REVIEW -- "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" (From "The Discovery Channel")
David Von Pein
(THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL)
THE CLOSEST WE'RE LIKELY TO EVER GET TO A PERFECT DUPLICATION
OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.....
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The cable television network "The Discovery Channel" aired the
documentary program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" in November 2004, a
very impressive John F. Kennedy assassination-related program which
set out to attempt to duplicate (with all possible accuracy) the
controversial "Single-Bullet Theory"; and it's a program which
hammered one or two more nails into the "conspiracy" coffin.
The more and more time that passes, the firmer and more solidified the
"Lone Assassin" position becomes with respect to JFK's murder in
Dallas on November 22, 1963; while the "It Was A Conspiracy" side
makes no headway whatsoever, with zero tests like that of The
Discovery Channel's "SBT" test being performed to prove the conspiracy
buffs are correct. Nor do we ever see any computer simulations for the
"CT" side to "prove" their case for conspiracy (a la Dale Myers'
exacting animation project, which, like the "Magic Bullet" program,
goes a long way toward proving the SBT is a truism).
Several impressive things supporting the overall doability of the SBT
scenario came out of the "Beyond The Magic Bullet" program.....such as
the "log" test (with a bullet being fired into a solid block of wood).
The test bullet looked absolutely perfect after being dug out of
several feet of wood.
And, of course, the actual SBT re-creation itself....which proved
beyond any doubt that a WCC, 6.5mm, FMJ, Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
exactly like "CE399" (the actual bullet from the JFK case in 1963)
could, indeed, take a very similar path through two "bodies", and then
emerge in pretty decent shape....as we can see here:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
The Discovery Channel test bullet was more damaged than CE399, but IMO
the test proved a very important thing -- it proved that a bullet like
Oswald's 399 could go through two bodies, do a lot of damage, and NOT
BE BROKEN UP AT ALL.
The test bullet, just like 399, emerged PERFECTLY WHOLE (i.e., not
fragmented at all). It's all in ONE PIECE. It's flattened more than
399, sure....but certainly not banged all to hell like Dr. Cyril Wecht
seems to think a bullet like 399 would HAVE to have been if it went
through the bodies of both Jack Kennedy and John Connally and caused
seven wounds; and the "test" bullet caused an extra (2nd) rib fracture
within the John Connally mock-up "body" during the re-creation as
well.
The nose portion of the test bullet wasn't flattened at all either,
which is an important factor, indicating almost certainly it took a
similar path through John Connally's "mock" torso in the test, just as
CE399 most-likely took through JBC's real torso in 1963 -- indicating
a bullet that smashed into most of the hard objects that it hit in a
BACKWARD, END-FIRST manner, thereby keeping the nose undamaged.
And another impressive part of the "Magic Bullet" broadcast was the
ending sequence which had a doctor giving his erroneous opinion that
the damage he had just seen in the X-rays from the re-creation almost
certainly must have been caused "by more than just one bullet".
When proven wrong in this multi-bullet belief, the Los Angeles doctor
was genuinely surprised. (Do CTers think that he's a "CT plant"
too...only feigning "surprise" when confronted with the test results
to further the notion of the SBT?)
Another point I'd like to make regarding the "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
re-creation (with respect to Connally's thigh wound)......
Many CTers like to point out (with some glee) that the "test" bullet
in the Discovery Channel re-creation/simulation didn't penetrate the
surrogate "thigh wound" of JBC. Instead, the test bullet struck the
simulated thigh and then immediately bounced off into the grass.
But it's very, very possible that a similar occurrence DID happen with
the real John Connally on 11/22/63 -- that is to say:
It's quite possible (given the nearly-"spent" condition of Bullet
CE399 at the time it struck Connally's leg) that CE399 did not remain
in his thigh for any length of time at all. Perhaps it immediately
came out of that shallow leg wound and then simply fell down into
Connally's pants leg....where it remained until later falling out of
the clothing onto his stretcher inside Parkland Hospital.
But the main point I want to make about the "bouncing off the thigh"
test bullet vs. the real bullet that struck Connally on November 22nd
is.....
If CE399 did, in fact, pop out of JBC's thigh just after entering his
leg, it would have had virtually NO CHOICE but to remain in Connally's
pants leg (unless CTers want to theorize that the bullet miraculously
exited JBC's leg by way of the very same small hole in his pants where
it entered).
Sure, the bullet could have conceivably found its way down to the
bottom of JBC's pants-leg opening and dropped out into the car
immediately. But a reasonable person researching the case knows that
that scenario did not happen....because if it had occurred, a bullet
would have been found in the car that could equate to Connally's
wounds.
In my opinion, it's very likely that that bullet (CE399) almost
immediately fell out of JBC's leg after striking the thigh, and it
remained in his pants leg until after he was wheeled into the
hospital.
Such a scenario would also (in a small way at the very least) explain
why there was no trace evidence left on 399....due to the fact that it
was never "buried" in a victim for any length of time
whatsoever....thereby making it less likely for trace evidence to have
accumulated on the missile.
All-in-all....that Discovery Channel broadcast did an amazing job at
replicating the damage path and general characteristics of CE399. The
test bullet exited the JFK mock body much lower than the real 399 did
in '63, true. I certainly cannot deny this obvious difference. But we
must keep in mind that a PERFECT re-creation can never be fully
achieved, with every single "human" nuance accounted for (since only
mock torsos were utilized in the re-creation).
With some unavoidable limitations in mind, the SBT re-creation done by
the Australian team of JFK researchers in early October of 2004 is as
close to the real event that I believe we're likely to ever see. And
the results most certainly do not debunk the likelihood of the Single-
Bullet Conclusion. To the contrary -- the results of that re-creation
enhance the viability of the Warren Commission's one-bullet conclusion
greatly.
==========================================
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RE. "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET":
Prominent JFK assassination researchers Vincent Bugliosi and Dale
Myers both put in appearances in the Discovery Channel "Beyond The
Magic Bullet" documentary.
Myers convincingly demonstrates the rock-solid validity of the Single-
Bullet Theory, via portions of his Emmy Award-winning 3D computer
animation of the assassination ("Secrets Of A Homicide: The JFK
Assassination").
"It's a straight line....it's the only way it COULD have happened." --
Dale K. Myers ....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
Bugliosi, in his only appearance in a JFK documentary of this nature
(that I am aware of; not taking into account his appearance as the
prosecuting attorney in the 1986 TV Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald"), provides a few tidbits of general information throughout the
early stages of the program.
I would have enjoyed hearing a lot more from Vince and Dale during
this documentary program, but their on-screen time is not very
prolonged...but intriguing nonetheless.
Here are some verbatim quotes spoken by Vincent Bugliosi during the
"Beyond The Magic Bullet" program:
"The American people are simply misinformed. They think they know what
happened; but there's an enormous amount of material in this case they
have no idea about." -- VB
~~~~~
"If, in fact, the bullet that passed through Kennedy did NOT go on and
hit Connally, then the bullet that DID hit Connally, by definition,
would have had to have been a separate bullet from a second gunman.
Why? Because Kennedy and Connally were hit virtually at the same time.
And with Oswald's single-shot, bolt-action rifle, it would have been
absolutely impossible for him to squeeze off two rounds within a split-
second of each other." -- VB
~~~~~
That last Vince Bugliosi quote above goes a long way, in my opinion,
toward debunking the "Anti-SBT/Pro-Lone Gunman" theory put forth by
Mark Fuhrman in his 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder", which is a
theory of Mr. Fuhrman's that DOES indeed have Oswald performing a non-
SBT solo act and doing what Vince has said (via the above quote) is
"absolutely impossible".
I agree 100% with Mr. Bugliosi -- it was "absolutely impossible" for
Lee Harvey Oswald to wound JFK and John Connally with separate
bullets, given the Zapruder Film timeline of the event.
The Single-Bullet Theory is still fully intact....and always will be
in my opinion. It's the "best evidence" in the case for what actually
happened to President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22,
1963.
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=2360150&postcount=271
David Von Pein
December 2004
October 2006
November 2006
March 2007
luthie...@yahoo.com
WOW, you sure convinced me, ohhhhh by the way, what about the
fragments they removed from connally??
LOL
Andrew Mason
> "UNSOLVED HISTORY -- JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET"
> (THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL)
>
> THE CLOSEST WE'RE LIKELY TO EVER GET TO A PERFECT DUPLICATION
> OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.....
>
> http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html
>
>
> ~~~~~
>
> "If, in fact, the bullet that passed through Kennedy did NOT go on and
> hit Connally, then the bullet that DID hit Connally, by definition,
> would have had to have been a separate bullet from a second gunman.
> Why? Because Kennedy and Connally were hit virtually at the same time.
> And with Oswald's single-shot, bolt-action rifle, it would have been
> absolutely impossible for him to squeeze off two rounds within a split-
> second of each other." -- VB
>
> ~~~~~
>
> That last Vince Bugliosi quote above goes a long way, in my opinion,
> toward debunking the "Anti-SBT/Pro-Lone Gunman" theory put forth by
> Mark Fuhrman in his 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder", which is a
> theory of Mr. Fuhrman's that DOES indeed have Oswald performing a non-
> SBT solo act and doing what Vince has said (via the above quote) is
> "absolutely impossible".
>
> I agree 100% with Mr. Bugliosi -- it was "absolutely impossible" for
> Lee Harvey Oswald to wound JFK and John Connally with separate
> bullets, given the Zapruder Film timeline of the event.
Diagree. The zfilm does not give us unequivocal evidence of the times when
JBC and JFK were shot. It provides a basis on which many people think they
can see when they were shot. It does not prove that JBC was hit in the
bach and JFK was hit in the neck within a split second of each other. That
is only what armchair zfilm "experts" have convinced themselves is the
case, by ignoring all the rest of the evidence.
Fuhrman doesn't follow the evidence either (he ignores the shot pattern
evidence and other evidence establishing the time of the first shot). But
he is right that the demise of the SBT does not mean two shooters. That is
a huge mistake. The CTers sit back and show how the SBT does not fit with
vast bodies of reliable evidence, and they are absolutely right, and
conclude that there must have been a conspiracy - because the LNers said
it had to be if the SBT is wrong. But the evidence provides a very simple
non SBT explanation that is perfectly consistent with Oswald doing all the
shooting.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> "UNSOLVED HISTORY -- JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET"
> (THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL)
>
> THE CLOSEST WE'RE LIKELY TO EVER GET TO A PERFECT DUPLICATION
> OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.....
>
> http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
The SBT recreation glosses over the real problem with the SBT bullet
dynamics: the fact that it has to strike the radius butt-first to create
the wound characteristics observed. You have to show that a butt-first
strike on the radius can do that kind of damage to the radius and pull
threads into the wound, and come out with the level of damage observed on
CE399.
Andrew Mason
Sammy, G.
The problem I have with animations, recreations and the SBT in general is
the alignment. We have the Jeffries and Powers films that show both JBC and
JFK moving side to side frequently. However, when both men are in what I
call their neutral positions, they are not even close to Myer's animation,
the re-creation, nor what the SBT apparently requires.
The "clincher" for me is JBC's actual testimony. After viewing the
animation, recreation, one might wonder why JBC could not see JFK after
hearing the first shot? If Myer's and crew are correct, It should have been
quite easy for Connally to see JFK, IT WASN'T!
Thanks
Sammy, G.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172912054.1...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
What about them? The TOTAL amount of fragments that were LEFT INSIDE
Connally AND removed from Connally's body (from his wrist only, since
there were ZERO fragments found in his chest/thorax and just one super-
tiny fragment left in his thigh) weighed "less than the weight of a
postage stamp".
The total amount of lead missing from Bullet CE399 is approximately
2.2 grains, which is way more than the amount of fragments that were
removed from Governor Connally and left inside his body COMBINED.
In fact, Dr. John Lattimer was able to produce 41 fragments from just
2 total grains of lead from a WCC/MC bullet just like CE399. (And it
looks to me like every one of these 41 fragments is bigger in size
than any of the fragments that were ever inside John Connally's
body.).....
http://i13.tinypic.com/2s7vnk0.jpg
More on Lattimer and his experiments (which all support the pro-LN
scenario):
So, what is there about Dr. Charles Gregory's WC testimony regarding
the Connally bullet fragments that you don't like here, Mr. CTer? Do
you think that Gregory is a rotten, scheming "Let's Get Oswald" liar
here?.....
DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from five-
tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in
diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes...flakes of
metal."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
total?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
micrograms, which is very small amount of weight. ... It is the kind
of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means that
it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
WhiskyJoe
> Disagree. The zfilm does not
> give us unequivocal evidence
> of the times when JBC and JFK
> were shot. It provides a basis
> on which many people think they
> can see when they were shot.
> It does not prove that JBC was
> in the neck within a split second
> of each other. That is only what
> armchair zfilm "experts" have
> convinced themselves is the
> case, by ignoring all the rest
> of the evidence.
The Zapruder film does not provide proof that JFK and Connally were
shot at the same time. Nothing can ever be absolutely proved, except
"I think, therefore I am". However, the Zapruder film is highly
suggestive. It shows:
* a camera blur at Z227, suggestive of a bullet at Z222, just as the
blur at Z318 is suggestive of a bullet at Z313.
* The right side of Connally's coat seems to move at Z224, which is
consistent with a bullet passing through the coat at Z222 (in tests,
coats reach a maximum bulge one tenth of a second after a bullet
passes through).
* After sitting fairly placidly throughout the Zapruder film up to
that point, at frame 226, both JFK and Connally start reacting
vigorously. JFK goes into the elbows held high and wide pose and holds
it until frame 313. Connally's right arm flies up in front of his
face.
* JFK's back wound, his neck wound, and Connally's back wound, just
happen to be on the same line, a line that leads back to the sniper's
nest. Now, I know, some claim the wounds are off by an inch or two. I
don't think this is so, but even if it was true, it's amazing the
wounds caused by multiple bullets happened to occur at places so close
to that straight line.
Now, sure, all this can be explained away, using a bunch of
coincidences.
* Maybe JFK and Connally were wounded at the same time, but by two
separate bullets. It was just be coincidence that both struck at the
same time.
* Maybe JFK and Connally were struck at different times. But one or
the others had a more delayed reaction and it was just by coincidence
that they react at the same time.
* Maybe only JFK was struck and Connally was reacting all right, but
only to the sound of the bullet, not by being wounded yet. It was just
a coincidence that the only one if the limousine who reacted so
vigorously to the sound happened to be someone who would be wounded
later.
* Connally's coat did not move due to a bullet. It moved because of
the wind, or because of a flaw in the film. Or for some other reason.
It was just a coincidence that this puff of wind or whatever happened
to correspond to JFK's wound reaction and Connally's apparent wound
reaction.
* Connally's right arm did not fly up because it was struck by a
bullet. He moved it for some other reason. It was just a coincidence
that he moved it vigorously then, and it was also a coincidence that
it was the same arm that shortly afterwards would be wounded.
* It is just a coincidence that with the position of JFK and Connally
as they emerge from behind the sign and the seven wounds, JFK's back,
JFK's throat, Connally's back, Connally's chest, both of Connally's
wrist wounds and Connally's thigh wound, line up fairly well with the
sniper's nest, with an almost perfect straight line from the sniper's
nest through JFK's wounds and Connally's back wound, followed by a
gentle curve downward out his chest, to the wrist and ending at the
thigh.
