what I see.
> >
> > It is absolutely impossible for two men hit by the same bullet to
SHOW
> > reactions 1/9 of a second apart?
> >
>
> No. Especially when we can see Connally before we see JFK.
OK, let's stipulate that my prior post was wrong. I see reactions at
224 and 226. 1/9 of a second. Is that impossible?
Anthony Marsh
Sure. Two different reactions within 1/9 of a second are possible. It is
not possible for the two men to be struck by one bullet 1/9 of a second
apart.
Jean Davison
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7rgr61lrqi7696o73...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Apr 2005 00:13:22 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>>news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>>> reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>>> established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
>>of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
>>there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him?
>
> Hi Jean ... long time no medical debate.<g>
>
> What if there are other eyewitnesses that corroborate him? Like Betner
> ... for just one. His photo corresponds to 186 and he said he took his
> photo just before he heard the firsty shot.
Hi Barb,
I don't think Betzner was precise enough to pinpoint a shot. He
recalled that he was rewinding his camera after taking the picture when he
heard the first of two shots. But when was that?
>> Mrs. Kennedy and
>>the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
>>right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:
>
> C'mon, Jean, do you think maybe they are all looking somewhat to their
> right because of the line of people waving and clapping at them?<g>
No, because at 202 it's too late for them to start a *new* "turn
to the right." And Mrs. K specifically described how during the motorcade
she would ordinarily be facing the crowd on her side of the car, to her
left -- and that she had been looking in that direction when she heard a
noise that caused her to turn around.
>
>>
>>http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>>
>> Here's Zapruder frame 193, which shows Connally and Jackie turned
>>right, as they have been for several frames.
>>
>>http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z193.jpg
>
> Hey, now you're getong into my first shot territory, but at 193
> they're still watching the people, don't you think?
Nope, not as I read their testimony, anyway.
>>
>>
>> Many other
>>> eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
>>> observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
>>> stated so.
>>
>> If only eyewitnesses were always consistent and correct, but alas,
>>they aren't.
>
> Fortunately some photos are "witnesses" too .... and when you have
> several independent witnesses all saying the same thing, it's pretty
> doubtful they are all incorrect ..... alas.
We have "several independent witnesses" saying all kinds of things,
Barb, that's the problem. And the photos require someone's
interpretation, no?
>> In recent threads another poster here is arguing that many
>>witnesses heard what *they* called "the first shot" at about Z285. Other
>>witnesses placed it closer to the corner, soon after the limo turned onto
>>Elm Street. Since the evidence is inconclusive, IMO, I don't know exactly
>>when the first shot was fired, but I believe if was earlier than Willis
>>believed.
>
> Why?
Because I think I can see Connally and Jackie reacting to a first
shot before that. The HSCA also found reasons to place a first shot well
before Z202, as I recall. None of this is certain, though.
Yes, but ITEK also saw no reaction from JFK *before* he went
behind the sign. To me, the reactions of both men come just as Kennedy
emerges, and it's very evident on good copies of the Z film, IMO.
Jean
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:dWrbe.6201$WX.1984@trndny01...
> Jean Davison wrote:
>
>> <jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>> news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>>>reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>>>established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the
>> time of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What
>> if
>
> On what basis do you consider the witness mistaken?
> You don't have to believe that he meant that JFK was hit by that shot that
> he heard. There could have been an early missed shot.
I think there was an early missed shot, but before Z202. Check the
HSCA report.
>> there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him? Mrs. Kennedy
>> and the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by
>> turning right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to
>> their right:
>>
>> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>>
>
> They could have had different rates of reaction. Arguendo they could have
> been within the cone of the shock wave and reacted earlier than Willis if
> Willis was just outside the cone of the shock wave.
>
If you say so.
Of course that contradicts his repeated sworn statements that he
couldn't see JFK out of the corner of his eye. But why don't you point out
the frame in which it would've been possible for Connally to see the
President "slump" in his "peripheral vision," Tony? Or do you even believe
that he could have?
Jean
Jean Davison
<jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:1114493005.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Jean Davison wrote:
>> <jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>> news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a
> startle
>> > reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has
> been
>> > established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the
> time
>> of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
>
> Kennedy and
>> the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by
> turning
>> right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their
> right:
>>
>> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>>
>>
>> >>I don't know what the first shot did. All I know, all I am certain
> of in
>> >>my own mind is that the first shot did not hit me.<<
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> I agree that Connally wasn't hit by the first shot, because we
> can
>> see him turning to try to see JFK before he reacts to being wounded.
>>
>> But, all this is really a different subject than the point I
> was
>> responding to -- that is, the virtually simultaneous reaction of
> Connally
>> and JFK on the Z film, as noted by ITEK.
>> Regards,
>> Jean
>
> first shot location and are conjecturing about Kennedy and Connaly
> maybe being hit by the same bullet at Z223/224 because of some
> movements by the two men that "appear" to be simultaneous.
Well, I disagree. I think the simultaneous reactions are visible on
the film. You don't think so, and that's fine.
>The cause
> and effect connection they are trying to make is obvious, although
> still conjecture, when compared to the eyewitness' testimony including
> Connally himself. When Kennedy was struck at approximately Zframe 202
> and Connally was not Connally doesn't need to "see" Kennedy for his
> observation and testimony to be true because the other witnesses on
> both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and saw JFK's reaction to
> it at that time and location.
And I would say that the statement that Kennedy was struck at
approximate Z202 is "conjecture" also. I know of no witness who said that
JFK was struck at approximately Z202, not literally. There are also
witnesses who said that the first shot missed, and other witnesses who
placed the first shot nearer the corner or further down the street. It
also appears that some witnesses didn't even hear the first shot. Trying to
establish the shot's location through witness memory doesn't work, IMO.
>So whatever happened subsequent to that
> first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
> Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
> or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
> that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
> another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
> location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
> Connally's wounds?
Since it's not my theory that JFK was hit around Z202, I don't think
*I'm* the one who needs to explain the paths of the bullets. If JFK was hit
separately, where'd that bullet go? If he was hit in the neck at Z202, why
do you suppose that his left arm didn't move from its location down by his
side until he came out from behind the sign, and then his elbow flies up?
"Delayed reaction"?
Jean
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Sure. Two different reactions within 1/9 of a second are possible.
>From one bullet? The answer is yes. 1/9 of a second of VISIBLE reaction
time is certainly simultaneous.
It is
> not possible for the two men to be struck by one bullet 1/9 of a
second
> apart.
Actually, it is, but in this case, do you not agree that the timing
issue of the reactions in the Z-film does allow for a simultaneous hit?
Anthony Marsh
Actually it isn't. The two men were only a couple of feet apart and the
bullet is going so fast. I dispute what LNers claim about the reactions.
I believe that Connally was actually correct as shown by the jiggle
analysis, analysis of his movements, and the acoustical evidence that he
was stuck at about Z-230. Having found that point, JFK was obviously hit
before Z-230. IMHO.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:dWrbe.6201$WX.1984@trndny01...
>
>>Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>>
>>><jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>>>>reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>>>>established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the
>>>time of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What
>>>if
>>
>>On what basis do you consider the witness mistaken?
>>You don't have to believe that he meant that JFK was hit by that shot that
>>he heard. There could have been an early missed shot.
>
>
> I think there was an early missed shot, but before Z202. Check the
> HSCA report.
>
I agree. Even before the HSCA came out, many of us accepted the notion
that the first shot missed, for whatever reason. The acoustical evidence
according to the HSCA version placed the first shot at Z-190. My
matchup places it more like Z-180.
black...@aol.com
the
> bullet is going so fast. I dispute what LNers claim about the
reactions.
> I believe that Connally was actually correct as shown by the jiggle
> analysis, analysis of his movements, and the acoustical evidence that
he
> was stuck at about Z-230. Having found that point, JFK was obviously
hit
> before Z-230. IMHO.
It's not only LNs who see such reactions.
I guess we disagree to this extent: I see Connally lurching in his
seat, as described above, starting at about Z224. In stills, one can
see his right shoulder go up and his hat flip over, and a possible
exclaimation. It is even more evident in motion.
You place more weight on Connally's observation (which was from the FBI
copy, wasn't it?), the jiggle analysis, which I find inconclusive and
the acoustical analysis, which I find inconclusive. But I understand
and accept that you feel that way.
Do you see any odd movement by Connally in the Z224 area? Any
explanation of the anomalies I see?
Andrew Mason
Jean Davison wrote:
> And I would say that the statement that Kennedy was struck at
> approximate Z202 is "conjecture" also. I know of no witness who said that
> JFK was struck at approximately Z202, not literally. There are also
> witnesses who said that the first shot missed, and other witnesses who
> placed the first shot nearer the corner or further down the street. It
> also appears that some witnesses didn't even hear the first shot. Trying to
> establish the shot's location through witness memory doesn't work, IMO.
>
Virtually all the witnesses who commented on when JFK was hit said he
reacted immediately after the first shot:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
Only SA Bennett suggested otherwise but his handwritten note made the
day of the assassination suggests that it may actually have been the
first shot that he heard.
>
>
>>So whatever happened subsequent to that
>>first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
>>Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
>>or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
>>that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
>>another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
>>location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
>>Connally's wounds?
>
>
> Since it's not my theory that JFK was hit around Z202, I don't think
> *I'm* the one who needs to explain the paths of the bullets. If JFK was hit
> separately, where'd that bullet go?
The logical trajectory is to the left of Connally, since JBC was in
front and the bullet was going right to left. The only part of JBC on
his left side was... his left thigh. Seems to fit alot of things - the
thigh wound, condition of CE399, and the trajectory is perfect. see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/jfk_sbt_paper.pdf at about page 17.
> If he was hit in the neck at Z202, why
> do you suppose that his left arm didn't move from its location down by his
> side until he came out from behind the sign, and then his elbow flies up?
> "Delayed reaction"?
These kinds of explanations require speculation. One has to stick to the
evidence. The evidence is that JFK was hit by the first shot, that JBC
was hit in the back by the second, that there was more time between 1
and 2 than 2 - 3. (see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf )
A theory has to fit with those facts.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
jim....@fuse.net wrote:
I agree with everything you have said. There is another very important
fact: there was a long pause between shot 1 and 2. 2 and 3 were very
close together (but not so short as to have been impossible with the MC).
This fact together with JBC being hit by the second shot leads to the
obvious conclusion that JBC was not hit in the chest when he emerged
from behind the sign - not until much later. I put him being hit at z270
or so. Just look at the film and focus on JBC.