Sure, one can explain away anything, given enough coincidences. One
might ever be right, although it's not likely. But the best theory is
one that does not rely on coincidences. The two men react at the same
time, the coat moves at the right time, the right arm moves at the
right time, the camera blurs at the right time, the wounds line up so
well, because both men were hit at the same time by one bullet. That's
it. The value of a good theory is that it can tie together many
separate facts and provide a simple explanation on why they react
together, why the wounds line up so well, why the coat and arm move
when they do.
I would urge you to take one more look at:
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
and see if you can tell who starts to react vigorously first, JFK or
Connally. Do they really appear to start reacting at different times
to you?
In particular, it's striking, when the film is run backwards, to see
Connally react vigorously in reverse, then suddenly sit up straight
and appear normal, then immediately disappear behind the sign. Surely
he starts reacting right after he appears from behind that sign, just
like JFK.
Andrew Mason
Sammy, G. wrote:
Top Post The problem I have with animations, recreations and the SBT in general is the alignment. We have the Jeffries and Powers films that show both JBC and JFK moving side to side frequently. However, when both men are in what I call their neutral positions, they are not even close to Myer's animation, the re-creation, nor what the SBT apparently requires. The "clincher" for me is JBC's actual testimony. After viewing the animation, recreation, one might wonder why JBC could not see JFK after hearing the first shot? If Myer's and crew are correct, It should have been quite easy for Connally to see JFK, IT WASN'T! Thanks Sammy, G.
Myers animations are not consistent. He never shows you the view from the SN with JBC and JFK in the positions seen in the zfilm. The reason: the bullet goes to the left side of the jump seat and JBC's right armpit is on the right side in the positions seen in the zfilm. These shots from the KGB documentary illustrate the point:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_above.JPG
This simply demonstrates that not only does the witness evidence not fit the SBT, the physical evidence does not fit either.
I will say this about the SBT. It was originally an honest mistake. The FBI used the wrong limo. No one ever thought to consider the possibility that the bullet went to the left side of JBC because they could not see the path to any wound on JBC's left side. That was a very compelling argument. But it was based on incorrect information.
The one point that I would disagree with all CTers is that the suggestion (conceded, amazingly, by most LNers) is that the SBT is necessary in order to avoid the need for two shooters. It isn't.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
"What about the fragments they removed from Connally?" <<<What about them? The TOTAL amount of fragments that were LEFT INSIDE Connally AND removed from Connally's body (from his wrist only, since there were ZERO fragments found in his chest/thorax and just one super- tiny fragment left in his thigh) weighed "less than the weight of a postage stamp". The total amount of lead missing from Bullet CE399 is approximately 2.2 grains, which is way more than the amount of fragments that were removed from Governor Connally and left inside his body COMBINED. In fact, Dr. John Lattimer was able to produce 41 fragments from just 2 total grains of lead from a WCC/MC bullet just like CE399. (And it looks to me like every one of these 41 fragments is bigger in size than any of the fragments that were ever inside John Connally's body.).....
Lattimer examined 100 unfired bullets and found they ranged from 159.8 to 161.5 grains with an average weight of 160.844. So it is possible (but no one can say for sure) that the fragments exceeded the original mass.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What about the fragments they removed from Connally?" <<<
>
> What about them? The TOTAL amount of fragments that were LEFT INSIDE
> Connally AND removed from Connally's body (from his wrist only, since
> there were ZERO fragments found in his chest/thorax and just one super-
> tiny fragment left in his thigh) weighed "less than the weight of a
> postage stamp".
>
You have no proof of that.
> The total amount of lead missing from Bullet CE399 is approximately
> 2.2 grains, which is way more than the amount of fragments that were
> removed from Governor Connally and left inside his body COMBINED.
>
Again, this is merely conjecture on your part.
> In fact, Dr. John Lattimer was able to produce 41 fragments from just
> 2 total grains of lead from a WCC/MC bullet just like CE399. (And it
> looks to me like every one of these 41 fragments is bigger in size
> than any of the fragments that were ever inside John Connally's
> body.).....
>
And wafer thin.
Misleading.
> http://i13.tinypic.com/2s7vnk0.jpg
>
>
> More on Lattimer and his experiments (which all support the pro-LN
> scenario):
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0151522812&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> So, what is there about Dr. Charles Gregory's WC testimony regarding
> the Connally bullet fragments that you don't like here, Mr. CTer? Do
> you think that Gregory is a rotten, scheming "Let's Get Oswald" liar
> here?.....
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from five-
> tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in
> diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes...flakes of
> metal."
>
And how thick were the Lattimer slivers? Much thinner than a half
millimeter.
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
> total?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
> micrograms, which is very small amount of weight. ... It is the kind
> of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means that
> it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
>
>
Nice guess. Not proof.
What is the exact weight of a postage stamp?
Andrew Mason
First of all, JFK"s back and JBC's neck wound only line up because you say they do. I don't see them lining up at all with the SN at z224. The only way they can line up is if JBC has his right shoulder left of the middle of the seat. Do you see it there?
Second, JBC said he reacted to the sound of the shot, not getting hit by it in the back. He said he turned back to see JFK which is what I see him doing from z230-270. All the witnesses said he fell back immediately after the second shot. I don't see him doing that at z224.
Third, jacket movement and camera movement occur throughout the zfilm.
But these are not the reasons I disagree with your conclusion. The reason I disagree with your conclusion is the large number of witnesses who independently recalled JFK reacting to the first shot, independently place the first shot after z196, and independently put the second shot closer to the last than to the first. That evidence is completely inconsistent with the SBT. It firmly establishes a consistent 3 shot 3 hit scenario that the Connallys recalled. The Connally's evidence isn't even needed. It just confirms exactly what the rest say.
Andrew Mason
* Maybe JFK and Connally were wounded at the same time, but by two separate bullets. It was just be coincidence that both struck at the same time.
* Maybe JFK and Connally were struck at different times. But one or the others had a more delayed reaction and it was just by coincidence that they react at the same time.
* Maybe only JFK was struck and Connally was reacting all right, but only to the sound of the bullet, not by being wounded yet. It was just a coincidence that the only one if the limousine who reacted so vigorously to the sound happened to be someone who would be wounded later.
* Connally's coat did not move due to a bullet. It moved because of the wind, or because of a flaw in the film. Or for some other reason. It was just a coincidence that this puff of wind or whatever happened to correspond to JFK's wound reaction and Connally's apparent wound reaction.
* Connally's right arm did not fly up because it was struck by a bullet. He moved it for some other reason. It was just a coincidence that he moved it vigorously then, and it was also a coincidence that it was the same arm that shortly afterwards would be wounded.
* It is just a coincidence that with the position of JFK and Connally as they emerge from behind the sign and the seven wounds, JFK's back, JFK's throat, Connally's back, Connally's chest, both of Connally's wrist wounds and Connally's thigh wound, line up fairly well with the sniper's nest, with an almost perfect straight line from the sniper's nest through JFK's wounds and Connally's back wound, followed by a gentle curve downward out his chest, to the wrist and ending at the thigh.
Sure, one can explain away anything, given enough coincidences. One might ever be right, although it's not likely. But the best theory is one that does not rely on coincidences. The two men react at the same time, the coat moves at the right time, the right arm moves at the right time, the camera blurs at the right time, the wounds line up so well, because both men were hit at the same time by one bullet. That's it. The value of a good theory is that it can tie together many separate facts and provide a simple explanation on why they react together, why the wounds line up so well, why the coat and arm move when they do. I would urge you to take one more look at: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov and see if you can tell who starts to react vigorously first, JFK or Connally. Do they really appear to start reacting at different times to you?
In particular, it's striking, when the film is run backwards, to see Connally react vigorously in reverse, then suddenly sit up straight and appear normal, then immediately disappear behind the sign. Surely he starts reacting right after he appears from behind that sign, just like JFK.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
LOL.
MUCH THINNER than half-a-millimeter?? You must be joking.
1/2 mm. is virtually non-existent as it is.
Fact is that all of Lattimer's "slices" (in general) appear to be
bigger than every fragment removed from or left inside JBC.
Even if you made Connally's fragments 10 times their current size, it
would still not make enough total lead to exclude CE399 as the bullet
that entered John Connally's body on 11/22/63.
CTers who continue to drag out the "TOO MANY FRAGMENTS WERE LEFT IN
CONNALLY" argument are fooling themselves badly. Because virtually
nothing of any size (fragment-wise) was left in JBC or taken out of
him.
~Mark VII time~
Anthony Marsh
>>>> And how thick were the Lattimer slivers? Much thinner than a half millimeter." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> MUCH THINNER than half-a-millimeter?? You must be joking.
>
> 1/2 mm. is virtually non-existent as it is.
>
Silly. You don't know how Lattimer created his slivers. He shaved them
off using a microtome.
> Fact is that all of Lattimer's "slices" (in general) appear to be
> bigger than every fragment removed from or left inside JBC.
>
Nonsense.
> Even if you made Connally's fragments 10 times their current size, it
> would still not make enough total lead to exclude CE399 as the bullet
> that entered John Connally's body on 11/22/63.
>
Unproven and ridiculous.
There is STILL too much lead remaining in Connally's body.
> CTers who continue to drag out the "TOO MANY FRAGMENTS WERE LEFT IN
> CONNALLY" argument are fooling themselves badly. Because virtually
> nothing of any size (fragment-wise) was left in JBC or taken out of
> him.
>
WC fiction.
> ~Mark VII time~
>
>
Anthony Marsh
You go through a big deal about what Connally said and then ignore the
fact that Connally said that he was hit at about Z-230. Why is that?
> Third, jacket movement and camera movement occur throughout the zfilm.
>
> But these are not the reasons I disagree with your conclusion. The
> reason I disagree with your conclusion is the large number of witnesses
> who independently recalled JFK reacting to the first shot, independently
> place the first shot after z196, and independently put the second shot
> closer to the last than to the first. That evidence is completely
> inconsistent with the SBT. It firmly establishes a consistent 3 shot 3
> hit scenario that the Connallys recalled. The Connally's evidence isn't
> even needed. It just confirms exactly what the rest say.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>>
>>
>> * Maybe JFK and Connally were wounded at the same time, but by two
>> separate bullets. It was just be coincidence that both struck at the
>> same time.
>>
> No. This is not possible. They were either both hit by the first bullet
> or Connally was not hit there. There were no two shots that close
> together according to the people who were there. There was only one
> shooter.
>> * Maybe JFK and Connally were struck at different times. But one or
>> the others had a more delayed reaction and it was just by coincidence
>> that they react at the same time.
>>
> No it isn't coincidence. JBC *said *he reacted immediately - to the
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
And how thick were the Lattimer slivers? Much thinner than a half millimeter." <<<LOL. MUCH THINNER than half-a-millimeter?? You must be joking. 1/2 mm. is virtually non-existent as it is. Fact is that all of Lattimer's "slices" (in general) appear to be bigger than every fragment removed from or left inside JBC.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
That was his opinion of where he was hit is not something he recalled. It
is worthy of consideration but there is no corroboration and it conflicts
with too much other evidence. It is inconsistent with his recollection
that he was hit in the back on the second shot, for example. The witnesses
establish a first shot after z190 and are very consistent. He said he was
not hit in the back by the first shot. He said he heard it, recognized it
as a rifle shot and turned around to his right to see JFK but could not
see him. There is no time for him to have made such a turn from z2077 to
z225. So, by his own evidence, he could not have been hit at z230. It
also conflicts with evidence: 1. that he was hit while turned right
(which he and Nellie told doctors on Nov. 22/63); .2. Nellie's evidence
that she never looked back after her husband was hit. She is staring at
JFK through z255. 3. with recollections of David Powers, William Greer,
Gayle Newman and Nellie that JBC collapsed back onto his wife immediately
after the second shot. 4. with the clear recollection of Altgens that his
z255 photo was taken after the first and before any other shot. 5.
perhaps most significantly, it is inconsistent with the shot pattern
confidently recalled by an overwhelming proportion of witnesses which puts
the second shot well after z230. I could go on, but just read my other
posts and particularly read the shot pattern evidence:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_excerpt.pdf
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
Bullshit.
Not a scrap of metal was taken out of or left INSIDE Connally's chest/
thorax.
Only one very small fragment was in his thigh (and was left in there,
it was so insignificant).
And a mere 3 tiny "postage-stamp" weight fragments came out of JBC's
wrist...with a few more even-smaller "flakes of metal" left behind in
the wrist.
The TOTAL of all that = Virtually nothing. "Postage stamp" type
weight. MICRO-adjustable-scale-worthy material.
Tony's wrong...as per the norm.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Sammy, G. wrote:
>> Top Post
>>
>> The problem I have with animations, recreations and the SBT in general is
>> the alignment. We have the Jeffries and Powers films that show both JBC and
>> JFK moving side to side frequently. However, when both men are in what I
>> call their neutral positions, they are not even close to Myer's animation,
>> the re-creation, nor what the SBT apparently requires.
>> The "clincher" for me is JBC's actual testimony. After viewing the
>> animation, recreation, one might wonder why JBC could not see JFK after
>> hearing the first shot? If Myer's and crew are correct, It should have been
>> quite easy for Connally to see JFK, IT WASN'T!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Sammy, G.
>>
>>
> I agree.
>
> Myers animations are not consistent. He never shows you the view from
> the SN with JBC and JFK in the positions seen in the zfilm. The reason:
> the bullet goes to the left side of the jump seat and JBC's right armpit
> is on the right side in the positions seen in the zfilm. These shots
> from the KGB documentary illustrate the point:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_above.JPG
>
Please don't put me in the awkward position of defending Dale Myers. When
you say that he never shows . . . all you mean is that you have never had
the chance to see the other views that he shows. Of course you probably
know that he took down his original drawings and has not put up all of his
drawings on his Web site.
I am not sure what you mean by the bullet going to the left side of the
jump seat. Can you pinpoint the Cartesian coordinates or how many inches
to the left of the right edge of the seat the bullet would hit?
> This simply demonstrates that not only does the witness evidence not fit
> the SBT, the physical evidence does not fit either.
>
The witness evidence is irrelevant. There is lots of physical evidence
that disqualifies present SBTs. But that does not mean that some clever
person might not some day figure out a SBT which could work.
> I will say this about the SBT. It was originally an honest mistake. The
Nah. It was a deliberate lie, a cover-up to avoid the inescapable
conclusion of conspiracy from the physical evidence.
> FBI used the wrong limo. No one ever thought to consider the possibility
The FBI was not responsible for the SBT. The FBI did not believe in the
SBT. Their report did not need no damn stinkin SBT.
> that the bullet went to the left side of JBC because they could not see
> the path to any wound on JBC's left side. That was a very compelling
> argument. But it was based on incorrect information.
>
One of their most simplistic arguments was that the bullet leaving JFK's
neck had no where else to go but into Connally.
Andrew Mason
If the bullet was fired at z190-210 from the SN with JFK with his right
arm on the top of the car, the bullet would have been travelling at a 13
degree left to right and 18 degree downward path, exited a point about
32 inches above the floor (neck), 10 inches to the left of the inside
wall and about 24 inches behind the top of the jumpseat back.
By the time this bullet crossed the plane of the jump seat, it would
have descended a further 24sin18 = 7.4 inches and would be at a height
of 24.6 inches above the floor, and travelled further left 24 sin13 =
5.4 inches. So it would be 15.4 inches inside the wall of the car.
The right side of he jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
door which was about an half and inch to an inch inside the wall beside
JFK. So 15.4 inches inside puts it about 12 inches left of the right
side of the jump seat. Since the jump seat was 20 inches wide, this puts
it on the left half of the jump seat. This is exactly where the KGB
reconstruction put it:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
and right where the FA animation put it:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>
>> This simply demonstrates that not only does the witness evidence not
>> fit the SBT, the physical evidence does not fit either.
>>
>
> The witness evidence is irrelevant. There is lots of physical evidence
> that disqualifies present SBTs. But that does not mean that some clever
> person might not some day figure out a SBT which could work.
There is no SBT path that I have seen where the wrist and thigh align
with the chest exit. The chest and wrist works, but not the thigh. The
wound characteristics of the thigh were very different. The hole in the
pants was round and no fibres were drawn into the wound . The hole in
the shirt and jacket sleeve was irregular and drew fibres into the
wound. Frazier 5 H 69-71. Gregory 4 H 122. The thigh wound was not made
by the same bullet that struck the wrist.
>
>> I will say this about the SBT. It was originally an honest mistake. The
>
>
> Nah. It was a deliberate lie, a cover-up to avoid the inescapable
> conclusion of conspiracy from the physical evidence.
>
>> FBI used the wrong limo. No one ever thought to consider the possibility
>
>
> The FBI was not responsible for the SBT. The FBI did not believe in the
> SBT. Their report did not need no damn stinkin SBT.
I agree.
>
>> that the bullet went to the left side of JBC because they could not
>> see the path to any wound on JBC's left side. That was a very
>> compelling argument. But it was based on incorrect information.
>>
>
> One of their most simplistic arguments was that the bullet leaving JFK's
> neck had no where else to go but into Connally.
And that is a compelling argument, as I have said. But it went to JBC's
left side. Where was he wounded on his left side?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
It can't always be exactly 13 degrees over that range of frames. Pick
Z-210 and 11-1/2 degrees.
> 32 inches above the floor (neck), 10 inches to the left of the inside
> wall and about 24 inches behind the top of the jumpseat back.
>
Not sure about the 32 inches.
10 inches? Not that far. JFK's torso was right up against the inside
wall of the car and the bullet exits the midline, so it is more like 8
inches.
> By the time this bullet crossed the plane of the jump seat, it would
> have descended a further 24sin18 = 7.4 inches and would be at a height
> of 24.6 inches above the floor, and travelled further left 24 sin13 =
> 5.4 inches. So it would be 15.4 inches inside the wall of the car.
>
> The right side of he jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
> door which was about an half and inch to an inch inside the wall beside
> JFK. So 15.4 inches inside puts it about 12 inches left of the right
> side of the jump seat. Since the jump seat was 20 inches wide, this puts
> it on the left half of the jump seat. This is exactly where the KGB
> reconstruction put it:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
>
Their reconstruction did not specify inches.
You are eyeballing it.
> and right where the FA animation put it:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>
>
That cartoon is wildly inaccurate and I don't believe it even represents
the first shot at Z-210. I'd like to see some source documentation on that.
You need to start the jump seat 5 inches to the left of the right side
of JFK's torso. The bullet would exit 8 inches to the left of that.
The drift without deflection would place the bullet 5 inches farther to
the left, or a total of 13 inches not 15.4 inches. This would be at
about the midline of the jump seat. We know that Connally's right armpit
was not that far over to the left, but you've inflated the numbers a
little too much to make it even more impossible. Overkill.
His left thigh. But a bullet just exiting JFK's throat would be going
too fast to cause the thigh wound.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
I get 12-14 degrees at z200. The uncertainly is due to the uncertainty
over the exact direction. The HSCA did not measure it there but got 13
degrees at z190. There is very little angle change because the car
direction doesn't change much in those frames. The angle difference is
due to the extra distance - about 20 feet. But 11.5 degrees is fine. It
makes a difference of less than an inch.
>
>> 32 inches above the floor (neck), 10 inches to the left of the inside
>> wall and about 24 inches behind the top of the jumpseat back.
>>
>
> Not sure about the 32 inches.
> 10 inches? Not that far. JFK's torso was right up against the inside
> wall of the car and the bullet exits the midline, so it is more like 8
> inches.
His arm was on the top of the car with his arm extending out naturally,
so his chest wall could not have been pressed against the side of the
car. It certainly doesn't look like it is as you see in z230 (at which
time he is in essentially the same lateral position as z190 - He moves
left after that). If you want to use 8 inches, fine, but it is more than
that.
>
>> By the time this bullet crossed the plane of the jump seat, it would
>> have descended a further 24sin18 = 7.4 inches and would be at a
>> height of 24.6 inches above the floor, and travelled further left 24
>> sin13 = 5.4 inches. So it would be 15.4 inches inside the wall of the
>> car.
>>
>> The right side of he jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
>> door which was about an half and inch to an inch inside the wall
>> beside JFK. So 15.4 inches inside puts it about 12 inches left of the
>> right side of the jump seat. Since the jump seat was 20 inches wide,
>> this puts it on the left half of the jump seat. This is exactly where
>> the KGB reconstruction put it:
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
>>
>
> Their reconstruction did not specify inches.
> You are eyeballing it.
You can tell that the laser beam goes to the left side of the jump seat.
You don't need a ruler to see that.
>
>> and right where the FA animation put it:
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>>
>>
>
> That cartoon is wildly inaccurate and I don't believe it even
> represents the first shot at Z-210. I'd like to see some source
> documentation on that.
> You need to start the jump seat 5 inches to the left of the right side
> of JFK's torso. The bullet would exit 8 inches to the left of that.
> The drift without deflection would place the bullet 5 inches farther
> to the left, or a total of 13 inches not 15.4 inches. This would be at
> about the midline of the jump seat. We know that Connally's right
> armpit was not that far over to the left, but you've inflated the
> numbers a little too much to make it even more impossible. Overkill.
The animated drawing was done using actual measurements by engineers.
Connally is not shown, just JFK. I don't know why you say that the
right side of the jump seat was 5 inches left of the right side of JFK's
chest. It was only 2.5 inches in from the door according to the H&E
scale drawings. There was a little jog of an inch or less in the wall
beside JFK making the jump seat maybe 3.5 inches left of the wall beside
JFK.
Not according to Dr. Shires who treated the wound. Even in 1978 he
maintained the same thing: 7 HSCA 333 ff
Of course we don't know exactly how it hit. It would have been tumbling
to strike butt-first. I am not sure that a tumbling bullet with 30% of
its energy spent, striking on a tangent, butt-first could not leave that
kind of wound. Since Shires thought it could, I would have to see some
evidence that it couldn't.
I am quite certain that the bullet from the neck made that wound. What I
am not so certain is exactly how it happened. It is possible that the
bullet struck the leg on a sharp angle and did not stick and went on to
strike the back of the front seat and bounced back into his clothing. We
just don't have enough information.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
What does that sentence mean? You cite other things he said as if they
are absolute proof and then ignore the fact that he specified about Z-230.
> It is worthy of consideration but there is no corroboration and it
> conflicts with too much other evidence. It is inconsistent with his
The corroboration is that he examined the Zapruder frames.
> recollection that he was hit in the back on the second shot, for
> example. The witnesses establish a first shot after z190 and are very
Your handpicked witnesses, not all.
> consistent. He said he was not hit in the back by the first shot. He
> said he heard it, recognized it as a rifle shot and turned around to his
> right to see JFK but could not see him. There is no time for him to have
> made such a turn from z2077 to z225. So, by his own evidence, he could
> not have been hit at z230. It also conflicts with evidence: 1. that he
Where do you get that? Only based on your notion that the same rifle
fired a shot at Z-190.
> was hit while turned right (which he and Nellie told doctors on Nov.
> 22/63); .2. Nellie's evidence that she never looked back after her
> husband was hit. She is staring at JFK through z255. 3. with
> recollections of David Powers, William Greer, Gayle Newman and Nellie
> that JBC collapsed back onto his wife immediately after the second shot.
> 4. with the clear recollection of Altgens that his z255 photo was taken
> after the first and before any other shot. 5. perhaps most
Nonsense.
Gerry Simone (O)
It is reasonable to say that JFK was hit before Connally just judging from
their reactions or reaction times - something Bugliosi or WC defenders
will never adequately reconcile.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172912054.1...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "What about the fragments they removed from Connally?" <<<
>
> What about them? The TOTAL amount of fragments that were LEFT INSIDE
> Connally AND removed from Connally's body (from his wrist only, since
> there were ZERO fragments found in his chest/thorax and just one super-
> tiny fragment left in his thigh) weighed "less than the weight of a
> postage stamp".
>
> The total amount of lead missing from Bullet CE399 is approximately
> 2.2 grains, which is way more than the amount of fragments that were
> removed from Governor Connally and left inside his body COMBINED.
>
> In fact, Dr. John Lattimer was able to produce 41 fragments from just
> 2 total grains of lead from a WCC/MC bullet just like CE399. (And it
> looks to me like every one of these 41 fragments is bigger in size
> than any of the fragments that were ever inside John Connally's
> body.).....
>
> http://i13.tinypic.com/2s7vnk0.jpg
>
> More on Lattimer and his experiments (which all support the pro-LN
> scenario):
>
>
> So, what is there about Dr. Charles Gregory's WC testimony regarding
> the Connally bullet fragments that you don't like here, Mr. CTer? Do
> you think that Gregory is a rotten, scheming "Let's Get Oswald" liar
> here?.....
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from five-
> tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in
> diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes...flakes of
> metal."
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
> total?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
> micrograms, which is very small amount of weight. ... It is the kind
> of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means that
> it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
A fragment with dimensions of 0.2 cm by 0.2 cm by 0.05 cm has a volume
of 0.0028 cc. Taking the density of lead as 11.4 gram/cc gives a mass
of 0.0228 gram or 22.8 milligram or 22,800 microgram.
So, Mister LN'er, do you think Dr. Gregory was a rotten scheming
lair?
Doctors frequently measure dosage in milligrams. So do not tell us
that Gregory made an another honest mistake.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> And how thick were the Lattimer slivers? Much thinner than a half millimeter." <<<
>>>>>
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> MUCH THINNER than half-a-millimeter?? You must be joking.
>>
>> 1/2 mm. is virtually non-existent as it is.
>>
>> Fact is that all of Lattimer's "slices" (in general) appear to be
>> bigger than every fragment removed from or left inside JBC.
>>
> You can work it out. Lead has a density of 11.43 grams/cm^3. This
> bullet weighed 10 grams, so this bullet contained about .8 cc of lead
> (plus the copper jacket). .8 cc is 800 cubic millimetres. The bullet
> weighed 160 grains (=10 grams) including the jacket. So roughly 5 cubic
> mm per grain. So a fragment 2.5 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm would weigh about 2
> grains, enough to make the difference here between CE399 and the
> heaviest whole bullet.
>
Where do you get your numbers from, a rabbit's hat?
Anthony Marsh
You get? And you get a range? There is no range for a specific frame.
Pick frame Z-210. The angle is from the sniper's nest.
> over the exact direction. The HSCA did not measure it there but got 13
> degrees at z190. There is very little angle change because the car
Who got? The FBI measured it for the WC.
> direction doesn't change much in those frames. The angle difference is
> due to the extra distance - about 20 feet. But 11.5 degrees is fine. It
> makes a difference of less than an inch.
>
Yes, the difference is not great.
>>
>>> 32 inches above the floor (neck), 10 inches to the left of the inside
>>> wall and about 24 inches behind the top of the jumpseat back.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure about the 32 inches.
>> 10 inches? Not that far. JFK's torso was right up against the inside
>> wall of the car and the bullet exits the midline, so it is more like 8
>> inches.
>
> His arm was on the top of the car with his arm extending out naturally,
> so his chest wall could not have been pressed against the side of the
> car. It certainly doesn't look like it is as you see in z230 (at which
> time he is in essentially the same lateral position as z190 - He moves
> left after that). If you want to use 8 inches, fine, but it is more than
> that.
>
In many photos showing him riding in the back seat you can see that his
right ribs were pressed against the inside wall of the limo seat.
>>
>>> By the time this bullet crossed the plane of the jump seat, it would
>>> have descended a further 24sin18 = 7.4 inches and would be at a
>>> height of 24.6 inches above the floor, and travelled further left 24
>>> sin13 = 5.4 inches. So it would be 15.4 inches inside the wall of the
>>> car.
>>>
>>> The right side of he jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
>>> door which was about an half and inch to an inch inside the wall
>>> beside JFK. So 15.4 inches inside puts it about 12 inches left of the
>>> right side of the jump seat. Since the jump seat was 20 inches wide,
>>> this puts it on the left half of the jump seat. This is exactly where
>>> the KGB reconstruction put it:
>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_reconst_front_SN.JPG
>>>
>>
>> Their reconstruction did not specify inches.
>> You are eyeballing it.
>
> You can tell that the laser beam goes to the left side of the jump seat.
> You don't need a ruler to see that.
>
That is THEIR incorrect recreation. It is fine to criticize it, but
don't accept it.
>>
>>> and right where the FA animation put it:
>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That cartoon is wildly inaccurate and I don't believe it even
>> represents the first shot at Z-210. I'd like to see some source
>> documentation on that.
>> You need to start the jump seat 5 inches to the left of the right side
>> of JFK's torso. The bullet would exit 8 inches to the left of that.
>> The drift without deflection would place the bullet 5 inches farther
>> to the left, or a total of 13 inches not 15.4 inches. This would be at
>> about the midline of the jump seat. We know that Connally's right
>> armpit was not that far over to the left, but you've inflated the
>> numbers a little too much to make it even more impossible. Overkill.
>
> The animated drawing was done using actual measurements by engineers.
Whose animation and which engineers?
> Connally is not shown, just JFK. I don't know why you say that the
> right side of the jump seat was 5 inches left of the right side of JFK's
> chest. It was only 2.5 inches in from the door according to the H&E
> scale drawings. There was a little jog of an inch or less in the wall
> beside JFK making the jump seat maybe 3.5 inches left of the wall beside
> JFK.
>
The door juts in by about 2.5 inches and then there is a gap of 2.5
inches, adding up to a total of about 5 inches in to the left. 5 inches
farther to the left than the right side of Kennedy's torso.
It would be going way too fast.
I see no point of damage to the back of the front seat.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And how thick were the Lattimer slivers? Much thinner than a half
>>>>>> millimeter." <<<
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> MUCH THINNER than half-a-millimeter?? You must be joking.
>>>
>>> 1/2 mm. is virtually non-existent as it is.
>>>
>>> Fact is that all of Lattimer's "slices" (in general) appear to be
>>> bigger than every fragment removed from or left inside JBC.
>>>
>>
>> You can work it out. Lead has a density of 11.43 grams/cm^3. This
>> bullet weighed 10 grams, so this bullet contained about .8 cc of lead
>> (plus the copper jacket). .8 cc is 800 cubic millimetres. The bullet
>> weighed 160 grains (=10 grams) including the jacket. So roughly 5
>> cubic mm per grain. So a fragment 2.5 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm would weigh
>> about 2 grains, enough to make the difference here between CE399 and
>> the heaviest whole bullet.
>>
>
> Where do you get your numbers from, a rabbit's hat?
The only numbers I am using are the density of lead, which you can look
up, and the mass of a WC 6.5 jacketed bullet: 10 grams = 160 grains. The
rest is arithmetic.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Kennedy and Connally were not hit at 'virtually' the same time.