Andrew Mason
jim....@fuse.net
JFK was struck at Zf 202. Do you not consider Phil Willis a witness?
And your question about where the bullet went if it hit JFK in the neck
means you are assuming all the bullets fired during the shooting sequence
were from high powered rifles and therefore must be transiting missiles.
I do not believe the front of the neck shot nor the back shot were T & T
bullets and some of the evidence to that effect was withheld and not
placed into evidence because it would destroy the Single Bullet Theory
which was the only way to have LHO as the Lone Nut Assassin. This is what
Dennis David posted recently and why I question nearly everthing put out
by the "official team.' Quote, Jim: Allan is correct. William Law's book
is the most comprehensive coverage of my statements. Unlike most others
who only cited certain facts. Dr. Boswell told me I was present when the
late President's body was brought in that night I never discussed the
bullet fragments with him. I received only one casket that night, A GREY
SHIPPING CASKET. The memo, which I typed at approx. 11:00 p.m., was at the
dictation of a government agent. There were four particles in a pill vial,
which the agent allowed me to pour out into my hand and look at them. They
were roughly rectangle in shape, varying from 1/8mm to 1/4mm in thickness,
3mm x 5mm in width, and 3mm x 6mm in length. I do not recall the exact
dimensions. Do remember there was too much fragment for one bullet,
perhaps not enough for two bullets, but definitely too much for one. As I
have always said, I did not see the actual body of the President. It was
the following week, in Bill Pitzer's office, that I saw B&W and Color
photos, and a 16mm film of the autopsy. Both Bill and I felt the killing
shot was to the right forehead, at the hairline, above the right eye.
Needless to say I was astonished, still am, at Specter's SBT. But at that
time everything was still classified, and I did not dare to go public.
Perhaps, I should have.
Dennis D
Unquote.
Maybe you can tell me where you think the bullet(s) went, Jean. And
your theory of the case. Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
> Jean, HOW can you make the statement that you know of NO witness who said
> JFK was struck at Zf 202. Do you not consider Phil Willis a witness?
Of course he was a witness. But he did not SAY that JFK was struck at
Z-202. All we know is that he reacted to hearing a shot by snapping the
shutter at Z-202. We don't know if that bullet hit anyone.
> And your question about where the bullet went if it hit JFK in the neck
> means you are assuming all the bullets fired during the shooting sequence
> were from high powered rifles and therefore must be transiting missiles.
Could be what she is assuming, but the evidence points to WCC M-C
bullets with a muzzle velocity of about 2,165 fps.
> I do not believe the front of the neck shot nor the back shot were T & T
> bullets and some of the evidence to that effect was withheld and not
The throat wound was not an entrance and there was not a shallow
entrance wound in the back. The medical evidence shows that a bullet hit
the back and exited the throat.
> placed into evidence because it would destroy the Single Bullet Theory
> which was the only way to have LHO as the Lone Nut Assassin. This is what
Except for the fact that there was no SBT until about April 1964, long
after they had decided that a bullet went through JFK's back and exited
his throat.
> Dennis David posted recently and why I question nearly everthing put out
> by the "official team.' Quote, Jim: Allan is correct. William Law's book
> is the most comprehensive coverage of my statements. Unlike most others
> who only cited certain facts. Dr. Boswell told me I was present when the
> late President's body was brought in that night I never discussed the
> bullet fragments with him. I received only one casket that night, A GREY
> SHIPPING CASKET. The memo, which I typed at approx. 11:00 p.m., was at the
> dictation of a government agent. There were four particles in a pill vial,
> which the agent allowed me to pour out into my hand and look at them. They
> were roughly rectangle in shape, varying from 1/8mm to 1/4mm in thickness,
> 3mm x 5mm in width, and 3mm x 6mm in length. I do not recall the exact
> dimensions. Do remember there was too much fragment for one bullet,
> perhaps not enough for two bullets, but definitely too much for one. As I
> have always said, I did not see the actual body of the President. It was
> the following week, in Bill Pitzer's office, that I saw B&W and Color
> photos, and a 16mm film of the autopsy. Both Bill and I felt the killing
> shot was to the right forehead, at the hairline, above the right eye.
> Needless to say I was astonished, still am, at Specter's SBT. But at that
> time everything was still classified, and I did not dare to go public.
> Perhaps, I should have.
>
I don't see where the notion of a fatal head shot from the right front
has anything to do with the SBT.
> Dennis D
> Unquote.
> Maybe you can tell me where you think the bullet(s) went, Jean. And
> your theory of the case. Regards, Jim
>
>
Please don't ask WC defenders to explain the evidence. That's very rude
of you.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>black...@aol.com wrote:
>>Actually it isn't. The two men were only a couple of feet apart and
>
> the
>
>>bullet is going so fast. I dispute what LNers claim about the
>
> reactions.
>
>>I believe that Connally was actually correct as shown by the jiggle
>>analysis, analysis of his movements, and the acoustical evidence that
>
> he
>
>>was stuck at about Z-230. Having found that point, JFK was obviously
>
> hit
>
>>before Z-230. IMHO.
>
>
> It's not only LNs who see such reactions.
>
I see reactions as well. So what?
> I guess we disagree to this extent: I see Connally lurching in his
> seat, as described above, starting at about Z224. In stills, one can
> see his right shoulder go up and his hat flip over, and a possible
> exclaimation. It is even more evident in motion.
>
Great, but I seem to remember that I asked you to tell us when you see
JFK's reactions. In particular I believe that I asked you to quantify
when you see JFK lurch.
> You place more weight on Connally's observation (which was from the FBI
> copy, wasn't it?), the jiggle analysis, which I find inconclusive and
LIFE slides. And I see no reason to believe that Connally was any less
accurate in looking at the Zapruder film than anyone here.
> the acoustical analysis, which I find inconclusive. But I understand
> and accept that you feel that way.
>
> Do you see any odd movement by Connally in the Z224 area? Any
> explanation of the anomalies I see?
>
>
I see no odd movement by Connally in the Z-224 area. And he appears to
be turning back towards the left smoothly. Remember that he said that he
was almost facing directly straight forward at the moment he was hit.
That describes Z-230 much better than Z-224.
jim....@fuse.net
decorum. It is my understanding that this is an open forum for the
discussion of the JFK assassination and all the attendant and ancillary
evidence, theories and conjecture by the posters. My question to Jean
about what she thinks about the case is in no way rude. It was in the
interest of getting her opinion about the case. As for your opinion
about what the "evidence" means I'm surprised that you have accepted as
fact the back wound being a T&T and exiting the front of the neck
because of the confusion about the claim of not finding any bullelts or
fragments in JFK's body. But Dennis David has contradicted that
position by the autopists. There is also the matter of the bullet Dr.
David Osborne, Chief of Surgery at Bethesda, saw and held in his hand
when they put JFK's body on the table which contradicts that statement
by the autopists. Osborne said he held the bullet in his hand and
Dennis David said he held the 4 fragments of bullets in his hand and
looked at them. And in the official record we have Humes official
statement of only finding two very small bullet fragments he said were
from the head wound. I also find it more than just interesting that
Humes gathered up not only his notes but also Dr. Finck's notes after
the autopsy and later burned them when he rewrote the official autopsy
report. Humes laid the ground work for what the official position
would be which was introduced by the WC counsel, Arlen Spector. Even
in April, 1964 Spector was somewhat skeptical that anyone would
actually believe the SBT. For the record, I did not ask anyone to
explain the evidence, I merely asked another poster for her
interpretation/opinion about the "evidence."
Regards, Jim
jim....@fuse.net
> Jean, HOW can you make the statement that you know of NO witness who
said
> JFK was struck at Zf 202. Do you not consider Phil Willis a witness?
Of course he was a witness. But he did not SAY that JFK was struck at
Z-202. All we know is that he reacted to hearing a shot by snapping the
shutter at Z-202. We don't know if that bullet hit anyone.
JL reply - We do know the same bullet that Willis heard and reacted to
by snapping his picture at Zf 202 hit JFK because the other witnesses
in the same area heard the same shot and saw JFK's immediate reaction
to that first shot. It was the same shot that Connally heard but was
not wounded by.
> And your question about where the bullet went if it hit JFK in the
neck
> means you are assuming all the bullets fired during the shooting
sequence
> were from high powered rifles and therefore must be transiting
missiles.
Could be what she is assuming, but the evidence points to WCC M-C
bullets with a muzzle velocity of about 2,165 fps.
JLreply - Are you referring to the two fragments found in the limo by
the SS agents back at the WH garage and/or C1/CE399?
> I do not believe the front of the neck shot nor the back shot were T
& T
> bullets and some of the evidence to that effect was withheld and not
The throat wound was not an entrance and there was not a shallow
entrance wound in the back. The medical evidence shows that a bullet
hit
the back and exited the throat.
JL reply - The autopists didn't prove it by disection which is what
they should have done. They conjectured about it and gave us their
best guess. The highly skilled doctors and nurses at Parkland who
observed the wound first hand before Dr. Perry did the tracheostomy
were of the opinion that it was a puncture wound which is
characteristic of an entrance wound. The medical personnel at Parkland
were badgered by the FBI(Dr. Perry) and by Spector to change their
statements after Humes changed final autopsy report came out. The
medical evidence was "doctored."
> placed into evidence because it would destroy the Single Bullet
Theory
> which was the only way to have LHO as the Lone Nut Assassin. This is
what
Except for the fact that there was no SBT until about April 1964, long
after they had decided that a bullet went through JFK's back and exited
his throat.
JL reply - Doctors Humes, Boswell and Finck were puzzled by the lack of
bullets or bullet fragments in the body. Finck arrived late and was not
happy that Humes had stuck his little linger in the back wound and
announced it was shallow and the angle of trajectory was steep. The
question at this point is were the photos of the back wound taken after
Humes had stuck his finger in that wound site and would that have
changed the appearance of an exit wound to an entrance wound? If most
of the autopsy notes are destroyed Humes could make it turn out the way
he(or others) wanted since there was no consesus among the three
autopist as to how the shooting had happened. They had to trust him to
do the right thing. Did he? Humes explanation of the murder in his
revised final autopsy report made the SBT possible but not proveable.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JL reply - I've addressed this in another post.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Both Kennedy and Connally simultaneously reflexively reacted in a
manner consistent with their non-fatal wounds. Connally's right torso
jumps forward at Z224>, indicating that his body was knocked out of the
position he was sitting in.
Unsolved History demonstated that an M/C bullet fired from the 6th
floor corner window would have struck both Kennedy and Connally.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony, Please excuse me if I have in some way offended your sense of
> decorum. It is my understanding that this is an open forum for the
> discussion of the JFK assassination and all the attendant and ancillary
> evidence, theories and conjecture by the posters. My question to Jean
I was teasing you, in line with the forum habit of having to be overly
polite ONLY to WC defenders. See the Gary Aguilar thread, for example.
> about what she thinks about the case is in no way rude. It was in the
It certainly IS rude to ask WC defenders to defend their positions.
> interest of getting her opinion about the case. As for your opinion
> about what the "evidence" means I'm surprised that you have accepted as
> fact the back wound being a T&T and exiting the front of the neck
> because of the confusion about the claim of not finding any bullelts or
Not finding bullets or fragments in the torso is to be expected with
that type of Full Metal Jacket bullet.
> fragments in JFK's body. But Dennis David has contradicted that
What relevance does Dennis David have to anything.
> position by the autopists. There is also the matter of the bullet Dr.
> David Osborne, Chief of Surgery at Bethesda, saw and held in his hand
> when they put JFK's body on the table which contradicts that statement
> by the autopists. Osborne said he held the bullet in his hand and
> Dennis David said he held the 4 fragments of bullets in his hand and
> looked at them. And in the official record we have Humes official
> statement of only finding two very small bullet fragments he said were
> from the head wound. I also find it more than just interesting that
You are confused. Humes did not find ONLY two very small bullet
fragments. He found scores of bullet fragments. He just chose the two
largest and most accessible ones to remove.
You need to read the conspiracy books with a grain of salt. Some of what
is in them is indeed accurate. But a lot of it is not.
> Humes gathered up not only his notes but also Dr. Finck's notes after
> the autopsy and later burned them when he rewrote the official autopsy
> report. Humes laid the ground work for what the official position
I have written about Humes burning the notes before. What you may not
realize is that Humes also burned the first autopsy report.
> would be which was introduced by the WC counsel, Arlen Spector. Even
> in April, 1964 Spector was somewhat skeptical that anyone would
> actually believe the SBT. For the record, I did not ask anyone to
It wasn't until April 1964 that Specter INVENTED the SBT. The working
assumption until then and what the WC was going to write in its report
was three shots, the first hitting JFK, the second hitting Connally, and
the third hitting JFK in the head.
> explain the evidence, I merely asked another poster for her
> interpretation/opinion about the "evidence."
> Regards, Jim
>
>
Nice to know that you've read a couple of books, but you need to read a
lot more than that.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Connally's violent movement that begins at Z224, indicates that is
the first frame filmed after he was shot. Two frames later Connally's
right hand is rapidly moving upward. At Z224, JFK's left elbow is at
his side and two frames later it also is moving rapidly upward. The
simultaneous arm reflexes indicate they were both struck by the same
bullet.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Invented is an interesting choice of words.
I was watchng a Discovery Channel program on meteors. Prior to Bill
Shoemaker, it was believed that a natural earthbound phenomenon caused the
Arizona meteor crater, as it is now known as.
In regard to the working assumption prior to April 1964, that the WC was
going to find that three separate shots had caused 3 separate wounds,
sometimes things do not become obvious until further study occurs. In the
JFK shooting, the further catalyst was the Tague wounding, in spite of the
fact that Tague may simply have been struck by a shard of the head shot,
as opposed to a shard of a missed shot.
Whether or not Spector had postulated that a single bullet had struck both
men, eventually some post WC analyst would have put forth the theory,
based on the fact that Connally was sitting center line in front of and to
the left of Kennedy.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***There is a photo of 6.5 inshoot tests through animal skin. At least
one of the test inshoots resembled the hole in JFK's back. The shirt had
a punched through hole in the back while having a ragged vertical slit in
the front, indicating that the bullet pushed the fabric away from the
body, tearing through it as it exited in a forward direction.
It would be normal to take photographs of the body as it was received, in
order to show the wounds in their original condition, prior to any autopsy
proceedures being performed.
***Ron Judge
jim....@fuse.net
this forum maybe I'll get to the point where I'll know know everything
too. Or not. Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
I don't think that you can see a bodily reaction start just one frame
after a bullet strikes.
Anthony Marsh
> im.le...@fuse.net wrote:
>
>>Jean, HOW can you make the statement that you know of NO witness who
>
> said
>
>>JFK was struck at Zf 202. Do you not consider Phil Willis a witness?
>
>
>
>> SOMEONE ELSE SAID:
> Of course he was a witness. But he did not SAY that JFK was struck at
> Z-202. All we know is that he reacted to hearing a shot by snapping the
> shutter at Z-202. We don't know if that bullet hit anyone.
>
>>
YOU SAID:
> JL reply - We do know the same bullet that Willis heard and reacted to
> by snapping his picture at Zf 202 hit JFK because the other witnesses
> in the same area heard the same shot and saw JFK's immediate reaction
> to that first shot. It was the same shot that Connally heard but was
> not wounded by.
>
Not exactly. You may find a stray witness here or there who clearly said
that the very first shot fired struck the President in the back. But
some may not have heard a shot before this one.
I happen to agree with Connally that he heard the first shot and was
struck by the second and further that the first shot struck the
President and the second shot struck him. But what he and many other
witnesses might not have realized is that there was a first missed shot
which they did not recognize as a shot. That might be because it was a
fouling shot and left the muzzle at a reduced velocity. That may also be
why it seemed to miss everything.
>
>>And your question about where the bullet went if it hit JFK in the
>
> neck
>
>>means you are assuming all the bullets fired during the shooting
>
> sequence
>
>>were from high powered rifles and therefore must be transiting
>
> missiles.
>
> Could be what she is assuming, but the evidence points to WCC M-C
> bullets with a muzzle velocity of about 2,165 fps.
> JLreply - Are you referring to the two fragments found in the limo by
> the SS agents back at the WH garage and/or C1/CE399?
>
>
>>I do not believe the front of the neck shot nor the back shot were T
>
> & T
>
>>bullets and some of the evidence to that effect was withheld and not
>
>
> The throat wound was not an entrance and there was not a shallow
> entrance wound in the back. The medical evidence shows that a bullet
> hit
> the back and exited the throat.
>
> JL reply - The autopists didn't prove it by disection which is what
> they should have done. They conjectured about it and gave us their
Yes, we know about the failings of the autopsy. But we do not need to
depend only on the autopsy report.
> best guess. The highly skilled doctors and nurses at Parkland who
> observed the wound first hand before Dr. Perry did the tracheostomy
> were of the opinion that it was a puncture wound which is
> characteristic of an entrance wound. The medical personnel at Parkland
Yes, and the highly skilled ER personnel routinely are wrong about half
of the time and those Parkland personnel ADMITTED that they were wrong.
So, please do not keep depending on the Parkland personnel.
> were badgered by the FBI(Dr. Perry) and by Spector to change their
> statements after Humes changed final autopsy report came out. The
> medical evidence was "doctored."
>
I would go so far as to say that they were threatened. But that does not
change the medical facts.
And your time frame is way off. Humes came out with his final autopsy
report that Monday. The Parkland personnel were threatened AFTER that.
But still at the time everyone assumed it was three shots, three hits.
The SBT came much later.
>
>>placed into evidence because it would destroy the Single Bullet
>
> Theory
>
>>which was the only way to have LHO as the Lone Nut Assassin. This is
>
> what
>
> Except for the fact that there was no SBT until about April 1964, long
> after they had decided that a bullet went through JFK's back and exited
> his throat.
>
> JL reply - Doctors Humes, Boswell and Finck were puzzled by the lack of
> bullets or bullet fragments in the body. Finck arrived late and was not
All three autopsy doctors were incompetent, but Finck was the most
competent of the bunch, which is why an Army doctor was called in to
help the Navy hacks. It was Finck who supervised the taking of the
photos using a ruler.
> happy that Humes had stuck his little linger in the back wound and
> announced it was shallow and the angle of trajectory was steep. The
> question at this point is were the photos of the back wound taken after
> Humes had stuck his finger in that wound site and would that have
> changed the appearance of an exit wound to an entrance wound? If most
Good question. I believe not. I believe the photos of the wound were
taken before any probing was done.
Anthony Marsh
Excellent point. They tried to ignore Tague for as long as possible,
then falsified the evidence to make his story go away.
I do not believe that they could work out a trajectory for Tague or the
curb to be hit by a fragment from the head shot. No one has yet been
able to do so.
> Whether or not Spector had postulated that a single bullet had struck both
> men, eventually some post WC analyst would have put forth the theory,
> based on the fact that Connally was sitting center line in front of and to
> the left of Kennedy.
>
I don't see what that has to do with it. They all knew that fact before
the SBT was invented. Before they properly analyzed the Zapruder film
and tested the rifle, they assumed that there was enough time for Oswald
to fire both shots.
And had Blakey been around at the time, he would have fired the two
shots within the required restraints.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Jean Davison
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1173che...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Jean Davison wrote:
>
>> And I would say that the statement that Kennedy was struck at
>> approximate Z202 is "conjecture" also. I know of no witness who said
>> that
>> JFK was struck at approximately Z202, not literally. There are also
>> witnesses who said that the first shot missed, and other witnesses who
>> placed the first shot nearer the corner or further down the street. It
>> also appears that some witnesses didn't even hear the first shot. Trying
>> to
>> establish the shot's location through witness memory doesn't work, IMO.
>>
> Virtually all the witnesses who commented on when JFK was hit said he
> reacted immediately after the first shot:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
Andrew, we disagree. For instance, Altgens, who is on the list
you've entitled "Witnesses to the JFK Assassination who recalled JFK
reacting to the first shot," neither heard the first shot nor saw JFK react.
Altgens said that he took his photo (at Z 255) immediately after what he
*thought* was "the first shot."
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. ALTGENS - I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded
like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture,
as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was
just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---
[.....]
Mr. LIEBELER - You testified previously, I believe, that the first shot that
was fired had just been fired momentarily before you took the picture, is
that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; it was so close you could almost say it was
simultaneous because it was coincidental but nevertheless that's just the
way it happened.
Mr. LIEBELER - When you first heard this shot, did you see any reaction
either on the part of the President or anyone else that indicated they might
have been hit by this shot?
Mr. ALTGENS - No, sir; [....]
Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how
far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing
that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took
Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired and that you are
quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you
saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.
>>>
UNQUOTE
Obviously Altgens wasn't talking about the same "first shot" that
other witnesses described.
Others, like Paul Landis, heard only two shots -- IMO, the second
and third shots. If so, then they saw JFK react after the second shot,
not their "first."