>
> It is reasonable to say that JFK was hit before Connally just judging from
> their reactions or reaction times - something Bugliosi or WC defenders
> will never adequately reconcile.
I agree. I have never been able to understand why everyone thinks that
JFK and JBC react at the same time anyway. I see JFK already reacting
behind the sign as his hands and facial expression are so different than
1.2 seconds before he passed behind the sign. I see his sudden lurch at
around z226 as a reaction not to the shot but to the effect his neck
wound is having on his ability to breathe. I see JBC reacting by getting
ready to turn around, beginning at about z228 and which he continues for
the next 3 seconds.
Besides, to suggest that from z170-223 JBC is reacting as he said he did
after the first shot is mind boggling. He said he immediately recognized
the rifle shot and realized that an assassination was taking place - he
wanted to see JFK. So he sits there doing nothing for 3 seconds? He
doesn't bend his neck? He smiles at the crowd as JFK and Jackie smile?
It does not fit at all the turn he said he made or the state of mind
that he said he was in. The turn from z228 to z270 does.
But that is not even a reason that I disagree with the SBT. That is
just further demonstration of how the SBT does not fit the evidence.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
"That was his opinion of where he was hit, which is not something he
recalled".
I don't ignore it. I say it should be considered. Are you saying that he
has to be right?
>
>> It is worthy of consideration but there is no corroboration and it
>> conflicts with too much other evidence. It is inconsistent with his
>
>
> The corroboration is that he examined the Zapruder frames.
That is not corroboration. Corroboration must be independent. That is
the reason he gave his opinion. It is not independent confirmation that
he was right.
>
>> recollection that he was hit in the back on the second shot, for
>> example. The witnesses establish a first shot after z190 and are very
>
>
> Your handpicked witnesses, not all.
Ok. Which ones put the first shot before z190?
>
>> consistent. He said he was not hit in the back by the first shot. He
>> said he heard it, recognized it as a rifle shot and turned around to
>> his right to see JFK but could not see him. There is no time for him
>> to have made such a turn from z2077 to z225. So, by his own evidence,
>> he could not have been hit at z230. It also conflicts with evidence:
>> 1. that he
>
>
> Where do you get that? Only based on your notion that the same rifle
> fired a shot at Z-190.
z200 actually, but certainly no earlier than z190. It is not my notion.
It was the notion of the people who were actually there. You weren't.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
metal" -- i.e., virtually nothing. If you added 20 more fragments like
this one (CE842) to JBC's "inventory of fragments"....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm
....you probably still wouldn't be able to say that it added up to
more than the approx. 2.2 grains missing from CE399.
But you'll keep on a-tryin', Mr. CT-Speculator. Right? Why of course
you will.
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- V. Bugliosi
Gerry Simone (O)
Also, other experts say the latest JFK would be hit is BEFORE the one
where you see a 'lapel flip' for Connally.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:12uvapm...@corp.supernews.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
surrogate wrist bone inside gelatin before bouncing off the table onto the
ground (it didn't have enough energy to penetrate a thigh gel block), and
is more deformed than CE-399
CE-399 hit a rib then went thru a wrist bone - two big bones, then into a
thigh.
I doubt that the slightly cracked wrist in the former accounts for the
greater deformation.
If CE-399 looked like the Discovery program test bullet, then I'd say it
would be close to proving it.
Anthony Marsh
Not that he has to be right. But he is right. I was making fun of your
research method.
>
>>
>>> It is worthy of consideration but there is no corroboration and it
>>> conflicts with too much other evidence. It is inconsistent with his
>>
>>
>> The corroboration is that he examined the Zapruder frames.
>
> That is not corroboration. Corroboration must be independent. That is
> the reason he gave his opinion. It is not independent confirmation that
> he was right.
>
Then the acoustical evidence is independent corroboration.
Also the Altgens photo.
>>
>>> recollection that he was hit in the back on the second shot, for
>>> example. The witnesses establish a first shot after z190 and are very
>>
>>
>> Your handpicked witnesses, not all.
>
> Ok. Which ones put the first shot before z190?
>
Pick up Six Seconds in Dallas. Read the HSCA.
>>
>>> consistent. He said he was not hit in the back by the first shot. He
>>> said he heard it, recognized it as a rifle shot and turned around to
>>> his right to see JFK but could not see him. There is no time for him
>>> to have made such a turn from z2077 to z225. So, by his own
>>> evidence, he could not have been hit at z230. It also conflicts with
>>> evidence: 1. that he
>>
>>
>> Where do you get that? Only based on your notion that the same rifle
>> fired a shot at Z-190.
>
> z200 actually, but certainly no earlier than z190. It is not my notion.
> It was the notion of the people who were actually there. You weren't.
>
Nonsense. You are misrepresenting the eyewitness accounts.
Herbert Blenner
> Gregory told it as he saw it -- the ONLY thing in JBC were "flakes of
> metal" -- i.e., virtually nothing. If you added 20 more fragments like
> this one (CE842) to JBC's "inventory of fragments"....
>
Indeed, Gregory envisioned a bullet with a declination angle of
approximately 45 degree fired from a distance of between 160 and 250
ft inflicting all the wounds upon Governor Connally.
>
> ....you probably still wouldn't be able to say that it added up to
> more than the approx. 2.2 grains missing from CE399.
Gregory was off by a factor of ten thousand in estimating the weight of a
described fragment. So why do you have such confidence in his description
of their size?
The missing fragments weighing 2.2 grain occupy a volume of 12.2 cubic
millimeter and fill an equivalent cube with 2.3 mm sides. Now if you have
twenty fragments their mean volume of becomes 0.61 cubic millimeter and
the equivalent cube has 0.84 mm sides.
>
> But you'll keep on a-tryin', Mr. CT-Speculator. Right? Why of course
> you will.
Of course any engineer could explain why a bullet cannot shed "paper thin"
fragments. The stress from the tissue upon the fragment increases with
thinness. As a result the stress rounds off sharp corners as it tends to
reform the fragment toward a spherical shape.
Herbert
Andrew Mason
Do you have the cite for this Vincent Bugliosi quote?
I can't believe he really said this. There is quite a bit of evidence that
the first shot hit JFK in the neck. Nellie watching JFK gag after the
first shot and then reaching over to pull JBC back immediately after the
second shot (the one JBC said he was hit in the back by) pretty much
eliminates the SBT if she was right. Gayle Newman, Wm. Greer, David
Powers, SA Kinney and SA Hickey support the Connallys. Whether you accept
that evidence is another matter. But the fact is that it exists.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> The Discovery Channel bullet hits two surrogate ribs, slightly cracked a
> surrogate wrist bone inside gelatin before bouncing off the table onto the
> ground (it didn't have enough energy to penetrate a thigh gel block), and
> is more deformed than CE-399
>
> CE-399 hit a rib then went thru a wrist bone - two big bones, then into a
> thigh.
>
> I doubt that the slightly cracked wrist in the former accounts for the
> greater deformation.
>
> If CE-399 looked like the Discovery program test bullet, then I'd say it
> would be close to proving it.
Careful. The wrist bullet made irregular holes in the jacket sleeve and
shirt sleeve and dragged suit fibres deeply into the wrist. This could not
be done by CE399's nose. Dr. Gregory thought it might be possible if CE399
went through butt-first. If the Discovery Channel bullet did not drag
fibres into the wound, it did not duplicate the Connally wounds.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Which ones?
Hugh Betzner, who said that he took his z186 shot before the first shot -
as he was rewinding to take another? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time as the
first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was passing
between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President was
opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the President was
opposite the last window of the West corner of the TSBD? Did I
misrepresent that evidence?
Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was just
about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel Jacks who
were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the corner and was
going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The zfilm shows the VP car
still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns in the
VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP car bumper
and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD when the first shot
was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car was still turning at z191.
Did I misrepresent that evidence?
Mary Woodward, who said that the first shot occured after JFk and Jackie
turned toward them and smiled and waved as they cheered him, just after he
turned forward. The zfilm shows that exchange which ends at z198. Did I
misrepresent that evidence?
Jane Berry, Karen Westbrook, Faye Chism, and John Chism, who supported
Mary Woodward's recollection? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
ALL of them.
> Hugh Betzner, who said that he took his z186 shot before the first shot
> - as he was rewinding to take another? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Yes. That is not what he said. You are spinning his account to fit your
theory.
> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time as
> the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his photo,
not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was passing
> between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President was
> opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the President
> was opposite the last window of the West corner of the TSBD? Did I
> misrepresent that evidence?
>
More misrepresentation.
> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was just
> about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to mean
Z-313.
> Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel Jacks
> who were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the corner and
> was going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The zfilm shows the VP
> car still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
As far as they remember and the first shot they remembered hearing. You
need to examine everything they said.
> Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns in
> the VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP car
> bumper and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD when the
> first shot was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car was still
> turning at z191. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
Again, that is your spin.
> Mary Woodward, who said that the first shot occured after JFk and Jackie
> turned toward them and smiled and waved as they cheered him, just after
> he turned forward. The zfilm shows that exchange which ends at z198. Did
> I misrepresent that evidence?
>
You are using the Jack White method of analysis.
> Jane Berry, Karen Westbrook, Faye Chism, and John Chism, who supported
> Mary Woodward's recollection? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>
>
You have hand picked the witnesses who said what you want to interpret
to fit your theory.
> So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
>
You are hand picking and spinning.
Obviously you have never bothered to read all the eyewitness accounts
and you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas.
> Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- V. Bugliosi
ANDREW SAID:
"Do you have the cite for this Vincent Bugliosi quote?"
DVP NOW SAYS:
You bet I do. It comes (verbatim) from VB's closing arguments to the
jury at the '86 LHO Trial.......
Gobs more direct, verbatim quotes from the '86 "Trial" can be found
here......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
Andrew Mason
Are you serious? Are you suggesting he said his z186 photo was taken after
the first shot?
>
>> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time as
>> the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his photo,
> not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
Well, he thought the sound came as he was about to take it and the sound
may have triggered his finger to press the shutter.
How do you interpret his evidence 7 H 493?
Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me to
squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he
was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd
hadn’t had time to react.
>
>> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was passing
>> between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
So perhaps you could tell me what your spin is on her statement 7 H 498:
Miss WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where Stem-
mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot hit him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons Freeway”?
Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn’t
very far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the shot came.
>
>
>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President was
>> opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
Here is what he said 24 H 534:
By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping forward in the
Presidential car.
The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What is your
"spin" on that statement?
>
>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the President
>> was opposite the last window of the West corner of the TSBD? Did I
>> misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> More misrepresentation.
Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
"I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the corner
where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston
and to a point I would say the President’s back was in line with the last
window I have previously described I heard what I thought was a backfire."
>
>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was
>> just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to mean
> Z-313.
Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
President's automobile was almost past this building" when the first
shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west corner
of the TSBD at about z210.
>
>> Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel Jacks
>> who were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the corner
>> and was going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The zfilm shows
>> the VP car still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> As far as they remember and the first shot they remembered hearing. You
> need to examine everything they said.
You think they all missed the first shot?
>
>> Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns in
>> the VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP car
>> bumper and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD when the
>> first shot was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car was still
>> turning at z191. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> Again, that is your spin.
Just made the turn does not mean pointing north, which is what the car
is doing at z191.
>
>> Mary Woodward, who said that the first shot occured after JFk and
>> Jackie turned toward them and smiled and waved as they cheered him,
>> just after he turned forward. The zfilm shows that exchange which ends
>> at z198. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>
> You are using the Jack White method of analysis.
Who is Jack White? Mary Woodward recalled all the turns, smiles and waves.
She recorded them in her mind and wrote them down that evening. Her story
is a play by play of the zfilm. How did she do that? Had she been at the
showing of the zfilm to the FBI before she wrote her story?
>
>> Jane Berry, Karen Westbrook, Faye Chism, and John Chism, who supported
>> Mary Woodward's recollection? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>
>>
>
> You have hand picked the witnesses who said what you want to interpret
> to fit your theory.
I am picking all the witnesses who said where the first shot occurred.
If you think I am missing some important witness, who is it?
>
>> So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
>>
>
> You are hand picking and spinning.
> Obviously you have never bothered to read all the eyewitness accounts
> and you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas.
Actually, I have read all of the eyewitness accounts in Stuart Galanor's
list of 216 witnesses. All of them. I haven't read Six Seconds in Dallas
because I have never been able to find a copy. Is it more accurate than
the actual testimony?
Anthony, if you want to say what you think the witness evidence shows,
fine. Go ahead and we can discuss it. But if you are just going to sit
back and make vague accusations about "spin" and "cherry picking" without
saying why, you are wasting my time.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Not what I said. I said stick to what he actually said.
>>
>>> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time
>>> as the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his photo,
>> not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
>
> Well, he thought the sound came as he was about to take it and the sound
> may have triggered his finger to press the shutter.
>
He never said that his photo was taken at the same time as the first
shot. Stick to the facts.
> How do you interpret his evidence 7 H 493?
>
> Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me to
> squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he
> was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd
> hadn’t had time to react.
>
Great. He thinks the sound of the shot he heard came at the same moment as
the first shot which hit Kennedy. That does not mean the first shot fired
that day.
Do you really think that Kennedy was hit before Z-202? He shows no signs
of being hit that early.
>>
>>> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was
>>> passing between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>> evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
>
> So perhaps you could tell me what your spin is on her statement 7 H 498:
>
> Miss WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where Stem-
> mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot hit him.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons Freeway”?
>
> Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn’t
> very far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the shot came.
>
Her being in line with the sign does not mean parallel, as the
photographic evidence shows. She also does not specify which part of the
limo was in line. And again she is only talking about the first shot to
hit the President. A shot before this one could have missed. Locate her on
a good map and locate the right edge of the sign. Draw a straight line
between the two points. Then place the front bumper along that line. Tell
me which frame that represents for the limo's position.
>>
>>
>>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President was
>>> opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
>
> Here is what he said 24 H 534:
>
> By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
> shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping forward in
> the Presidential car.
>
Again, he said, "A shot." He did not say the first shot.
Notice also that he said "by the time" not "at the time." English please.
> The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What is
> your "spin" on that statement?
>
Diagram this to prove your assertion.
>>
>>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the
>>> President was opposite the last window of the West corner of the
>>> TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> More misrepresentation.
>
> Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
>
> How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
>
> "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the
> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
> Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in line with
> the last window I have previously described I heard what I thought was a
> backfire."
>
Again, diagram this. Draw a straight line from Brennan's correct
location and the sniper's nest and put Kennedy's back on that line. Then
tell me which Zapruder frame it represents.
>
>
>>
>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was
>>> just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to
>> mean Z-313.
>
> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the first
> shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>
Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and come
up with a much later Zapruder frame.
> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west corner
> of the TSBD at about z210.
More nonsense. Diagram this.
Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
>>
>>> Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel Jacks
>>> who were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the corner
>>> and was going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The zfilm shows
>>> the VP car still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> As far as they remember and the first shot they remembered hearing.
>> You need to examine everything they said.
>
> You think they all missed the first shot?
>
Many did. Some did not.
>>
>>> Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns
>>> in the VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP
>>> car bumper and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD
>>> when the first shot was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car
>>> was still turning at z191. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> Again, that is your spin.
>
> Just made the turn does not mean pointing north, which is what the car
> is doing at z191.