IOW, the witness testimony about the shots is contradictory.
>
> Only SA Bennett suggested otherwise but his handwritten note made the day
> of the assassination suggests that it may actually have been the first
> shot that he heard.
>
Only Bennett? I don' t think so.
>>
>>
>>>So whatever happened subsequent to that
>>>first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
>>>Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
>>>or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
>>>that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
>>>another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
>>>location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
>>>Connally's wounds?
>>
>>
>> Since it's not my theory that JFK was hit around Z202, I don't
>> think
>> *I'm* the one who needs to explain the paths of the bullets. If JFK was
>> hit
>> separately, where'd that bullet go?
>
> The logical trajectory is to the left of Connally, since JBC was in front
> and the bullet was going right to left. The only part of JBC on his left
> side was... his left thigh. Seems to fit alot of things - the thigh wound,
> condition of CE399, and the trajectory is perfect. see:
>
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/jfk_sbt_paper.pdf at about page 17.
Of all the trajectory studies that have been done, has any
concluded that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat would miss Connally's back?
It seems to me that Connally was seated well to JFK's left -- as seen in
the Powers film here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Powers.html
>
>> If he was hit in the neck at Z202, why
>> do you suppose that his left arm didn't move from its location down by
>> his
>> side until he came out from behind the sign, and then his elbow flies up?
>> "Delayed reaction"?
>
> These kinds of explanations require speculation. One has to stick to the
> evidence. The evidence is that JFK was hit by the first shot, that JBC was
> hit in the back by the second, that there was more time between 1 and 2
> than 2 - 3. (see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf )
>
> A theory has to fit with those facts.
Indeed, but I don't agree that the available facts fit your theory.
C'est la vie. And really, I didn't intend to get into yet another debate
about the Z film. I just wanted to agree that both men can be seen to react
at the same time in good copies.
Jean
black...@aol.com
I did, just a few posts earlier in this thread. At about 226, JFK's
elbows rise and he lurches backward/upward. JBC starts a bit earlier,
at about 224.
>
> > You place more weight on Connally's observation (which was from the
FBI
> > copy, wasn't it?), the jiggle analysis, which I find inconclusive
and
>
> LIFE slides. And I see no reason to believe that Connally was any
less
> accurate in looking at the Zapruder film than anyone here.
Or more accurate. I think it is very hard to determine in still frame.
>
> > the acoustical analysis, which I find inconclusive. But I
understand
> > and accept that you feel that way.
> >
> > Do you see any odd movement by Connally in the Z224 area? Any
> > explanation of the anomalies I see?
> >
> >
>
> I see no odd movement by Connally in the Z-224 area.
Why does his left shoulder rise rapidly? Why the funny hat flip?
And he appears to
> be turning back towards the left smoothly. Remember that he said that
he
> was almost facing directly straight forward at the moment he was hit.
> That describes Z-230 much better than Z-224.
1/3 of a second difference. I see it starting at 224.
Anthony Marsh
OK, got you. So your new claim is that at about Z-226 you can see JFK
lurch backwards. And this proves that he was hit with a shot from behind
at about Z-224? So, according to your theory, the person lurches in the
direction back towards the rifle? Therefore if Connally lurches forward,
this would mean that he was shot from the front, correct?
>
>
>>>You place more weight on Connally's observation (which was from the
>
> FBI
>
>>>copy, wasn't it?), the jiggle analysis, which I find inconclusive
>
> and
>
>>LIFE slides. And I see no reason to believe that Connally was any
>
> less
>
>>accurate in looking at the Zapruder film than anyone here.
>
>
> Or more accurate. I think it is very hard to determine in still frame.
>
>>>the acoustical analysis, which I find inconclusive. But I
>
> understand
>
>>>and accept that you feel that way.
>>>
>>>Do you see any odd movement by Connally in the Z224 area? Any
>>>explanation of the anomalies I see?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I see no odd movement by Connally in the Z-224 area.
>
>
> Why does his left shoulder rise rapidly? Why the funny hat flip?
>
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is an optical illusion. Maybe it is his RIGHT
shoulder which is thrust downward. Is there a funny hat flip? Maybe he
did that several times earlier, so this proves that he was shot earlier
in the motorcade?
Questioning
left should rose because he was turning right to look over his shoulder
toward Kennedy. EVEN he said he was not shot until after he turned back to
the front. When he was struck. So evidently he was shot much later than 224.
Perhaps Z290 or so Connally doubled over. Like HE SAID HE DID. But that
shows the SBT was wrong.
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114708232.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> > I did, just a few posts earlier in this thread. At about 226, JFK's
> > elbows rise and he lurches backward/upward. JBC starts a bit
earlier,
> > at about 224.
>
> OK, got you. So your new claim is that at about Z-226 you can see JFK
> lurch backwards. And this proves that he was hit with a shot from
behind
> at about Z-224? So, according to your theory, the person lurches in
the
> direction back towards the rifle? Therefore if Connally lurches
forward,
> this would mean that he was shot from the front, correct?
Oh, come on, Tony. We've all seen the movement thousands of times. JFK
is sitting slightly hunched forward, hand up for a wave, then suddenly
sits straight up (which could be described as backward). Connally's
move is harder to describe, almost like his shoulder going up as though
startled. They BOTH seem to react (as in, who was it, Dr. Shaw's
words?) as if hit with a doubled-up fist.
>
>
> >
> > Why does his left shoulder rise rapidly? Why the funny hat flip?
> >
>
> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is an optical illusion.
I think I see it, but Myers does not include it in his animation. The
area above his left shoulder seems to take on the same darkness as his
suit in the blink of a frame.
Maybe it is his RIGHT
> shoulder which is thrust downward. Is there a funny hat flip?
YES, there is.
Maybe he
> did that several times earlier, so this proves that he was shot
earlier
> in the motorcade?
You don't think a hat flip at about the moment JFK is shot is more
significant than, say, one on Turtle Creek?
I know you think it's suspect when somebody "claims" to have changed.
We don't live too far apart. I'd like to show you some stuff I wrote
for B.A.D. and the Real Paper, talks I gave on WBUR and WERS, where I
was an opponent of the SBT.
Today, I don't ADVOCATE the SBT. As the films get clearer and more
stable, I think I see both men react at the same time, weakening that
portion of the argument. One can still argue trajectory, loss of mass,
lack of deformation, non-transit, any number of things. I don't think
the timing issue flies anymore.
Somewhere in you, I have always seen a guy more reasonable than many. I
think some day I may convince you that it is not heresy to suggest that
part of the traditional SBT debate may be weaker than we thought.
black...@aol.com
Questioning wrote:
> We can also see him sitting up holding his hat with his shattered
arm.
Which he held onto long after the shooting.
His
> left should rose because he was turning right to look over his
shoulder
> toward Kennedy.
In ONE frame?
EVEN he said he was not shot until after he turned back to
> the front. When he was struck.
Connally turned at least once at an earlier point in the film.
Even then, that envelope of possibility ("I felt it hit about when I
reached this point") is quite wide.
So evidently he was shot much later than 224.
> Perhaps Z290 or so Connally doubled over. Like HE SAID HE DID.
That's not what he said.
Anthony Marsh
> We can also see him sitting up holding his hat with his shattered arm. His
> left should rose because he was turning right to look over his shoulder
> toward Kennedy. EVEN he said he was not shot until after he turned back to
> the front. When he was struck. So evidently he was shot much later than 224.
> Perhaps Z290 or so Connally doubled over. Like HE SAID HE DID. But that
> shows the SBT was wrong.
>
No. Connally said that he was hit at about Z-230.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>>I did, just a few posts earlier in this thread. At about 226, JFK's
>>>elbows rise and he lurches backward/upward. JBC starts a bit
>
> earlier,
>
>>>at about 224.
>>
>>OK, got you. So your new claim is that at about Z-226 you can see JFK
>
>
>>lurch backwards. And this proves that he was hit with a shot from
>
> behind
>
>>at about Z-224? So, according to your theory, the person lurches in
>
> the
>
>>direction back towards the rifle? Therefore if Connally lurches
>
> forward,
>
>>this would mean that he was shot from the front, correct?
>
>
> Oh, come on, Tony. We've all seen the movement thousands of times. JFK
> is sitting slightly hunched forward, hand up for a wave, then suddenly
No. JFK is seated almost perfectly upright before he is hit. Then after
he is hit he slumps forward.
> sits straight up (which could be described as backward). Connally's
> move is harder to describe, almost like his shoulder going up as though
> startled. They BOTH seem to react (as in, who was it, Dr. Shaw's
> words?) as if hit with a doubled-up fist.
>
Almost sorta like his right shoulder is thrust downward.
Yes, they both reacted. Because they were both hit by bullets. Amazing,
isn't it? That does not prove that they were hit by the same bullet.
>>
>>>Why does his left shoulder rise rapidly? Why the funny hat flip?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is an optical illusion.
>
>
> I think I see it, but Myers does not include it in his animation. The
> area above his left shoulder seems to take on the same darkness as his
> suit in the blink of a frame.
>
There are a lot of optical illusions out there.
> Maybe it is his RIGHT
>
>>shoulder which is thrust downward. Is there a funny hat flip?
>
>
> YES, there is.
In your opinion, what do you think makes it "funny."
>
> Maybe he
>
>>did that several times earlier, so this proves that he was shot
>
> earlier
>
>>in the motorcade?
>
>
> You don't think a hat flip at about the moment JFK is shot is more
> significant than, say, one on Turtle Creek?
>
Don't know. I'd have to compare films side by side to quantify that.
> I know you think it's suspect when somebody "claims" to have changed.
> We don't live too far apart. I'd like to show you some stuff I wrote
> for B.A.D. and the Real Paper, talks I gave on WBUR and WERS, where I
> was an opponent of the SBT.
>
Great. Meet you at Au Bon Pain some time.
Wednesdays about 7:30.
> Today, I don't ADVOCATE the SBT. As the films get clearer and more
> stable, I think I see both men react at the same time, weakening that
> portion of the argument. One can still argue trajectory, loss of mass,
> lack of deformation, non-transit, any number of things. I don't think
> the timing issue flies anymore.
>
> Somewhere in you, I have always seen a guy more reasonable than many. I
> think some day I may convince you that it is not heresy to suggest that
> part of the traditional SBT debate may be weaker than we thought.
>
>
As I have said before, a SBT is not impossible. It has happened in other
cases. I have not seen a workable SBT in this case.
jim....@fuse.net
> bullets with a muzzle velocity of about 2,165 fps.
> JLreply - You must be referring to the two fragments found in the
limo by
> the SS agents back at the WH garage and/or C1/CE399? Because the
four fragments given to Dennis David to log in at the autopsy were
more than enough for one whole bullet but not quite enough for two
bullets. Do we know what kind of ammo those fragments were? And the
whole bullet that Dr. David Osborne, Chief of Surgery at the Bethesda
Naval Hospital picked up, held in his hand and looked at is not in
evidence. What kind of ammo was that bullet, Anthony? WCC M-C also?
>>I do not believe the front of the neck shot nor the back shot were T
> & T
>>bullets and some of the evidence to that effect was withheld and not
> The throat wound was not an entrance and there was not a shallow
> entrance wound in the back. The medical evidence shows that a bullet
> hit
> the back and exited the throat.
> JL reply - The autopists didn't prove it by dissection which is what
> they should have done. They conjectured about it and gave us their
Yes, we know about the failings of the autopsy. But we do not need to
depend only on the autopsy report.
> best guess. The highly skilled doctors and nurses at Parkland who
> observed the wound first hand before Dr. Perry did the tracheostomy
> were of the opinion that it was a puncture wound which is
> characteristic of an entrance wound. The medical personnel at
Parkland
Yes, and the highly skilled ER personnel routinely are wrong about half
of the time and those Parkland personnel ADMITTED that they were wrong.
So, please do not keep depending on the Parkland personnel.
Anthony, your denigration of both the Parkland and the Bethesda medical
staff presents us with a Catch 22. If, as you infer, we can't depend
on the autopsy for the facts and we can't depend on the Parkland
Medical personnel who saw the wounded president and the governor right
after the shooting for the facts who's left? So what are the facts and
how do you know the facts you have selected are the real facts and what
are they based on?
> were badgered by the FBI(Dr. Perry) and by Spector to change their
> statements after Humes changed final autopsy report came out. The
> medical evidence was "doctored."
I would go so far as to say that they were threatened. But that does
not
change the medical facts.
Anthony, if as you have posted, we can't depend on the autopsy for the
facts and we can't depend on the Parkland Medical personnel who saw the
wounded president and the governor right after the shooting for the
facts, how do we know what the correct medical facts are? Just what are
"the medical facts" you are referring to and are they the real facts?
And your time frame is way off. Humes came out with his final autopsy
report that Monday. The Parkland personnel were threatened AFTER that.
But still at the time everyone assumed it was three shots, three hits.
The SBT came much later.
JL - I know that the Spector SBT came later. But why were any
witnesses threatened at all to change what they had observed? I think
the part you cannot bring yourself to take a closer look at is just how
early the conspiracy to cover what happened during the assassination
and when the post shooting "confuse the public with the big lie" phase
began.
> Theory
> what
- Hide quoted text -
> out
> book
> others
> the
> GREY
> at the
> vial,
> They
> thickness,
> exact
> As I
> was
> killing
> that
> public.
>>Perhaps, I should have.
JL - Maybe not with the SBT directly but we have a statement by a
witness to a movie taken during the autopsy that none of us that I know
of have seen and several B/W and color photos of the autopsy which are
not in the "official records." Those items need to be found if
possible and if not possible have Dennis David tell us more about what
he saw on those photographic records if he can recall further details.
>>Dennis D
>>Unquote.
Regards, Jim
Questioning
too. I thing I need to study this subject again.
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:m6bde.3148$c86.811@trndny09...
Anthony Marsh
> Where can a good picture of the Willis Slides be found online? Willis slides
> too. I thing I need to study this subject again.
>
I have not seen any good quality pictures of the Willis Slides online.
Anthony Marsh
> Could be what she is assuming, but the evidence points to WCC M-C
>
>>bullets with a muzzle velocity of about 2,165 fps.
>
>
>>JLreply - You must be referring to the two fragments found in the
>
> limo by
>
>>the SS agents back at the WH garage and/or C1/CE399? Because the
>
> four fragments given to Dennis David to log in at the autopsy were
> more than enough for one whole bullet but not quite enough for two
> bullets. Do we know what kind of ammo those fragments were? And the
> whole bullet that Dr. David Osborne, Chief of Surgery at the Bethesda
> Naval Hospital picked up, held in his hand and looked at is not in
> evidence. What kind of ammo was that bullet, Anthony? WCC M-C also?
>
I am not sure what you mean. Your quoting is messed up. Google
formatting tends to run on. You need to add some separation with hard
carriage returns.
There were two large fragments found in the front seat compartment.
Those are physically identified as being WCC M-C bullet fragments. One
is the so-called nose portion. The other is known as the base portion,
and is only the jacket from the base up to about the cannelure, with the
lead totally missing.
There were also lead fragments removed from the windshield and three
tiny lead fragments found under Connally's seat. I believe those are all
from a WCC bullet, although we may not be able to prove which one.
I am not sure what Osborne saw. I am open to the possibility that
additional fragments and/or bullets/holes/damage were found and not put
into evidence.
Yes, you are right. It seems to be a dilemma. But in reality is not an
either/or situation. We can reject both. Maybe neither can give us the
absolute truth about anything, but each can give us clues. I start with
the photographic evidence and then analyze how the eyewitness and supposed
expert observations fit in with it. For example, I look at the autopsy
photos for myself and can see for myself the gauze inserted into the head
wound. Then I note that Nurse Bowron explains many years later how she had
packed gauze squares into the head wound to prepare it for shipping. That
explains to me why Humes thought that there had been surgery to the top of
the head, because he saw the leftover gauze and thought it had been left
in the head wound after the Parkland doctors had attempted surgery to the
head to save the President's life.
I also compare the evidence to other cases. In the case of the head wound,
I note that in similar cases the appearance of the bullet wound above the
right eye is typical of other cases of a bullet entrance wound. For those
who argue that there MUST be a massive hole in the back or left of the
head from a frontal entrance, I point out cases where there was no exit
wound at all, such as some suicides, executions, or the shooting of James
Brady with an explosive bullet.
I can also test out various hypotheses myself to determine what is
possible or what effects can occur.
>
>>were badgered by the FBI(Dr. Perry) and by Spector to change their
>>statements after Humes changed final autopsy report came out. The
>>medical evidence was "doctored."
>
>
> I would go so far as to say that they were threatened. But that does
> not
> change the medical facts.
>
> Anthony, if as you have posted, we can't depend on the autopsy for the
> facts and we can't depend on the Parkland Medical personnel who saw the
> wounded president and the governor right after the shooting for the
> facts, how do we know what the correct medical facts are? Just what are
> "the medical facts" you are referring to and are they the real facts?
>
We use the clues from the autopsy and the Parkland Hospital. We try to
figure out why they made the mistakes that they did. We note the
observations of various witnesses and agents. One real fact is that a
bullet hit the President in the back and exited his throat. Another fact
is that Connally was hit in the right armpit, also in the wrist and in the
thigh. We do not have to accept the WC fiction about which bullet caused
which wounds.
>
>
> And your time frame is way off. Humes came out with his final autopsy
> report that Monday. The Parkland personnel were threatened AFTER that.
> But still at the time everyone assumed it was three shots, three hits.
> The SBT came much later.
>
> JL - I know that the Spector SBT came later. But why were any
> witnesses threatened at all to change what they had observed? I think
They were threatened because by that time even the dumbest FBI agent had
figured out that if JFK was hit by a bullet in the throat, that means
conspiracy. And conspiracy means WWIII and the instant death of 40 million
Americans. Would you want the death of 40 million Americans on your
conscience?
> the part you cannot bring yourself to take a closer look at is just how
> early the conspiracy to cover what happened during the assassination
> and when the post shooting "confuse the public with the big lie" phase
> began.
>
>
Within hours. Several of the news commentators were saying within
minutes that this had to be a conspiracy. Johnson and others were afraid
that either the Cubans or the Soviets were behind it.
I am not sure that there is enough evidence to claim that there
definitely was a movie taken during the autopsy. It is possible.
> of have seen and several B/W and color photos of the autopsy which are
> not in the "official records." Those items need to be found if
Two different possibilities. First, there indeed were some official
autopsy photos which were made to disappear. I think it most likely that
those missing photos would not tell us anything new, because they were of
areas not directly affected. And we have some of the photos which were
thought to have been destroyed. I do not believe they show anything that
we didn't know already.
Another possibility is that Knudsen took some personal photos for the
family after the autopsy was over, of the President's body after the
morticians were finished. I do not think it likely that having those would
tell us anything new. Except perhaps by noting exactly where the
morticians placed wax. But I believe that the entrance hole in the
forehead is already confirmed photographically anyway.
Andrew Mason
I don't see what is obvious about that at all. He did not say his photo
was simultaneous with the first shot. He said 'almost'. What did he mean
by that? Did he mean at the same time as the sound from the shot still
reverberated? If so, the first shot could have been 2-3 seconds earlier.
Mary Woodward remarked on how long the shots reverberated - and that the
third (and last) shot rang out before the reverberation from the second
had died out. That puts shot 2 well after JFK emerges from the sign.
Altgens heard the first shot. No one in DP failed to hear that first
shot. The fact that he did not count the shots and cannot recall the
number does not mean he did not hear the first shot. He was most
definite in recalling that his photo was taken after the first shot and
before any other shots. Altgens was not sure the first noise was a shot.
If he referred to it as what he 'thought' was a first shot, he was
referring to being unsure of the cause of the sound, not whether it
occurred.
As for Altgens testimony constituting evidence that JFK reacted to the
first shot, one only has to look at his photo and his testimony that the
photo was taken after the first shot and before any other.
>
> Others, like Paul Landis, heard only two shots -- IMO, the second
> and third shots. If so, then they saw JFK react after the second shot,
> not their "first."
Are you actually suggesting that anyone in DP missed hearing the first
shot?? There is a difference between counting and recalling numbers of
shots and hearing them. If there had been 6 shots, there would have been
many more people who got the number wrong. That doesn't mean they missed
hearing the first shot.
>
> IOW, the witness testimony about the shots is contradictory.
>
Witness testimony is quite consistent on the number and spacing of the
shots. That consistency is so significant (80% on 3 shots and 44:6 on
spacing) that it cannot be explained by random chance. There has to be a
reason for that kind of convergence. The only reason is that it is what
they actually heard. There could not be that kind of convergence on a
wrong recollection unless there was a common reason they would all make
the same mistake.
>
>>Only SA Bennett suggested otherwise but his handwritten note made the day
>>of the assassination suggests that it may actually have been the first
>>shot that he heard.
>>
>
>
> Only Bennett? I don' t think so.