>
Who said anything about pointing north? You can't even diagram the limo
position at Z-191.
>>
>>> Mary Woodward, who said that the first shot occured after JFk and
>>> Jackie turned toward them and smiled and waved as they cheered him,
>>> just after he turned forward. The zfilm shows that exchange which
>>> ends at z198. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>
>>
>> You are using the Jack White method of analysis.
>
> Who is Jack White? Mary Woodward recalled all the turns, smiles and
> waves. She recorded them in her mind and wrote them down that evening.
> Her story is a play by play of the zfilm. How did she do that? Had she
> been at the showing of the zfilm to the FBI before she wrote her story?
>
Jack White is a wacky conspiracy theorist who makes wacky claims such as
Badge Man. He thinks ALL the photographic evidence is fake and relies on
his interpretation of witnesses.
>>
>>> Jane Berry, Karen Westbrook, Faye Chism, and John Chism, who
>>> supported Mary Woodward's recollection? Did I misrepresent that
>>> evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have hand picked the witnesses who said what you want to interpret
>> to fit your theory.
>
> I am picking all the witnesses who said where the first shot occurred.
> If you think I am missing some important witness, who is it?
>
No, you are picking only the witnesses who say what you think you want
to hear.
>>
>>> So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
>>>
>>
>> You are hand picking and spinning.
>> Obviously you have never bothered to read all the eyewitness accounts
>> and you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas.
>
> Actually, I have read all of the eyewitness accounts in Stuart Galanor's
> list of 216 witnesses. All of them. I haven't read Six Seconds in Dallas
> because I have never been able to find a copy. Is it more accurate than
> the actual testimony?
>
Thanks for once again confirming exactly what I claimed. You have never
read Six Seconds in Dallas.
Andrew Mason
That is exactly what he said 19 H 467:
"I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill
on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise.
I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
Since there was no firecracker in DP and no loud backfire, what he heard
was the first shot.
>
>>>
>>>> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time
>>>> as the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his
>>> photo, not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
>>
>>
>> Well, he thought the sound came as he was about to take it and the
>> sound may have triggered his finger to press the shutter.
>>
>
> He never said that his photo was taken at the same time as the first
> shot. Stick to the facts.
>
>> How do you interpret his evidence 7 H 493?
>>
>> Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me to
>> squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he
>> was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd
>> hadn’t had time to react.
>>
>
> Great. He thinks the sound of the shot he heard came at the same moment
> as the first shot which hit Kennedy. That does not mean the first shot
> fired that day.
??? He said it was the first shot. He was there. Do you think he was lying?
>
> Do you really think that Kennedy was hit before Z-202? He shows no signs
> of being hit that early.
According to the witnesses who saw it first hand, he reacted on the
first shot: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>
>>>
>>>> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was
>>>> passing between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>> evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
>>
>>
>> So perhaps you could tell me what your spin is on her statement 7 H 498:
>>
>> Miss WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where
>> Stem- mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot
>> hit him.
>>
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons
>> Freeway”?
>>
>> Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I
>> wasn’t very far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the shot
>> came.
>>
>
> Her being in line with the sign does not mean parallel, as the
> photographic evidence shows.
I didn't say that. I said that she said JFK was on a line between her
and the Stemmons sign. Map it out. It is within 5 frames of z200.
> She also does not specify which part of the
> limo was in line. And again she is only talking about the first shot to
> hit the President. A shot before this one could have missed. Locate her
> on a good map and locate the right edge of the sign. Draw a straight
> line between the two points. Then place the front bumper along that
> line. Tell me which frame that represents for the limo's position.
Good grief Anthony. She is talking about the first shot. She describes
three shots. This was the first one. Do you think all these witnesses
missed hearing he first shot? Oh, right, it was a silencer, I forgot.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President
>>>> was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>> evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
>>
>>
>> Here is what he said 24 H 534:
>>
>> By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
>> shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping forward in
>> the Presidential car.
>>
>
> Again, he said, "A shot." He did not say the first shot.
> Notice also that he said "by the time" not "at the time." English please.
>
>> The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What is
>> your "spin" on that statement?
>>
>
> Diagram this to prove your assertion.
For the umpteenth time, Anthony. Really you should read these things
when I post them:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
>>>
>>>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the
>>>> President was opposite the last window of the West corner of the
>>>> TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> More misrepresentation.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
>>
>> How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
>>
>> "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the
>> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
>> Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in line
>> with the last window I have previously described I heard what I
>> thought was a backfire."
>>
>
> Again, diagram this. Draw a straight line from Brennan's correct
> location and the sniper's nest and put Kennedy's back on that line. Then
> tell me which Zapruder frame it represents.
Again: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was
>>>> just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to
>>> mean Z-313.
>>
>>
>> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
>> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the first
>> shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>>
>
> Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and come
> up with a much later Zapruder frame.
Sure. But the point is it is much later than the z160 early shot
everyone imagines but no one heard.
>
>> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west
>> corner of the TSBD at about z210.
>
>
> More nonsense. Diagram this.
> Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
Do you even read anything I post?
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
>>>
>>>> Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel
>>>> Jacks who were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the
>>>> corner and was going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The
>>>> zfilm shows the VP car still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent
>>>> that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as they remember and the first shot they remembered hearing.
>>> You need to examine everything they said.
>>
>>
>> You think they all missed the first shot?
>>
>
> Many did. Some did not.
>
>>>
>>>> Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns
>>>> in the VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP
>>>> car bumper and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD
>>>> when the first shot was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car
>>>> was still turning at z191. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, that is your spin.
>>
>>
>> Just made the turn does not mean pointing north, which is what the car
>> is doing at z191.
>>
>
> Who said anything about pointing north? You can't even diagram the limo
> position at Z-191.
I don't have to. You can see it in the zfilm. You see the side of the
car. Look at z191. Look at the map
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf ). Seeing
the side of the VP followup car at z191 means the car has not turned the
corner.
>
>>>
>>>> Mary Woodward, who said that the first shot occured after JFk and
>>>> Jackie turned toward them and smiled and waved as they cheered him,
>>>> just after he turned forward. The zfilm shows that exchange which
>>>> ends at z198. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are using the Jack White method of analysis.
>>
>>
>> Who is Jack White? Mary Woodward recalled all the turns, smiles and
>> waves. She recorded them in her mind and wrote them down that evening.
>> Her story is a play by play of the zfilm. How did she do that? Had she
>> been at the showing of the zfilm to the FBI before she wrote her story?
>>
>
> Jack White is a wacky conspiracy theorist who makes wacky claims such as
> Badge Man. He thinks ALL the photographic evidence is fake and relies on
> his interpretation of witnesses.
>
>>>
>>>> Jane Berry, Karen Westbrook, Faye Chism, and John Chism, who
>>>> supported Mary Woodward's recollection? Did I misrepresent that
>>>> evidence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have hand picked the witnesses who said what you want to
>>> interpret to fit your theory.
>>
>>
>> I am picking all the witnesses who said where the first shot occurred.
>> If you think I am missing some important witness, who is it?
>>
>
> No, you are picking only the witnesses who say what you think you want
> to hear.
Anthony, unless you are going to identify a witness that I am missing,
leave out the ad hominem remarks. They weaken your case. Actually, I am
not sure what your case is, other than to be contrary.
>>>
>>>> So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are hand picking and spinning.
>>> Obviously you have never bothered to read all the eyewitness accounts
>>> and you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I have read all of the eyewitness accounts in Stuart
>> Galanor's list of 216 witnesses. All of them. I haven't read Six
>> Seconds in Dallas because I have never been able to find a copy. Is it
>> more accurate than the actual testimony?
>>
>
> Thanks for once again confirming exactly what I claimed. You have never
> read Six Seconds in Dallas.
Just one of about 743 million I haven't read. Have you read my papers?
Anthony Marsh
A shot. He does not say it was the first shot. And maybe this is his later
photo when he heard the loud noise. So according to one reading he took
his first photo before the shot and was winding the film when he heard
this shot.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same time
>>>>> as the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his
>>>> photo, not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, he thought the sound came as he was about to take it and the
>>> sound may have triggered his finger to press the shutter.
>>>
>>
>> He never said that his photo was taken at the same time as the first
>> shot. Stick to the facts.
>>
>>> How do you interpret his evidence 7 H 493?
>>>
>>> Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me
>>> to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President
>>> as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that
>>> the crowd hadn’t had time to react.
>>>
>>
>> Great. He thinks the sound of the shot he heard came at the same
>> moment as the first shot which hit Kennedy. That does not mean the
>> first shot fired that day.
>
> ??? He said it was the first shot. He was there. Do you think he was lying?
>
>>
>> Do you really think that Kennedy was hit before Z-202? He shows no
>> signs of being hit that early.
>
> According to the witnesses who saw it first hand, he reacted on the
> first shot: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
Not according to all.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was
>>>>> passing between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> So perhaps you could tell me what your spin is on her statement 7 H 498:
>>>
>>> Miss WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where
>>> Stem- mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot
>>> hit him.
>>>
>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons
>>> Freeway”?
>>>
>>> Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I
>>> wasn’t very far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the
>>> shot came.
>>>
>>
>> Her being in line with the sign does not mean parallel, as the
>> photographic evidence shows.
>
> I didn't say that. I said that she said JFK was on a line between her
> and the Stemmons sign. Map it out. It is within 5 frames of z200.
That's what I asked you to do and you can not. You can only guess at
these things.
>> She also does not specify which part of the limo was in line. And
>> again she is only talking about the first shot to hit the President. A
>> shot before this one could have missed. Locate her on a good map and
>> locate the right edge of the sign. Draw a straight line between the
>> two points. Then place the front bumper along that line. Tell me which
>> frame that represents for the limo's position.
>
> Good grief Anthony. She is talking about the first shot. She describes
> three shots. This was the first one. Do you think all these witnesses
> missed hearing he first shot? Oh, right, it was a silencer, I forgot.
Not my theory. There were four shots. Many did not recognize the first
sound as a shot.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President
>>>>> was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is what he said 24 H 534:
>>>
>>> By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign,
>>> a shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping forward
>>> in the Presidential car.
>>>
>>
>> Again, he said, "A shot." He did not say the first shot.
>> Notice also that he said "by the time" not "at the time." English please.
>>
>>> The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What is
>>> your "spin" on that statement?
>>>
>>
>> Diagram this to prove your assertion.
>
> For the umpteenth time, Anthony. Really you should read these things
> when I post them:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
Your map appears to show JFK's position at Z-200. We are talking about
Moore. I don't see where you have him located. The orange line seems to
stop in the middle of Elm Street. Is that where you see Moore or do you
just no know where he was?
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the
>>>>> President was opposite the last window of the West corner of the
>>>>> TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More misrepresentation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
>>>
>>> How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
>>>
>>> "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the
>>> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm
>>> and Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in
>>> line with the last window I have previously described I heard what I
>>> thought was a backfire."
>>>
>>
>> Again, diagram this. Draw a straight line from Brennan's correct
>> location and the sniper's nest and put Kennedy's back on that line.
>> Then tell me which Zapruder frame it represents.
>
> Again: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
I don't see any line from Brennan's correct position. Do you even know
where Brennan was at that moment?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was
>>>>> just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to
>>>> mean Z-313.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
>>> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the first
>>> shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>>>
>>
>> Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and
>> come up with a much later Zapruder frame.
>
> Sure. But the point is it is much later than the z160 early shot
> everyone imagines but no one heard.
So what? I am not arguing for a shot at Z-160. I have debunked that before.
>>
>>> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west
>>> corner of the TSBD at about z210.
>>
>>
>> More nonsense. Diagram this.
>> Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
>
> Do you even read anything I post?
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>
You are relying on Cutler's map.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lyndon Johnson, Ladybird Johnson, Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel
>>>>> Jacks who were in the VP car and said that they had just turned the
>>>>> corner and was going down Elm when the first shot occurred? The
>>>>> zfilm shows the VP car still turning at z180. Did I misrepresent
>>>>> that evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as they remember and the first shot they remembered hearing.
>>>> You need to examine everything they said.
>>>
>>>
>>> You think they all missed the first shot?
>>>
>>
>> Many did. Some did not.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joe Rich, SA Warren Taylor, Clifton Carter, SA Kivett, and SA Johns
>>>>> in the VP followup car, who said that their car was right on the VP
>>>>> car bumper and had just made the turn and was along side the TSBD
>>>>> when the first shot was heard? The zfilm shows the VP followup car
>>>>> was still turning at z191. Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, that is your spin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just made the turn does not mean pointing north, which is what the
>>> car is doing at z191.
>>>
>>
>> Who said anything about pointing north? You can't even diagram the
>> limo position at Z-191.
>
> I don't have to. You can see it in the zfilm. You see the side of the
> car. Look at z191. Look at the map
> (http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf ). Seeing
> the side of the VP followup car at z191 means the car has not turned the
> corner.
>
No. We are not talking about having completed the turn. It was in the
process of making the turn as you can see in the Altgens 1-6 photo.
My case is to point out the weakness in your analysis. Again, read Six
Seconds in Dallas. I am not going to buy it for you.
Page 35:
"There is no evidence that a shot was fired prior to Z-210."
This was written before the acoustical analysis.
>>>>
>>>>> So what is the evidence that you say I misrepresented?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are hand picking and spinning.
>>>> Obviously you have never bothered to read all the eyewitness
>>>> accounts and you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I have read all of the eyewitness accounts in Stuart
>>> Galanor's list of 216 witnesses. All of them. I haven't read Six
>>> Seconds in Dallas because I have never been able to find a copy. Is
>>> it more accurate than the actual testimony?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for once again confirming exactly what I claimed. You have
>> never read Six Seconds in Dallas.
>
> Just one of about 743 million I haven't read. Have you read my papers?
>
Some of them.
jim....@fuse.net
> > (THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL)
>
> > THE CLOSEST WE'RE LIKELY TO EVER GET TO A PERFECT DUPLICATION
> > OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.....
>
> >http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html
>
> The SBT recreation glosses over the real problem with the SBT bullet
> dynamics: the fact that it has to strike the radius butt-first to create
> the wound characteristics observed. You have to show that a butt-first
> strike on the radius can do that kind of damage to the radius and pull
> threads into the wound, and come out with the level of damage observed on
> CE399.
>
> Andrew Mason
Andrew, the real problem with CE399 is that it is a bogus piece of
evidence. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier lied about the ballistics
evidence he and other FBI agents collected and listed. John Hunt
discovered Frazier's handwritten notes about what he received on the
Friday evening of 11/22/63 and later. At 7:30 pm Frazier noted receiving
a bullet from Dallas. Later that evening the "stretcher bullet" found by
Darrell Tomlinson and given to O.P. Wright, head of security at Parkland
Hospital who then gave it to SSA Johnsen who flew with it back to
Washington, DC where he gave it to his boss, James Rowley, head of the
Secret Service in Rowley's office. Rowley and SSA Johnsen both know what
the bullet looked like because they both looked at the bullet when they
handled it. Rowley notifed the FBI that he had the "stretcher bullet"
from Dallas and the FBI sent their agent Elmer Lee Todd to Rowley's office
to pick it up. Before leaving Rowley's office, Todd put his mark on that
bullet and put it in an envelope and delivered the "stretcher bullet" to
the ballistics lab at FBI headquarters at 9:18 or 9:20 pm. Later the FBI
would give the WC a document about the ballistics evidence called CE2011.