Who else?
>
>
>>>
>>>>So whatever happened subsequent to that
>>>>first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
>>>>Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
>>>>or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
>>>>that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
>>>>another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
>>>>location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
>>>>Connally's wounds?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since it's not my theory that JFK was hit around Z202, I don't
>>>think
>>>*I'm* the one who needs to explain the paths of the bullets. If JFK was
>>>hit
>>>separately, where'd that bullet go?
>>
>>The logical trajectory is to the left of Connally, since JBC was in front
>>and the bullet was going right to left. The only part of JBC on his left
>>side was... his left thigh. Seems to fit alot of things - the thigh wound,
>>condition of CE399, and the trajectory is perfect. see:
>>
>>http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/jfk_sbt_paper.pdf at about page 17.
>
>
> Of all the trajectory studies that have been done, has any
> concluded that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat would miss Connally's back?
> It seems to me that Connally was seated well to JFK's left -- as seen in
> the Powers film here:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Powers.html
>
In all the photos JBC is shown directly in front of JFK or slightly to
his left. But he would have to be at a very minimum of 8 inches and more
like 11-13 inches left for the right to left bullet going through JFK's
middle striking JBC on the far right. The trajectory goes to JBC's left.
With JBC turned sharply right at z200, the bullet could pass by his
left side and into his left thigh. It is a perfect fit, actually. See
pages 17-19 of my SBT paper.
Andrew Mason
black...@aol.com
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>>I did, just a few posts earlier in this thread. At about 226,
JFK's
> >>>elbows rise and he lurches backward/upward. JBC starts a bit
> >
> > earlier,
> >
> >>>at about 224.
> >>
> >>OK, got you. So your new claim is that at about Z-226 you can see
JFK
> >
> >
> >>lurch backwards. And this proves that he was hit with a shot from
> >
> > behind
> >
> >>at about Z-224? So, according to your theory, the person lurches in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>direction back towards the rifle? Therefore if Connally lurches
> >
> > forward,
> >
> >>this would mean that he was shot from the front, correct?
> >
> >
> > Oh, come on, Tony. We've all seen the movement thousands of times.
JFK
> > is sitting slightly hunched forward, hand up for a wave, then
suddenly
>
> No. JFK is seated almost perfectly upright before he is hit. Then
after
> he is hit he slumps forward.
I see him lurch upward, then slump forward.
>
> > sits straight up (which could be described as backward). Connally's
> > move is harder to describe, almost like his shoulder going up as
though
> > startled. They BOTH seem to react (as in, who was it, Dr. Shaw's
> > words?) as if hit with a doubled-up fist.
> >
> Almost sorta like his right shoulder is thrust downward.
May well be. I don't see it. I just see an area the same color as his
suit lurch up above his left shoulder, in a couple of frames.
> Yes, they both reacted. Because they were both hit by bullets.
Amazing,
> isn't it? That does not prove that they were hit by the same bullet.
No, but it leaves open that possibility.
>
> >>
> >>>Why does his left shoulder rise rapidly? Why the funny hat flip?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is an optical illusion.
> >
> >
> > I think I see it, but Myers does not include it in his animation.
The
> > area above his left shoulder seems to take on the same darkness as
his
> > suit in the blink of a frame.
> >
>
> There are a lot of optical illusions out there.
>
> > Maybe it is his RIGHT
> >
> >>shoulder which is thrust downward. Is there a funny hat flip?
> >
> >
> > YES, there is.
>
An unnatural move, one too quick to be natural. Reactive.
> In your opinion, what do you think makes it "funny."
>
> >
> > Maybe he
> >
> >>did that several times earlier, so this proves that he was shot
> >
> > earlier
> >
> >>in the motorcade?
> >
> >
> > You don't think a hat flip at about the moment JFK is shot is more
> > significant than, say, one on Turtle Creek?
> >
>
> Don't know. I'd have to compare films side by side to quantify that.
>
> > I know you think it's suspect when somebody "claims" to have
changed.
> > We don't live too far apart. I'd like to show you some stuff I
wrote
> > for B.A.D. and the Real Paper, talks I gave on WBUR and WERS, where
I
> > was an opponent of the SBT.
> >
>
> Great. Meet you at Au Bon Pain some time. (Which one?)
> Wednesdays about 7:30.
If I show you pretty substantial proof that I once was strongly
anti-SBT, but have changed and softened, will you stipulate it
publicly?
>
> > Today, I don't ADVOCATE the SBT. As the films get clearer and more
> > stable, I think I see both men react at the same time, weakening
that
> > portion of the argument. One can still argue trajectory, loss of
mass,
> > lack of deformation, non-transit, any number of things. I don't
think
> > the timing issue flies anymore.
> >
> > Somewhere in you, I have always seen a guy more reasonable than
many. I
> > think some day I may convince you that it is not heresy to suggest
that
> > part of the traditional SBT debate may be weaker than we thought.
> >
> >
>
>
> As I have said before, a SBT is not impossible. It has happened in
other
> cases. I have not seen a workable SBT in this case.
I do appreciate the open-mindedness. I don't know if it happened (SBT),
but I don't think it's as impossible as others do.
Anthony Marsh
Harvard Square near the Kiosk. I play bridge from 6 to 7:30.
> If I show you pretty substantial proof that I once was strongly
> anti-SBT, but have changed and softened, will you stipulate it
> publicly?
>
>
Sure.
>
>>>Today, I don't ADVOCATE the SBT. As the films get clearer and more
>>>stable, I think I see both men react at the same time, weakening
>
> that
>
>>>portion of the argument. One can still argue trajectory, loss of
>
> mass,
>
>>>lack of deformation, non-transit, any number of things. I don't
>
> think
>
>>>the timing issue flies anymore.
>>>
>>>Somewhere in you, I have always seen a guy more reasonable than
>
> many. I
>
>>>think some day I may convince you that it is not heresy to suggest
>
> that
>
>>>part of the traditional SBT debate may be weaker than we thought.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>As I have said before, a SBT is not impossible. It has happened in
>
> other
>
>>cases. I have not seen a workable SBT in this case.
>
>
> I do appreciate the open-mindedness. I don't know if it happened (SBT),
> but I don't think it's as impossible as others do.
>
>
"A" SBT is not impossible. It has happened in other cases. The problem
is that no one has yet invented a SBT for the JFK case which works.
Some are close, but the angles do not work.
black...@aol.com
Someday I may surprise you!
>
> > If I show you pretty substantial proof that I once was strongly
> > anti-SBT, but have changed and softened, will you stipulate it
> > publicly?
> >
> >
>
> Sure.
Swear to God, I was totally convinced the SBT was impossible.
>
> >
> >>>Today, I don't ADVOCATE the SBT. As the films get clearer and more
> >>>stable, I think I see both men react at the same time, weakening
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>portion of the argument. One can still argue trajectory, loss of
> >
> > mass,
> >
> >>>lack of deformation, non-transit, any number of things. I don't
> >
> > think
> >
> >>>the timing issue flies anymore.
> >>>
> >>>Somewhere in you, I have always seen a guy more reasonable than
> >
> > many. I
> >
> >>>think some day I may convince you that it is not heresy to suggest
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>part of the traditional SBT debate may be weaker than we thought.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>As I have said before, a SBT is not impossible. It has happened in
> >
> > other
> >
> >>cases. I have not seen a workable SBT in this case.
> >
> >
> > I do appreciate the open-mindedness. I don't know if it happened
(SBT),
> > but I don't think it's as impossible as others do.
> >
> >
>
>
> "A" SBT is not impossible. It has happened in other cases. The
problem
> is that no one has yet invented a SBT for the JFK case which works.
> Some are close, but the angles do not work.
We may not be too far apart. I think the timing argument is now weak. I
DO find the computer reconstructions make the angles possible, but I
realize many think Myers fudged the entry/exit points. I am troubled by
the lack of deformation and weight loss of 399, although it does not
necessarily disprove the SBT.
See, I KNEW you were a reasonable guy!
Questioning
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115160563....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Questioning wrote:
> > We can also see him sitting up holding his hat with his shattered
> arm.
>
> Which he held onto long after the shooting.
>
> His
> > left should rose because he was turning right to look over his
> shoulder
> > toward Kennedy.
Sorry. I said that wrong. His right shoulder went down because Connally
was turning right. Much eariler he did turn his head to the right but he
looked away. But Connally hiself said he turned around looked then turned
back to he was about front when he felt the shot. That's well after Z230.
>
> In ONE frame?
>
> EVEN he said he was not shot until after he turned back to
> > the front. When he was struck.
>
> Connally turned at least once at an earlier point in the film.
> Even then, that envelope of possibility ("I felt it hit about when I
> reached this point") is quite wide.
Yes, it is. But He said he turned, looked saw, nothing turned left to look
the other way, he was about in his orginial position when he felt the shot.
How far would that have been from Z224.
train
This has been a fascinating thread!
The diversity of the opinions expressed by the many posters was, IMO,
better than most books I have read on the subject and well worth a
visit to the forum!
Obviously, agreement on exactly what happened on Elm Street is
difficult to achieve.
I have a couple comments to add too FWIW: it seems to me that many
people take it on faith that the ballistics evidence (stretcher bullet,
fragments) is genuine and not the product of fabrication. Trying to
understand and explain this crime with fabricated evidence is
impossible.
Fabricated ballistics evidence is another topic that I have seen
explored in this forum and is, IMO, a very real and disturbing
possibility. Keep in mind this FBI evidence was never intended to
undergo the scrutiny the public and researchers have given it over the
years, it's purpose was to tie LHO to the crime in a manner that most
laymen would accept.
Trying to explain all the wounds with 3 bullets (genuine or fabricated)
is not easy to do either.
If indeed JFK was wounded in his throat from the front (many people
think he was), that alone destroys the SBT.
Matching the movements of the limo occupants to their testimony is
difficult too because many variables were at work when the attack
began...the limo was in motion, the spectators were calling out to JFK
& Jackie, there was croud & motorcade noise, sudden experience of fear
and shock,etc. Some people heard firecracker type explosions, others
heard the "crack"of rifle fire, etc.
For me, I can be satisfied with the scenerio presented by both the late
Govenor of Texas and his wife Nellie, where exactly in the Z-film this
scenerio occurs really doesn't matter to me because their versions
(when combined) portray no early missed shot, shot 1 hits JFK, #2
wounds the late Gov, #3 kills JFK. Shots #2 & #3 were right on top of
each other. The possibility of silenced weapons has never been excluded
in this attack.