That document which listed what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier stated
he had collected which the WC relied on to be truthful, contained these
deliberate lies; (1) only one bullet was submitted into evidence by
Frazier on the evening of 11/22/63 which Frazier had designated Q1-C1
instead of the two bullets he had recorded receiving and (2) A statement
that on June 12, 1964 FBI agent Bardwell Odum presented CE399 to both
Tomlinson and Wright at Wright's office in Parkand Hospital and they said
it was the same bullet they had found on the stretcher. Tomlinson said the
FBI agent who showed him and Wright a bullet in Wright's office was the
head of the FBI office in Dallas, Gordon Shanklin (BTW Odum said he had
never seen the bullet and he did not show a bullet to anyone at anytime).
Darrell Tomlinson distinctly remembers Shanklin showing him and Wtight a
bullet but the date was not June 12, 1964 but on the first Tuesday after
the assassination, November 26, 1963. (3) CE399 has a round nose/tip and
O.P. Wtight said the 'stretcher bullet" that Tomlinson gave him at
Parkland on 11/22/63 had a "pointed tip". (4) the bullet that Frazier sent
over to NARA and is still in their evidence collection has Frazier's mark
on it and Killian's mark on it and Cunningham's mark on it but it doesn't
have Todd's mark on it. The CE399 bullet that the official investigators
used to make the case against Oswald is a piece of tainted evidence and
Robert Frazier and the FBI lied and obstructed justice to get a puclic
opinion conviction of LOH. Notwithstanding the affore mentioned, the
Australian research team's attempt to factualize the Single Bullet Theory
did just the opposite. They presented empirical evidence to the world
that the SBT was not the way JFK and JBC were wounded in Dallas.
Regards, Jim
Andrew Mason
??? Have you read his evidence. He was speaking about his #5 photo,
which he said was taken at the time of the first shot. It was taken at
zframe z202.
Have you read his evidence at 7 H 493?:
Mr. LIEBELEZB. I have here a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
No. 1, which I now show you and I suggest to you that it is one of the
pictures that is a picture made from one of the slides.
Mr. WILLIS. I made that picture.
Mr. LIEBELER. You made that picture yourself?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the same as slide No. 5? In your series of slides?
Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?
Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first
shot was fired.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Willis, who said that his z202 shot was taken at the same
>>>>>> time as the first shot? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you are misrepresenting. He did not say that he took his
>>>>> photo, not shot, at the same time as the first shot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, he thought the sound came as he was about to take it and the
>>>> sound may have triggered his finger to press the shutter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He never said that his photo was taken at the same time as the first
>>> shot. Stick to the facts.
>>>
>>>> How do you interpret his evidence 7 H 493?
>>>>
>>>> Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me
>>>> to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President
>>>> as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that
>>>> the crowd hadn’t had time to react.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great. He thinks the sound of the shot he heard came at the same
>>> moment as the first shot which hit Kennedy. That does not mean the
>>> first shot fired that day.
>>
>>
>> ??? He said it was the first shot. He was there. Do you think he was
>> lying?
>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think that Kennedy was hit before Z-202? He shows no
>>> signs of being hit that early.
>>
>>
>> According to the witnesses who saw it first hand, he reacted on the
>> first shot: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>
>
> Not according to all.
Name ONE who was confident that he did not react until the second or
later shot?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linda Willis, who said that the first shot occurred as JFK was
>>>>>> passing between her and the Stemmons sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are putting your spin on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So perhaps you could tell me what your spin is on her statement 7 H
>>>> 498:
>>>>
>>>> Miss WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where
>>>> Stem- mons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot
>>>> hit him.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, “Stemmons
>>>> Freeway”?
>>>>
>>>> Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I
>>>> wasn’t very far away from him, but I couldn’t tell from where the
>>>> shot came.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Her being in line with the sign does not mean parallel, as the
>>> photographic evidence shows.
>>
>>
>> I didn't say that. I said that she said JFK was on a line between her
>> and the Stemmons sign. Map it out. It is within 5 frames of z200.
>
>
> That's what I asked you to do and you can not. You can only guess at
> these things.
You haven't read my map. I only gave you the cite 4 times.
>
>>> She also does not specify which part of the limo was in line. And
>>> again she is only talking about the first shot to hit the President.
>>> A shot before this one could have missed. Locate her on a good map
>>> and locate the right edge of the sign. Draw a straight line between
>>> the two points. Then place the front bumper along that line. Tell me
>>> which frame that represents for the limo's position.
>>
>>
>> Good grief Anthony. She is talking about the first shot. She describes
>> three shots. This was the first one. Do you think all these witnesses
>> missed hearing he first shot? Oh, right, it was a silencer, I forgot.
>
>
> Not my theory. There were four shots. Many did not recognize the first
> sound as a shot.
Right. How is it that 88% reported 3 or fewer shots?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President
>>>>>> was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is what he said 24 H 534:
>>>>
>>>> By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign,
>>>> a shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping
>>>> forward in the Presidential car.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, he said, "A shot." He did not say the first shot.
>>> Notice also that he said "by the time" not "at the time." English
>>> please.
>>>
>>>> The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What
>>>> is your "spin" on that statement?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Diagram this to prove your assertion.
>>
>>
>> For the umpteenth time, Anthony. Really you should read these things
>> when I post them:
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>
>
> Your map appears to show JFK's position at Z-200. We are talking about
> Moore. I don't see where you have him located. The orange line seems to
> stop in the middle of Elm Street. Is that where you see Moore or do you
> just no know where he was?
He was at the corner of Elm and Houston. He was watching the President
and he said he was up to the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot
sounded. Do you think that means JFK was not anywhere near that sign? Why?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the
>>>>>> President was opposite the last window of the West corner of the
>>>>>> TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
>>>>
>>>> How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
>>>>
>>>> "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the
>>>> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm
>>>> and Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in
>>>> line with the last window I have previously described I heard what I
>>>> thought was a backfire."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, diagram this. Draw a straight line from Brennan's correct
>>> location and the sniper's nest and put Kennedy's back on that line.
>>> Then tell me which Zapruder frame it represents.
>>
>>
>> Again: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>
>
> I don't see any line from Brennan's correct position. Do you even know
> where Brennan was at that moment?
He doesn't need to be in line with the President and the last window of
the Depository building. That is where he put the first shot. He was not
in the best position, but that is what appeared to him. It fits
perfectly with everyone else.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo was
>>>>>> just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that to
>>>>> mean Z-313.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
>>>> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the first
>>>> shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>>>>
>>>
>>> Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and
>>> come up with a much later Zapruder frame.
>>
>>
>> Sure. But the point is it is much later than the z160 early shot
>> everyone imagines but no one heard.
>
>
> So what? I am not arguing for a shot at Z-160. I have debunked that before.
>
>>>
>>>> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west
>>>> corner of the TSBD at about z210.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More nonsense. Diagram this.
>>> Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
>>
>>
>> Do you even read anything I post?
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>
>
> You are relying on Cutler's map.
It is Trask's in Pictures of the Pain - inside cover.
Then the VP car was still making the turn because the VP followup is
about 5-10 feet behind. How do you think all those in the VP car thought
they had made the turn and were going down Elm when the first shot was
heard.
I almost agree with that, except he is 10 frames too late. There is
evidence of a shot just before z202 (P. Willis). You may not find it
persuasive, but it is there. It also fits Linda Willis, Mary Woodward,
Jane Berry etc.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Disagree. It was fired from Oswald's gun. It was found in circumstances
where it may just as easily have gone down a laundry chute and been
lost. It makes no sense to plant a bullet because it was not known at
that stage what the FBI analysis would conclude. And they would have had
to have known of these potential problems before hand in order to have a
bullet handy.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
He did not say he took it at exactly the same time as the first shot. It
may have caused him to take it. That delay of a few hundred milliseconds
may represent about 10 Zapruder frames. That would place hearing the
shot at Z-192. That is one thing that corroborated the HSCA shot at
Z-190. This is before what Josiah Thompson said is the earliest shot at
Z-210. My line up of the acoustical evidence places a shot at Z-180 and
Z-210.
> Have you read his evidence at 7 H 493?:
> Mr. LIEBELEZB. I have here a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
> No. 1, which I now show you and I suggest to you that it is one of the
> pictures that is a picture made from one of the slides.
> Mr. WILLIS. I made that picture.
> Mr. LIEBELER. You made that picture yourself?
> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. LIEBELER. That is the same as slide No. 5? In your series of slides?
> Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.
> Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?
> Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first
> shot was fired.
>
There is no way that Willis was psychic and knew to snap the photo
before he heard the shot. Hearing the shot may indeed have caused him to
snap it. That is not the same thing.
Your map does not draw the things I asked you to draw. It is very good
for the other things you already drew.
>>
>>>> She also does not specify which part of the limo was in line. And
>>>> again she is only talking about the first shot to hit the President.
>>>> A shot before this one could have missed. Locate her on a good map
>>>> and locate the right edge of the sign. Draw a straight line between
>>>> the two points. Then place the front bumper along that line. Tell me
>>>> which frame that represents for the limo's position.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good grief Anthony. She is talking about the first shot. She
>>> describes three shots. This was the first one. Do you think all these
>>> witnesses missed hearing he first shot? Oh, right, it was a silencer,
>>> I forgot.
>>
>>
>> Not my theory. There were four shots. Many did not recognize the first
>> sound as a shot.
>
> Right. How is it that 88% reported 3 or fewer shots?
>
Because many did not recognize or hear the first shot and the last two
were so close together that witnesses like Zapruder said, "I couldn't
tell if it was one or two."
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TE Moore, who said that the first shot occured when the President
>>>>>>> was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign? Did I misrepresent that
>>>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opposite? And that indicates that the limo was exactly where?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what he said 24 H 534:
>>>>>
>>>>> By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway
>>>>> sign, a shot was fired and Mr Moore observed the President slumping
>>>>> forward in the Presidential car.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, he said, "A shot." He did not say the first shot.
>>>> Notice also that he said "by the time" not "at the time." English
>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>>> The President was opposite the Thornton freeway sign at z200. What
>>>>> is your "spin" on that statement?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diagram this to prove your assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the umpteenth time, Anthony. Really you should read these things
>>> when I post them:
>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Your map appears to show JFK's position at Z-200. We are talking about
>> Moore. I don't see where you have him located. The orange line seems
>> to stop in the middle of Elm Street. Is that where you see Moore or do
>> you just no know where he was?
>
> He was at the corner of Elm and Houston. He was watching the President
> and he said he was up to the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot
> sounded. Do you think that means JFK was not anywhere near that sign? Why?
>
Great, then include him in your drawing. Maybe that would strengthen
your argument.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hugh Brennan, who said that the first shot occurred when the
>>>>>>> President was opposite the last window of the West corner of the
>>>>>>> TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More misrepresentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, that's Howard not Hugh Brennan.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you represent this statment (24 H 203)?
>>>>>
>>>>> "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the
>>>>> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm
>>>>> and Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in
>>>>> line with the last window I have previously described I heard what
>>>>> I thought was a backfire."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, diagram this. Draw a straight line from Brennan's correct
>>>> location and the sniper's nest and put Kennedy's back on that line.
>>>> Then tell me which Zapruder frame it represents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>>
>>
>> I don't see any line from Brennan's correct position. Do you even know
>> where Brennan was at that moment?
>
> He doesn't need to be in line with the President and the last window of
> the Depository building. That is where he put the first shot. He was not
> in the best position, but that is what appeared to him. It fits
> perfectly with everyone else.
>
I didn't say "in line." I said you didn't DRAW a line for Brennan as you
did for the others. Is that because you don't know exactly where he was?
Do you know what Cartesian Coordinates are?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo
>>>>>>> was just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that
>>>>>> to mean Z-313.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
>>>>> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the
>>>>> first shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and
>>>> come up with a much later Zapruder frame.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure. But the point is it is much later than the z160 early shot
>>> everyone imagines but no one heard.
>>
>>
>> So what? I am not arguing for a shot at Z-160. I have debunked that
>> before.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west
>>>>> corner of the TSBD at about z210.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More nonsense. Diagram this.
>>>> Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even read anything I post?
>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>>
>>
>> You are relying on Cutler's map.
>
> It is Trask's in Pictures of the Pain - inside cover.
SO? Why not use a more accurate map?
Measure Cutler's map and tell me what is the distance from the middle of
Main Street to the face of the TSBD.
They didn't say that they had completed the turn. Read Six Seconds in
Dallas.
So, you see President Kennedy being wounded at Z-190 like the HSCA?
How come no one else in the universe sees him being shot that early?
A shot THROUGH the tree? Magic Bullet, Magic Twig, Magic Tree?
Anthony Marsh
Great, you've just invented a new conspiracy theory. The real bullet
went down a laundry chute and was lost forever. Thanks.
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
still think there'd be more deformity or as much as the test WCC13 in the
Discovery Channel test.
They didn't put clothing around the wrist or thigh surrogate gel blocks, and
if I recall correctly, neither with the surrogate torsos.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:12v1k16...@corp.supernews.com...
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
I am not saying Phil Willis alone is reliable support for a shot at z200.
He said that he took his photo at the instant the President was shot. If
that is true, it occurred at about z200. You are speculating that his
evidence could be out 10 frames. What you need is evidence suggesting that
it was earlier than z200. The possibility that it was is not good enough.
Your line-up places the shot about 20 frames before anyone said they heard
it. How do you explain Betzner, Croft, Tina Towner, Mrs. Cabell, all 6
occupants of the VP followup car, all occupants of the VP car, Linda
Willis etc? These witnesses are all consistent and put the shot at very
close to z200.
> .
>> Have you read his evidence at 7 H 493?:
>> Mr. LIEBELEZB. I have here a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
>> No. 1, which I now show you and I suggest to you that it is one of the
>> pictures that is a picture made from one of the slides.
>> Mr. WILLIS. I made that picture.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. You made that picture yourself?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. That is the same as slide No. 5? In your series of slides?
>> Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?
>> Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first
>> shot was fired.
>>
>
> There is no way that Willis was psychic and knew to snap the photo
> before he heard the shot. Hearing the shot may indeed have caused him to
> snap it. That is not the same thing.
He could have snapped it at the same time as he heard the shot. He doesn't
have to be psychic. He was trying to take the picture before the limo got
further down Elm. He was obviously ready to take it. Why would he need a
prompt - why wait? It seems to me that he decided to take the photo and
coincidentally the shot rang out at the same time. In his mind he may have
connected the two but it is not necessarily the case. He wasn't sure.
The witnesses said they were distinctly spaced. Even Kellerman and Greer
said they heard distinct shots even though they suggested they were
almost simultaneous.
No. He was at the corner sitting on the raised round wall. But he did not
describe where JFK was at the time of the first shot in relation to where
he was sitting (like Greer). So why would you draw a line from him? You
draw the line that he says JFK intersected at the time of the first shot.
In Linda Willis' case that was a line between her and the Stemmons sign.
In Brennan's case, it was a line perpendicular from the last window on the
west corner of the TSBD. In Moore's case it was a line perpendicular to
the path of the limo to the Thornton freeway sign
> Do you know what Cartesian Coordinates are?