The motorcycle officer splattered with the late President's blood and
brain matter plus a portion of his head found in the grass/street
opposite the president in addition to all the witnesses that heard
gunfire from the knoll area is convincing evidence for me that someone
shot JFK from somewhere to his right front. Someone else also shot both
men from somewhere to their rear.
You cannot pinpoint thought processes on a film and you also cannot
adequately explain the ambiguous portions of the Z-film without audio
to aid you in what you are observing. In other words, one person
suddenly looking this way or that way may be responding to his name
being called just as he could have just heard a gunshot or something
hit the pavement. Without audio you just can't accurately tell.
In reply to one of the posters, I too see JFK either couching or trying
to say something. To me it looks like he is fainting.
I also believe the possibility exists that if JFK was shot from back to
front, the exiting bullet could have ricocheted off his tie knot and
gone off to strike the curb near Tague. One would expect his throat to
be bleeding profusely and neither woman sitting near him said anything
about blood spurting from the late Presiden't throat.
Thank you for letting me participate in the forum!
:)
Anthony Marsh
> proven plausable and far more likely than unlikely. A 6.5FMJ fired
> from the 6th floor window would have hit both Kennedy and Connally if
> fired a few frames before Kennedy's reflexive reaction seen at Z225.
>
That is simply not true. You are assuming, falsely, a trajectory without
deflection. You ignore the fact that the bullet hit the T-1 vertebra.
And you can not get the angles to work.
> The Movie of Kennedy as the limo turned onto Elm, showed him leaning to
I have no idea what you mean by "The Movie of Kennedy." Are you talking
ONLY about the Zapruder film? Or the movie "JFK"?
> his right against the side of the limo after leaning over to his left,
> apparently to address Mrs. Connally's comment that she told JFK that he
> couldn't say that Dallas didn't love him. The Muchmore film showed
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have to SPECIFY the film
you mean and note the individual frames.
> Connally to be sitting well inside the limo at the same time as the
> limo turned onto Houston.
Define well inside and show how that allows a SBT trajectory. Just to
state that Connally was seated in front of the President is not
sufficient to prove an exact course. There was plenty of room for
Connally to be hit by a separate bullet and Connally's back wound was
much farther to the right on his body than you realize.
>
> The Unsolved History test was a bit off the mark, with the bullet
> exiting the Kennedy duplicate in the upper chest, but also the inshoot
Thank you for pointing out that problem. Indeed, every WC defender who
has every postulated a SBT needs to fudge the wound locations.
> was lower as well. Hitting the inshoot point precisely, along with a
> modest change in posture would have nearly duplicated the wounds seen
> in the autopsy photo.
>
Would have? No one has yet been able to demonstrate that. Are you up for
the challenge?
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Questioning
> Questioning wrote:
> > Where can a good picture of the Willis Slides be found online? Willis
slides
> > too. I thing I need to study this subject again.
> >
>
I have not seen any good quality pictures of the Willis Slides online.
Anthony Marsh
Questioning wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:qhbee.14661$c86.9361@trndny09...
>
>>Questioning wrote:
>>
>>>Where can a good picture of the Willis Slides be found online? Willis
>
> slides
>
>>>too. I thing I need to study this subject again.
>>>
>>
> I have not seen any good quality pictures of the Willis Slides online.
> How bout Bronson slides?
>
Not sure what you mean. I have not seen any good quality Bronson
anything online.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Witness testimony is quite consistent on the number and spacing of the
>shots. That consistency is so significant (80% on 3 shots and 44:6 on
>spacing) that it cannot be explained by random chance. There has to be a
>reason for that kind of convergence. The only reason is that it is what
>they actually heard. There could not be that kind of convergence on a
>wrong recollection unless there was a common reason they would all make
>the same mistake.
Certainly seems like a compelling argument to me, Andrew.
PF
David VP
attack."
I believe the CTers THEMSELVES (overall) HAVE eliminated that idea. ...
Because most/all CTers *believe* firmly that there were shots from the
front, AND the CTers *believe* that those witnesses who said they HEARD
shots from the front were TELLING THE TRUTH AND WERE CORRECT.
Therefore, I'd then ask -- If we have SOME shots being HEARD from the
front (per CTers and some witnesses), then WHY ON EARTH wouldn't ALL of
the frontal (non-SN) shots be NON-SILENCED shots?
IOW -- WHY would SOME shots be SILENCED and SOME not suppressed with
silencers? Makes no sense. It's one of those arguments where CTers
shoot themselves in their own feet by arguing that the witnesses are
RIGHT about HEARING frontal shots; but some of these same theorists
want to ALSO argue in favor of "Suppressed/Silenced" shots too. Doesn't
gibe.
David VP
(Although the "acoustics team", with the 11th-hour tacked-on "4th Shot"
is, IMO, not valid, but that's another matter altogether.)
But the WC and the HSCA obviously KNEW there WAS a "SBT" to be
extracted from that Zapruder movie -- no question about THAT fact.
Why?
Obviously a "SBT" was the ONLY possible logical explanation given the
LACK of any rear-seat limo damage (and lack of whole bullets recovered
from rear seats)...plus: given the lack of bullets in the body of JFK,
and the lack of ANY bullets being found ELSEWHERE (car, hospital, DP)
that could have possibly represented the bullets that were inside JFK
had a bullet not gone completely through him.
Given these facts, there is no question there was just ONE single
bullet that went through Kennedy and on into Connally. And the WC and
HSCA knew this full well.
The WC/HSCA probably considered "conspiracy" for about three seconds,
re. the SBT specifically, before rejecting the idea as IMPOSSIBLE in
every conceivable, DOABLE way. There's no way these plotters could have
been THAT GOOD, IOW. To have eliminated all these bullets and/or
frontal wounds on two victims, and eliminate any limo damage that might
need to be eradicated; and for THREE shots to have "aligned" just
nicely to form the wounds on TWO victims like they would have had to do
if THREE gunmen had been firing instead of just one; and on & on &
on.....
Therefore, what is left is .... A SBT being the ONLY answer to EXPLAIN
THE EVIDENCE AS IT EXISTS.
Regardless of WHAT EXACT Z-FRAME the SBT equates to -- the point is:
There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly
to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the
totality of this evidence re. the initial wounding of both victims.
Both the WC and HSCA did the best they could when attempting to piece
together the mystery of what time the SBT occurred on the film
(hampered greatly, quite obviously, by that damn freeway sign).
Now, just WHY the obvious (IMO) involuntary Connally reactions were
apparently NEVER noticed by anybody who looked at the film for the WC &
HSCA, I cannot say (lousy copies used?).
But the Digital copies we have now positively (IMO) point to a
Z223-Z224 hit to JBC -- that open mouthed grimace and shoulder drop and
weird, ultra-fast hat flip, are, in my view, as positive proof as we're
gonna find to verifying a bullet striking him at ANY point on the film.
There is NO OTHER POINT on the Z-Film that gives us THAT MUCH evidence
of a "hit" than do the frames just after Z223.
The WC and HSCA did "get it right" (overall) -- meaning: they were
right about only ONE bullet hitting both men simultaneously. They just
didn't have it PINPOINTED on the Zapruder Film with 100% accuracy.
But, circa 2005, we CAN now "pinpoint" the "bullet strike".
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg
Such a nutty "Erase All The Evidence Immediately After It Happens"
'plot' (as many CTers think did occur on 11/22) couldn't have possibly
been pulled off in a billion years -- and that's WHY, IMO, such a
lamebrain, doomed-to-fail "Patsy" scheme would NEVER HAVE BEEN
ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (unless those "involved" had a Death Wish
themselves).
There would have been NO POSSIBLE WAY to "control" ALL this bullet (and
wound-location) evidence five minutes after the assassination (esp.
inside TWO victims -- the intended victim, JFK, plus a person they
obviously never meant to hit at all, JBC, who didn't require a "FAKED &
CONTROLLED AUTOPSY" at the end of the day on November 22nd).
SOMEBODY is gonna SEE something they shouldn't in all this confusion
and chaos just after it occurred (probably LOTS of people; i.e.
non-plotters!) at the place the plotters HAVE GOT TO KNOW the President
is going to be whisked just after such a shooting -- i.e.: a local
Dallas hospital.
Such a plot to eliminate a sitting President is just ASKING to be
caught -- and is JUST PLAIN DUMB! (Esp. when there were obviously so
MANY other BETTER ways to "eliminate" the target, rather than doing it
via a crackpot "Patsy" plan, which includes the possibility of needing
to eradicate God knows how many bullets and wounds, and strong-arming
God knows how many military people, making them keep their mouths shut
for the rest of their lives. (And just that mere POSSIBILITY of these
things occurring is enough to make any plotters put on the brakes when
it comes to considering this type of nutsville plan.)
Not to mention all the Dealey Plaza witnesses that such a plan is
unfolding in front of -- with MANY CAMERAS FILMING THE PLOTTERS END
RESULTS!
It's hilarious to think that anybody can actually believe ANY plotters
could BE this stupid and suicidal.
More thoughts on why the "SBT" is THE ONLY POSSIBLE way to explain the
non-fatal, non-head wounds during the shooting of 11-22-63.......
Anthony Marsh
>>>"The possibility of silenced weapons has never been excluded in this
>
> attack."
>
> I believe the CTers THEMSELVES (overall) HAVE eliminated that idea. ...
> Because most/all CTers *believe* firmly that there were shots from the
> front, AND the CTers *believe* that those witnesses who said they HEARD
> shots from the front were TELLING THE TRUTH AND WERE CORRECT.
>
> Therefore, I'd then ask -- If we have SOME shots being HEARD from the
> front (per CTers and some witnesses), then WHY ON EARTH wouldn't ALL of
> the frontal (non-SN) shots be NON-SILENCED shots?
>
Not my theory, but one could argue that 2 weapons were used from the
front, one silenced, one not.
There are also some conspiracy theorists who believe that a silencer was
used for shot(s) from the rear.
> IOW -- WHY would SOME shots be SILENCED and SOME not suppressed with
> silencers? Makes no sense. It's one of those arguments where CTers
It makes sense for technical reasons. You want to pinpoint the location
of the shooter where you have placed the rifle to be traced back to the
lone nut patsy. But that rifle is not reliable and you need insurance
shooters to place the fatal shots. But you do not want witnesses
reporting hearing more than one gun lest people then suspect that it was
a conspiracy.
The rifle in the sniper's nest missed two out of three shots. That
necessitated the grassy knoll gunman to take the insurance shot.