I know enough to know that you need an x and y axis. I don't see one
there. I also don't see how it would help.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wm. Greer, who said that the first shot occurred when the limo
>>>>>>>> was just about past the TSBD? Did I misrepresent that evidence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just about past? What the Hell does that mean? I could spin that
>>>>>>> to mean Z-313.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, he marked it on an aerial photo of DP. CE347. He said "the
>>>>>> President's automobile was almost past this building" when the
>>>>>> first shot sounded. CE1024 18 H 723
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost past? What the Hell does that mean? I could diagram this and
>>>>> come up with a much later Zapruder frame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. But the point is it is much later than the z160 early shot
>>>> everyone imagines but no one heard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what? I am not arguing for a shot at Z-160. I have debunked that
>>> before.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The President's head crossed a line extending south from the west
>>>>>> corner of the TSBD at about z210.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More nonsense. Diagram this.
>>>>> Do you even have a map of Dealey Plaza?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even read anything I post?
>>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are relying on Cutler's map.
>>
>>
>> It is Trask's in Pictures of the Pain - inside cover.
>
>
> SO? Why not use a more accurate map?
> Measure Cutler's map and tell me what is the distance from the middle of
> Main Street to the face of the TSBD.
I am not familiar with Cutler's map.
Read their evidence.
“My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking
directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard a shot
ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice
President's car.” Hurchel Jacks, driver of the VP car: CE1024, WC 18 H 801
- statement dated November 28, 1963
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was
an explosive noise." SA Rufus Youngblood, 2 H 148-9.
Perhaps no one sees him being shot that early because he wasn't. When did
I ever say z190? I said z200. JFK was quite visible at z200 as was JBC.
And that is where all the witness reports converge.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> I didn't say that it went thru Connally's wrist with the nose, but you'd
> still think there'd be more deformity or as much as the test WCC13 in the
> Discovery Channel test.
>
> They didn't put clothing around the wrist or thigh surrogate gel blocks, and
> if I recall correctly, neither with the surrogate torsos.
I know you didn't say that it want through nose-first. But you said that
if a bullet went through a wrist looking like CE399 you might concede it
could happen. My point is that it is not enough to look like CE399. It
also has to create similar wounds. So it has to look like CE399 after
striking butt-first.
Andrew Mason
Sammy, G.
>>>> "There is STILL too much lead remaining in Connally's body." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Not a scrap of metal was taken out of or left INSIDE Connally's chest/
> thorax.
>
> Only one very small fragment was in his thigh (and was left in there,
> it was so insignificant).
>
> And a mere 3 tiny "postage-stamp" weight fragments came out of JBC's
> wrist...with a few more even-smaller "flakes of metal" left behind in
> the wrist.
>
> The TOTAL of all that = Virtually nothing. "Postage stamp" type
> weight. MICRO-adjustable-scale-worthy material.
>
> Tony's wrong...as per the norm.
Regardless of what you THINK Tony is, the **FACT** is you are wrong. Your
taking inferences and suppositions, then presenting them as facts.
In addition, there were more fragments to begin with(in all **REALITY**
enough to exclude CE399 as the source). Of these additional fragments, some
we "destroyed" via "testing", and others are plain missing.
Thanks
Sammy, G.
>
>
>
Sammy, G.
David, you and Bugliosi **CURIOUSLY** fail to mention how much of the
alleged 2.2 grains the FBI removed for testing purposes. I'm sure this
should be ignored as well, but according to the radiologist questioned by
the ARRB, x- rays were taken that showed fragments in JFK' throat/ neck.
Can't have it both ways!
Thanks
Sammy, G.
>
>
Sammy, G.
fact is, and **ALWAYS HAS BEEN** that there is no, none, zilcho, solid
conclusive, nor **ANY CREDIBLE**EVIDENCE** that proves the SBT actually
occurred. David, think about it! After nearly 70 years, no one has **EVER**
been able to come up with anything close to **PROOF**. This is why it has
remained a **THEORY**. Don't blur the issues between possibilities,
likelihoods, or PROOF. It won't wash here!
Thanks
Sammy, G.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173501751.7...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Why does anything have to strike butt-first?
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
OK, but if a shot caused him to snap his photo it could not have hit at
Z-200. It would have to hit at Z-190. Sound takes time to travel through
the air. Then the body takes time to hear it and react. Then the shutter
takes time to operate.
> Your line-up places the shot about 20 frames before anyone said they
> heard it. How do you explain Betzner, Croft, Tina Towner, Mrs. Cabell,
> all 6 occupants of the VP followup car, all occupants of the VP car,
> Linda Willis etc? These witnesses are all consistent and put the shot at
> very close to z200.
>
It's not far enough of a difference to worry me. No witness can be
accurate enough to tell the exact frame number just from the sound.
>> .
>>> Have you read his evidence at 7 H 493?:
>>> Mr. LIEBELEZB. I have here a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit
>>> No. 1, which I now show you and I suggest to you that it is one of
>>> the pictures that is a picture made from one of the slides.
>>> Mr. WILLIS. I made that picture.
>>> Mr. LIEBELER. You made that picture yourself?
>>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir.
>>> Mr. LIEBELER. That is the same as slide No. 5? In your series of slides?
>>> Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.
>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?
>>> Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first
>>> shot was fired.
>>>
>>
>> There is no way that Willis was psychic and knew to snap the photo
>> before he heard the shot. Hearing the shot may indeed have caused him
>> to snap it. That is not the same thing.
>
> He could have snapped it at the same time as he heard the shot. He
> doesn't have to be psychic. He was trying to take the picture before the
> limo got further down Elm. He was obviously ready to take it. Why would
> he need a prompt - why wait? It seems to me that he decided to take the
> photo and coincidentally the shot rang out at the same time. In his mind
> he may have connected the two but it is not necessarily the case. He
> wasn't sure.
>
I am playing your game and saying that whatever he said is the absolute
fact. He said the sound CAUSED him to take the photo. So I am saying that
he did not take the photo until after the shot was fired.
Sure, like a bullet fired and then hitting metal.
You don't show his position on the wall. Nor did you draw a line from
him. That is what I asked you to do.
> not describe where JFK was at the time of the first shot in relation to
> where he was sitting (like Greer). So why would you draw a line from
> him? You draw the line that he says JFK intersected at the time of the
> first shot. In Linda Willis' case that was a line between her and the
> Stemmons sign. In Brennan's case, it was a line perpendicular from the
> last window on the west corner of the TSBD. In Moore's case it was a
Perpendicular? Brennan was not perpendicular.
> line perpendicular to the path of the limo to the Thornton freeway sign
>
>
>> Do you know what Cartesian Coordinates are?
> I know enough to know that you need an x and y axis. I don't see one
> there. I also don't see how it would help.
>
I have the x and y axis.
You can place an x and y axis on any map.
I asked you to take that map that came from Cutler and measure the
distance from the middle of Main Street to the face of the TSBD. Cutler
drew that map that Trask has on the inside cover. You didn't know that?
All of which Thompson cited and concluded that the first shot came no
earlier than Z-210. He called it triangulation of eyewitness accounts.
If you believe literally what Willis said then that places the hit at Z-190.
JFK was NOT quite visible at Z-200 due to the oak tree.
The first point where he became visible again was frame z-209.
You have someone shooting through the Magic Tree. Sounds like one of
Morningstar's theories.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
jim....@fuse.net
Who gave us that info? Robert Frazier. Frazier also said when asked
about blood or other residue that should have been present after
purportedly causing 7 wounds in two men, that the bullet was clean when he
examined it so it wasn't necessary for him to clean it before he examined
it. Frazier also testified that he fired a test bullet with the Oswald
rifle to compare with the "Dallas bullet". But Frazier concealed the fact
that he had more than one bullet from Dallas and didn't say which "Dallas
bullet" he was comparing his test fired bullet to. For all we know at this
point he could have fired from two to sixty bullets from the Oswald rifle
and just picked the one he wanted to place into evidence. How would we
know whether it was one of his two Q1-C1 bullets or was it the "original
stretcher bullet" that had a "pointed tip" or some other bullet he had
fired with the Oswald rifle? We know it wasn't the "original stretcher
bullet" with the "pointed tip." He also didn't and couldn't say when the
"Dallas bullet" he had chosen to put into evidence was fired from the
Oswald rifle because he already knew. Frazier led to believe it was fired
on the day of the assassination without any evidence that it was. And
what about all the other ballistics evidence from Frazier's approved list
in the CE2011 document which was submitted to the WC with with the regular
official FBI document markings like the official FBI letterhead as a true
and factual inventory of gathered evidence. The WC was fooled by their
presumption of regularity for the FBI agents in the crime scene
investigation and gathering of the "evidence."
It was found in circumstances where it may just as easily have gone down a
laundry chute and been lost. It makes no sense to plant a bullet because
it was not known at that stage what the FBI analysis would conclude. And
they would have had to have known of these potential problems before hand
in order to have a bullet handy.
I'm glad to see you are at least thinking outside the 'Official Version"
brainwash box. Remember the Admiral Osborne bullet incident at the
autopsy? Osborne was a captain at that time and Chief of Surgery at the
Bethesda Naval Hospital. This man testified that he saw a bullet roll out
of the sheets when JFK was placed on the autopsy table. He is very sure
of this because he claims he picked up the bullet and held that bullet in
his hand. So it would appear there were bullets planted and if one wasn't
discovered the other surely would be. And what about the inconvenience of
have two bullet or more "discovered"? If you control the evidence
gathering operation, and control the witness list and can modify what
witnesses really said, and you can control what is released to the media
and control the testimony about what happened at the autopsy including the
photography (BW and Color), the x-ray film record and the content of the
autopsy report so it will reflect the "officially sanctioned" version of
the assassination, which is exactly what happened, then you don't have to
worry about much else. Regards, Jim
tomnln
See>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Sammy, G." <unome...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45f63eb9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
I don't think lead fragments can be seen in JFK's throat/neck in the
X-rays we have seen.
Can you point them out?
> Thanks
>
> Sammy, G.
>>
>
>
>
Andrew Mason
The SBT says that CE399 made the wrist wound. The missile that struck the
wrist made an irregular entrance hole in the jacket sleeve and shirt
sleeve. It dragged dark suit fibres and sprayed lead fragments deep into
the wrist. CE399 could not do that hitting nose first.
If CE399 did it, it could only have done it by striking the wrist
butt-first to create those wound characteristics.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Yes. It takes about 50 ms. for the sound to reach after the bullet and
about 100 ms to begin to react. That is about 3 frames (55 ms. / frame),
not 10.
>
>> Your line-up places the shot about 20 frames before anyone said they
>> heard it. How do you explain Betzner, Croft, Tina Towner, Mrs. Cabell,
>> all 6 occupants of the VP followup car, all occupants of the VP car,
>> Linda Willis etc? These witnesses are all consistent and put the shot
>> at very close to z200.
>>
>
> It's not far enough of a difference to worry me. No witness can be
> accurate enough to tell the exact frame number just from the sound.
>
The witnesses are not telling you what frame it was. They are identifying
where they were or where the President was, or what they did, or some
event, that occurred just prior to or at the time of the first shot.
The president was moving at 1 foot per frame. So, for example, by
identifying what the President was in line with when the first shot was
heard should be able to give you the time of the sound to within a few
feet in some cases.
You may be right. But that does not make the first shot at z190. Besides,
the VP followup car occupants put it later than z190 because they are
still turning at z191. They all said the shot happened as they were
finishing the turn and/or were along side the TSBD.
>
....
I think they could tell the difference between a shot and a concussion
sound. Besided, humans cannot identify a space that is less than 100 ms.
The time between the concussion and the sound at 200 feet is about 80 ms.
(bullet speed: 2000 fps, time of travel: 100 ms; sound speed: 1127 fps,
time of travel: 177 ms). That is a bit more than a frame (55 ms) and the
human brain would not perceive that as two distinct shots even if they
sounded the same.
Prove it. The z207 reenactment done by the WC shows that JFK would have
been quite visible 8 feet before that. The limo was moving at just under
1 foot/frame.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
When you get some evidence that the bullet actually WAS planted, let me
know. It is dangerous to draw conclusions based on speculation, if you
want to figure out what likely happened.
Andrew Mason
Herbert Blenner
According to the testimony of Dr. Gregory, the wound on the dorsal
side of the wrist was linear with dimensions of 0.5 cm by 2.5 cm. This
wound shows impact by a bullet with considerable yaw angle. The
locations of the two surface wounds on the wrist show was also a
tangential strike with a considerable incidence angle. These
considerations exclude a butt-first strike.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the
wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far
as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a haft a
centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather
linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some
tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.
Mr. SPECTER - How about on the volar or front side of the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - The volar surface or palmar surface had a wound
disclosed transversely about a half centimeter in length and about 2
centimeters above the flexion crease to the wrist.
Mr. SPECTER - Then the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist
was a little larger than the wound on the volar or palm side of the
wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; it was.
Mr. SPECTER - And is that characteristic in terms of entry and exit
wounds?
Dr. GREGORY - It is not at all characteristic of the entry wound of a
pristine missile which tends to make a small wound of entrance and
larger wound of exit.
End of source.
Herbert
>
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jim....@fuse.net
Which bullet are you referring to, Andrew? The original stretcher
bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson and Nathan Poole that Wright
described as having a "pointed tip" or the Osborne bullet on the
autopsy table at Bestheda or the two(2) bullets Frazier made note of
at the FBI crime lab and labeled both Q1-C1. The only thing I
"speculated" about was,"if one wasn't discovered the other surely
would be." The plan had to be plastic because "they" couldn't predict
with reasonable certainty if there would be any identifiable bullets
or fragments of bullets found after the shooting. The rest and more is
in the records we all have access to. Don't you think it is more
dangerous to manipulate the evidence and obstruct justice in a murder
investigation than to merely speculate on this NG? Regards, Jim
Andrew Mason
I do not see how it could be possible that CE399 struck the wrist. But
the SBT requires it to have. Gregory thought the wrist missile was an
irregularly shaped object, not the nose of an undeformed missile could
have caused the wound characteristics observed.
Dr. GREGORY, The lyound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an
ir-regular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped
itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way
angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is
not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The
irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and
carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff. in my
opinion.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics on the
Governor’s wrist which indicate either the point of entry or the point
of exit?
Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of
pertinence but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the
nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial
nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially
transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was
totally transected. This could hare been produced by a missile entering
in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more
in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear
a structure rather than push it aside.
Mr. SPECTER. Would that then also indicate the wound of entrance where
that striking took place?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Where do you get your 200 feet? Greer was only 1 foot away from the
chrome topping.
Nonsense. Look at the photos of the limo reenactment.
>
> Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
There are an infinite number of ways things could have happened. There
is only one way things actually happened. In order to determine what
actually happened, you need evidence. I don't see any evidence that the
bullet was planted.
FWIW, I don't know how Wright originally described the bullet, what he
may have thought he saw, how long he examined it, what he considers as
"pointed" etc. I can't read into that a conclusion that the bullet he
found was not CE399. So I can't conclude that anyone manipulated
evidence here. I think it is pretty clear that CE399 was the bullet
found on JBC's stretcher.
Anderw Mason
Herbert Blenner
Dr. Gregory was a MD, not a physicist nor engineer. So I will accept his
medical observations and question his interpretations.
A bullet with a considerable angle of yaw will catch and tear nerves or
tendons running nearly perpendicular to the moving side of the bullet.
Further the yield strength of a tendon exceeds the strength of skin. As a
result a torn tendon could burst through the outer layers of skin and
create an irregularly shaped surface wound of exit.