> shoot themselves in their own feet by arguing that the witnesses are
> RIGHT about HEARING frontal shots; but some of these same theorists
> want to ALSO argue in favor of "Suppressed/Silenced" shots too. Doesn't
> gibe.
>
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. There could be a regular rifle
on the grassy knoll and a silenced weapons elsewhere.
>
Anthony Marsh
> The HSCA wasn't full of a bunch of complete idiots (nor was the WC).
> (Although the "acoustics team", with the 11th-hour tacked-on "4th Shot"
> is, IMO, not valid, but that's another matter altogether.)
>
> But the WC and the HSCA obviously KNEW there WAS a "SBT" to be
> extracted from that Zapruder movie -- no question about THAT fact.
>
> Why?
>
> Obviously a "SBT" was the ONLY possible logical explanation given the
> LACK of any rear-seat limo damage (and lack of whole bullets recovered
> from rear seats)...plus: given the lack of bullets in the body of JFK,
> and the lack of ANY bullets being found ELSEWHERE (car, hospital, DP)
> that could have possibly represented the bullets that were inside JFK
> had a bullet not gone completely through him.
>
Two problems with that argument. First, how do you know those
assumptions are true? Maybe there was a bullet hole. Where you do think
it MUST be? And maybe there were other fragments. Second, just because a
bullet goes through Kennedy does not mean that it HAS to hit Connally.
Are you aware that the official conclusion before they dreamed up the
SBT in April 1964 was that one bullet hit Kennedy and a different bullet
hit Connally? How could they arrive at such a conclusion if your
supposition is correct?
> Given these facts, there is no question there was just ONE single
> bullet that went through Kennedy and on into Connally. And the WC and
> HSCA knew this full well.
Those are not facts. They are suppositions.
Are you even aware of the fact that the WC could not take into account
the dent of the chrome topping in their shooting scenario?
>
> The WC/HSCA probably considered "conspiracy" for about three seconds,
> re. the SBT specifically, before rejecting the idea as IMPOSSIBLE in
> every conceivable, DOABLE way. There's no way these plotters could have
Up until April 1964 the WC was prepared to issue a report stating that
Kennedy was hit by the first bullet, Connally by the second bullet and
Kennedy by the third.
That's slightly longer than three seconds.
> been THAT GOOD, IOW. To have eliminated all these bullets and/or
> frontal wounds on two victims, and eliminate any limo damage that might
The plotters do not have to be THAT GOOD to eliminate all evidence of
conspiracy. There are thousands of bureaucrats tripping over their own
feet anxiously prepared to cover-up any hint of conspiracy.
> need to be eradicated; and for THREE shots to have "aligned" just
> nicely to form the wounds on TWO victims like they would have had to do
> if THREE gunmen had been firing instead of just one; and on & on &
> on.....
>
Please explain what you think the problem is with additional shooters.
CE 399 had plenty of room to go through Connally without hitting JFK first.
> Therefore, what is left is .... A SBT being the ONLY answer to EXPLAIN
> THE EVIDENCE AS IT EXISTS.
>
> Regardless of WHAT EXACT Z-FRAME the SBT equates to -- the point is:
> There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly
> to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the
> totality of this evidence re. the initial wounding of both victims.
>
So according to you, the exact trajectory could happen at any Zapruder
frame? Not much of a theory.
> Both the WC and HSCA did the best they could when attempting to piece
> together the mystery of what time the SBT occurred on the film
> (hampered greatly, quite obviously, by that damn freeway sign).
>
Not really. The WC was limited in its thinking. For example, by their
belief that no one would shoot before Z-210. The HSCA was stuck with
their interpretation of the acoustical evidence which placed a shot at
Z-190.
> Now, just WHY the obvious (IMO) involuntary Connally reactions were
> apparently NEVER noticed by anybody who looked at the film for the WC &
> HSCA, I cannot say (lousy copies used?).
>
Which involuntary reactions? You mean the ones that various WC and HSCA
sources had already talked about?
> But the Digital copies we have now positively (IMO) point to a
> Z223-Z224 hit to JBC -- that open mouthed grimace and shoulder drop and
> weird, ultra-fast hat flip, are, in my view, as positive proof as we're
> gonna find to verifying a bullet striking him at ANY point on the film.
>
Open mouthed grimace at Z-223? And this only shows up in the digitized
copy, not the original?
>
> There is NO OTHER POINT on the Z-Film that gives us THAT MUCH evidence
> of a "hit" than do the frames just after Z223.
>
> The WC and HSCA did "get it right" (overall) -- meaning: they were
> right about only ONE bullet hitting both men simultaneously. They just
> didn't have it PINPOINTED on the Zapruder Film with 100% accuracy.
>
FYI, the WC never attempted to pinpoint the exact frame. Connally told
them that he thought that he was hit at about frame Z-230.
> But, circa 2005, we CAN now "pinpoint" the "bullet strike".
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg
>
>
> Such a nutty "Erase All The Evidence Immediately After It Happens"
> 'plot' (as many CTers think did occur on 11/22) couldn't have possibly
> been pulled off in a billion years -- and that's WHY, IMO, such a
> lamebrain, doomed-to-fail "Patsy" scheme would NEVER HAVE BEEN
> ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (unless those "involved" had a Death Wish
> themselves).
>
Not all the evidence was erased immediately. You have created a strawman
argument. It took many years to erase evidence.
> There would have been NO POSSIBLE WAY to "control" ALL this bullet (and
> wound-location) evidence five minutes after the assassination (esp.
> inside TWO victims -- the intended victim, JFK, plus a person they
> obviously never meant to hit at all, JBC, who didn't require a "FAKED &
> CONTROLLED AUTOPSY" at the end of the day on November 22nd).
>
It's quite easy to control the evidence when you are in charge of the
evidence. Evidence can be destroyed. Evidence can be made to disappear.
It's quite easy when everything is secret.
> SOMEBODY is gonna SEE something they shouldn't in all this confusion
> and chaos just after it occurred (probably LOTS of people; i.e.
> non-plotters!) at the place the plotters HAVE GOT TO KNOW the President
> is going to be whisked just after such a shooting -- i.e.: a local
> Dallas hospital.
>
Some people DID see something. They are ignored or debunked.
> Such a plot to eliminate a sitting President is just ASKING to be
> caught -- and is JUST PLAIN DUMB! (Esp. when there were obviously so
There have been several plots to eliminate a sitting President. Some are
more successful than others.
> MANY other BETTER ways to "eliminate" the target, rather than doing it
> via a crackpot "Patsy" plan, which includes the possibility of needing
> to eradicate God knows how many bullets and wounds, and strong-arming
> God knows how many military people, making them keep their mouths shut
> for the rest of their lives. (And just that mere POSSIBILITY of these
> things occurring is enough to make any plotters put on the brakes when
> it comes to considering this type of nutsville plan.)
>
Perhaps you can provide us with some documented ways that HAVE been used
to eliminate the target rather than by shooting? Poisoning with Dioxin
perhaps? Is that always 100% successful? Sounds like a James Bond novel
to me. Only wacky conspiracy types would believe that such things are
possible.
> Not to mention all the Dealey Plaza witnesses that such a plan is
> unfolding in front of -- with MANY CAMERAS FILMING THE PLOTTERS END
> RESULTS!
>
My God, man, where have you been? No one captured your supposed lone nut
shooter on film. But the grassy knoll shooter was captured on film and
photo.
> It's hilarious to think that anybody can actually believe ANY plotters
> could BE this stupid and suicidal.
>
It's hilarious that 40 years after the event so many people are unaware
of the evidence of conspiracy.
David VP
front, one silenced, one not.
That's one of the dumbest "plans" I've ever heard. If they're gonna
SILENCE the frontal shots (which WOULD make sense in such a 'plot',
granted) -- they're going to silence EVERY frontal shot (otherwise,
what is the point of silencing ANY shots at all -- because just ONE
frontal shot that's HEARD by lots & lots of people blows their cover
right there).
David VP
evidence. Evidence can be destroyed. Evidence can be made to disappear.
It's quite easy when everything is secret.
The typical CT answer, naturally -- everything is FAKED, DISAPPEARS
without any non-plotters noticing a thing or just not talking,
blah-blah----yuck!
Main point here -- The vast evidence that would have been (potentially)
INSIDE JFK'S BODY (and any other possible limo victims) COULD NOT
POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN HIDDEN IMMEDIATELY FROM THE PARKLAND STAFF, as of
12:36 PM on 11/22.
If you believe that it could, you're out of your mind.
>From a PRE-11/22 POV, these shooters SHOULD have planned and EXPECTED
every potential shot to have hit the intended target (JFK).
This, of course, per some crackpot CT theories, includes up to TEN
bullets (perhaps even more per some oddball theories)!
TEN bullets flying thru DP in 8 seconds, and these plotters EXPECT ALL
this trace evidence (which could have ALL ended up INSIDE JFK for all
the plotters knew as of 11/21/63) to lead back to only ONE person in
the TSBD -- Oswald??!!
LOL! Hysterically-absurd plan on its face!
ANY "Patsy" plot using more than just one REAR shooter is destined to
fail immediately -- period! (Unless ALL frontal shots magically MISS
EVERYBODY.)
>> My God, man, where have you been? No one captured your supposed lone nut shooter on film. But the grassy knoll shooter was captured on film and photo.
ROFL!!
Oh brrrrrother!
So, per this oddball, silly remark, you actually would have EXPECTED
some of the approx. 30 photographers taking pics of the motorcade to
actually have been POINTING THEIR CAMERAS SIX FLOORS UP AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY??!!
Some great photogs these guys were, huh?
Your CT logic is utterly laughable.
"Grassy knoll shooter captured on film"!! LOL.
No film exists and you have to know it. Only in your (and CTers') minds
does that evidence exist.
Mr. Bugliosi is comin' though. So, the CTers can stop 'fightin' it'
after a while.
David VP
Groden postulates a minimum of 8 shots (and probably 10) -- with ZERO
of these coming from Oswald's window!!? Talk about oddball theories!
Groden doesn't even purport the proverbial "diversionary" first shot
coming from the SN.
This type of theory is hilarious when attempting to reconcile it --
Bob's got ten shots, but not ONE from THE ONLY VERIFIED PLACE from
where shots actually DID come from. And from where we have witnesses
WATCHING Oswald fire a gun, and from which we have witnesses just below
the SN who hear THREE shells falling and the working of the rifle's
bolt.
Incredible how anyone could believe such CT trash notions. (And Bob's
making MONEY off this junk, too! Geesh!)
LOL! Thought you'd want a good laugh today. That was it.