Herbert
Sammy, G.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:45f7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Nope! The radiologist testified to having taken X-rays that show fragments
in the neck/throat wound. He stated that these X-rays are missing from the
"official" collection. His belief is that they are missing for this very
reason. Horne "found" enough corroboration to be convinced that the
radiologist is correct.
Thanks
Sammy, G.
Andrew Mason
200 feet from the muzzle. The difference between the shot actually hitting
and the sound arriving at Greer's ear is about 80 ms. If he heard the
shot hit, he would hear it hit 80 ms before the sound of the muzzle blast
and almost simultaneous with it actually hitting.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
.....
>>> If you believe literally what Willis said then that places the hit at
>>> Z-190.
>>> JFK was NOT quite visible at Z-200 due to the oak tree.
>>> The first point where he became visible again was frame z-209.
>>> You have someone shooting through the Magic Tree. Sounds like one of
>>> Morningstar's theories.
>>
>>
>> Prove it. The z207 reenactment done by the WC shows that JFK would
>> have been quite visible 8 feet before that. The limo was moving at
>> just under 1 foot/frame.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Look at the photos of the limo reenactment.
Here is z207:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0051b.htm
And that was with the tree as it looked in May 64. Here is the tree just
after the assassination in Dec. 63.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
Assuming the recreation is accurate, it is apparent that JFK is fully
visible at z207 and so is all of the trunk behind him. When do you say JFK
was first visible?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
But the description was of hearing the sound of the shot THEN hearing it
hit something, not the other way around. And if it hit the chrome
topping, he definitely would have heard the shock wave at the same time.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
> .....
>>>> If you believe literally what Willis said then that places the hit
>>>> at Z-190.
>>>> JFK was NOT quite visible at Z-200 due to the oak tree.
>>>> The first point where he became visible again was frame z-209.
>>>> You have someone shooting through the Magic Tree. Sounds like one of
>>>> Morningstar's theories.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove it. The z207 reenactment done by the WC shows that JFK would
>>> have been quite visible 8 feet before that. The limo was moving at
>>> just under 1 foot/frame.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense. Look at the photos of the limo reenactment.
>
> Here is z207:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0051b.htm
>
>
> And that was with the tree as it looked in May 64. Here is the tree just
> after the assassination in Dec. 63.
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
>
SO, your claim is now that the actual condition of the tree was so
different 4 months earlier than it would never obscure the view of the
limousine and the reenactments are deceptive? Good luck with your new
theory.
>
> Assuming the recreation is accurate, it is apparent that JFK is fully
> visible at z207 and so is all of the trunk behind him. When do you say
> JFK was first visible?
>
Not at Z-190.
Tree branches were in the way of a clear shot until Z-209.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
OK, that's a different claim. So no one can see any bullet fragments in
the neck area now, but someone claims OTHER X-rays used to show it.
Fine. Why not just state that theory up front? There are also the
missing photographs.
I am not sure why the X-rays needed to go missing ONLY because they
showed bullet fragments in the neck area.
Horne is not the most reliable source.
> Thanks
>
> Sammy, G.
Andrew Mason
No. Just that the foliage on the tree was less and the new spring growth
of the branches was not there in December 63.
>
>>
>> Assuming the recreation is accurate, it is apparent that JFK is fully
>> visible at z207 and so is all of the trunk behind him. When do you say
>> JFK was first visible?
>>
>
> Not at Z-190.
> Tree branches were in the way of a clear shot until Z-209.
So you think that the reenactment by the FBI, showing that at z207 JFK
was quite visible, as well as the trunk behind him, was faked?
>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Faked is the wrong word. Not 100% accurate.
>
>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
So, what tells you that JFK was not visible until z209, which is 10
frames after he appears to have been visible according to the FBI
reenactment?
Andrew Mason
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew Mason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
jim....@fuse.net
Really? If you don't mind my asking, what kind of evidence were you
relying on when you thought "it is pretty clear that CE399 was the
bullet found on JBC's stretcher"? To reach that state of certainty
you have 1) ignore the fabrications the FBI put into CE2011 to cover
what really happened, 2) ignore the obvious and empirical evidence
that the shot fired by the Australian JFK research team which was
based on their meticulously planned recreation of the shot that
purportedly caused the 7 wounds in JFK and JBC missed both wound
locations on Kennedy because the angle was too steep, disproving the
SBT, and 3) plead ignorance to O.P. Wright's statement about the
bullet Tomlinson had given him on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital when
his account was published in Josiah Tompson's book Six Seconds in
Dallas which has been available since 1967. Daniel Webster said
"People only see what they are prepared to see." and 4) the fact that
there was no T & T consensus by HBF at the end of the autopsy before
the morticians prepared JFK's remains to lie in state before burial,
and
5) Humes guessed at a connection between the back wound and the front
of the neck wound when he wrote and rewrote the Autopsy Report at his
home because those wounds were not dissected during the autopsy. FWIW
here is what Dr. Gary Aguilar reported concerning Wright's description
of CE399, the Magic Bullet.
Quote
"Thompson reported that he interviewed Wright in November 1966. As
Thompson recalled the episode for the author, "(B)efore any photos
were shown or he was asked for any description of #399 (Wright) said:
'That bullet had a pointed tip.' I (Thompson) said, 'Pointed tip?' He
said, "Yeah, I'll show you. It was like this one here,' he said,
reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet
pictured
in Six Seconds." (See p. 175.) After Thompson showed Wright
various
bullet photos and finally one of #399, Wright asked, "Is that the
bullet I was supposed to have had?"
Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed Wright
believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967 Tomlinson
claimed
Wright believed the bullet he originally saw looked like a different
bullet than # 399. Ironically, recent FBI releases prompted by the
JFK
Review Board support Thompson, not the FBI.
A 6/20/64 "FBI AIRTEL" memorandum from SAC, Dallas to J. Edgar Hoover
contains the statement, "For information WFO (Washington Field
Office,
of the FBI), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at
Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer,
Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to
Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet . ."
Unquote.
Regards, Jim
Andrew Mason
All one has to do is accept the evidence of Darrell Thomlinson that he
found a bullet (he described it as a "spent cartridge or bullet" so he
obviously didn't know much about these things) and mentioned it to O.P.
Wright who then gave it to SA Richard Johnson. Although the continuity
of CE399 poorly documented one would have to accept an elaborate
conspiracy and a lot of people lying in order to believe that the bullet
was not the same one found on the stretcher. I find no reason to
believe that CE399 was not the one found on the stretcher by Thomlinson.
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
> There is no SBT path that I have
> seen where the wrist and thigh
> align with the chest exit.
> The chest and wrist works,
> but not the thigh.
If bullets can never depart from a straight line path then the SBT could
not be true and this would become a mysterious murder. But then, so would
a lot of other gunshot murders, at least those where the position of the
body at the time of the shot and the position of the gun was well known.
But bullets can change course and routinely do so. Shots through clear
ballistic gel show that while the initial path of a bullet is pretty
straight, after a couple of feet or so, the path curves. The usual cause
is the bullet turns sideways.
Through the air, the bullet is stable and keeps the rounded end pointed
straight. But when it strikes flesh or ballistic gel, it wants to travel
blunt end first, since this end is heavier. So the bullet starts to yaw
and turn sideways. Once it turns sides ways enough, it's path begins to
curve and the path will chance by ten degrees or more.
By the time the bullet was in the center of Connally's chest, it would
have been sideways and would have started to curve a good amount.
> The wound characteristics of
> the thigh were very different.
> The hole in the pants was round
> and no fibres were drawn into
> the wound . The hole in the
> shirt and jacket sleeve was
> irregular and drew fibres into
> the wound. Frazier 5 H 69-71.
> Gregory 4 H 122. The thigh
> wound was not made by the same
> bullet that struck the wrist.
It was not hit by the same bullet, in a sense. Through the chest, the
bullet was traveling pretty fast and was somewhat sideways. By the time it
hit the leg, it was traveling slower and likely blunt end first, which
would, naturally, make a round hole. The properties of the bullet was
radically different when it struck JFK, Connally's back, Connally's wrist
and Connally's thigh, more different than if these four wounds were caused
by four different rifle bullets of different types, but each striking
pointed end first at near muzzle velocity.
Herbert Blenner
> > There is no SBT path that I have
> > seen where the wrist and thigh
> > align with the chest exit.
> > The chest and wrist works,
> > but not the thigh.
>
> If bullets can never depart from a straight line path then the SBT could
> not be true and this would become a mysterious murder. But then, so would
> a lot of other gunshot murders, at least those where the position of the
> body at the time of the shot and the position of the gun was well known.
>
> But bullets can change course and routinely do so. Shots through clear
> ballistic gel show that while the initial path of a bullet is pretty
> straight, after a couple of feet or so, the path curves. The usual cause
> is the bullet turns sideways.
A curved path requires that the direction of the force from the gel
differs
from the direction of the bullet. This necessary condition for
curvature of
the trajectory arises from the properties of the gel, not the bullet.
So the
yaw angle of the bullet has nothing to do with its deflection.
>
> Through the air, the bullet is stable and keeps the rounded end pointed
> straight. But when it strikes flesh or ballistic gel, it wants to travel
> blunt end first, since this end is heavier. So the bullet starts to yaw
> and turn sideways. Once it turns sides ways enough, it's path begins to
> curve and the path will chance by ten degrees or more.
>
> By the time the bullet was in the center of Connally's chest, it would
> have been sideways and would have started to curve a good amount.
You are confusing cause with effect. A force that yaws a bullet
induces
a deflection, which ceases as soon as the force stops acting.
However,
the yawing continues at a diminishing rate due to the spin of the
bullet.
Thus yawing or turning sidewards does not curve the path of the
bullet.
I suspect you have been mislead by pictures of a bullet transiting a
structured gel in which the density and direction of the long
molecular
chains vary from one location to another. Medical investigators use
these special gels to separate complex molecular chains and
apparently
unscrupulous salesmen use these gels to deflect bullets.
>
> > The wound characteristics of
> > the thigh were very different.
> > The hole in the pants was round
> > and no fibres were drawn into
> > the wound . The hole in the
> > shirt and jacket sleeve was
> > irregular and drew fibres into
> > the wound. Frazier 5 H 69-71.
> > Gregory 4 H 122. The thigh
> > wound was not made by the same
> > bullet that struck the wrist.
>
> It was not hit by the same bullet, in a sense. Through the chest, the
> bullet was traveling pretty fast and was somewhat sideways. By the time it
> hit the leg, it was traveling slower and likely blunt end first, which
> would, naturally, make a round hole. The properties of the bullet was
> radically different when it struck JFK, Connally's back, Connally's wrist
> and Connally's thigh, more different than if these four wounds were caused
> by four different rifle bullets of different types, but each striking
> pointed end first at near muzzle velocity.
The thigh would have flattened the unhardened lead at the blunt end of
a
striking bullet. So the irregular surface of the blunt end of CE 399
disputes
your claim.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>> There is no SBT path that I have
>> seen where the wrist and thigh
>> align with the chest exit.
>> The chest and wrist works,
>> but not the thigh.
>
> If bullets can never depart from a straight line path then the SBT could
> not be true and this would become a mysterious murder. But then, so would
> a lot of other gunshot murders, at least those where the position of the
> body at the time of the shot and the position of the gun was well known.
>
You have things a little bassackwards there. The criticism is of the WC's
and even the HSCA's perfectly straight line for their SBT. That is what we
are making fun of. We already know that bullets are often deflected going
through bodies.
> But bullets can change course and routinely do so. Shots through clear
> ballistic gel show that while the initial path of a bullet is pretty
> straight, after a couple of feet or so, the path curves. The usual cause
> is the bullet turns sideways.
>
And shots of the Oswald ammo through clear ballistic gel show that the
path is almost perfectly straight for more inches than either represented
by Kennedy's neck or Connally's chest. It is hitting bone which deflects
the bullet.
> Through the air, the bullet is stable and keeps the rounded end pointed
> straight. But when it strikes flesh or ballistic gel, it wants to travel
> blunt end first, since this end is heavier. So the bullet starts to yaw
> and turn sideways. Once it turns sides ways enough, it's path begins to
> curve and the path will chance by ten degrees or more.
>
What nonsense is this? You claim what a bullet wants to do? The bullet
will continue nose first unless something changes that.
Bullets do not naturally want to fly backwards.
> By the time the bullet was in the center of Connally's chest, it would
> have been sideways and would have started to curve a good amount.
>
The center of Connally's chest? Chad says the bullet did not go through
the lung.
>
>> The wound characteristics of
>> the thigh were very different.
>> The hole in the pants was round
>> and no fibres were drawn into
>> the wound . The hole in the
>> shirt and jacket sleeve was
>> irregular and drew fibres into
>> the wound. Frazier 5 H 69-71.
>> Gregory 4 H 122. The thigh
>> wound was not made by the same
>> bullet that struck the wrist.
>
> It was not hit by the same bullet, in a sense. Through the chest, the
> bullet was traveling pretty fast and was somewhat sideways. By the time it
> hit the leg, it was traveling slower and likely blunt end first, which
> would, naturally, make a round hole. The properties of the bullet was
A fragment hitting the thigh would also cause a round hole. Who said it
was perfectly round?
It's much less likely that a whole bullet hit the thigh.
> radically different when it struck JFK, Connally's back, Connally's wrist
> and Connally's thigh, more different than if these four wounds were caused
> by four different rifle bullets of different types, but each striking
> pointed end first at near muzzle velocity.
>
>
You've lost me there. Are you proposing that the two men were hit by
FOUR separate bullets? Four different rifles? Four different shooters?
andre...@sasktel.net
WhiskyJoe wrote:
Not really. If they are both reacting to the same bullet, why would it be strange for them to react at roughly the same time?from DVP:I agree 100% with Mr. Bugliosi -- it was "absolutely impossible" for Lee Harvey Oswald to wound JFK and John Connally with separate bullets, given the Zapruder Film timeline of the event.from Andrew Mason, Mar 4, 10:32 pm:Disagree. The zfilm does not give us unequivocal evidence of the times when JBC and JFK were shot. It provides a basis on which many people think they can see when they were shot. It does not prove that JBC was hit in the back and JFK was hit in the neck within a split second of each other. That is only what armchair zfilm "experts" have convinced themselves is the case, by ignoring all the rest of the evidence.Strictly speaking, Andrew is right, the Zapruder film does not show unequivocal evidence that the SBT is correct. And how could it do so, since bullets and even blood splatter (except with explosive head wounds) are invisible in films. However, if the SBT theory is not correct, it is strange that: * both JFK and Connally start reacting at frame 226, with JFK starting to raise his fists in front of his chin and Connally starting to raise his "soon to be wounded" right wrist in front of his face
Of course if JFK is reacting behind the sign (a premise that the SBTers assume but is not really very likely, given his position in z224) then JFK is reacting first and could be reacting for a second before JBC, which is inconsistent with the SBT.
Or as if JBC is moving his arm and moving his jacket with it. The jacket is moving about 3 mph or about 4 feet per second (3 inches/frame). That really is not that difficult to do by moving one's body.* that in frame 224, the "soon to be shot" right part of Connally's jacket moves, as if it was pushed forward by something
That is actually one of the weak parts of the SBT. In fact, if JBC is in the middle of his seat the trajectory cannot work because the bullet is going from right to left after passing through JFK. This means it has to pass to the left of the middle of JBC's jump seat. I cannot fathom how it can hit JBC on the far right side. As far as I can tell, JBC is in the middle of his seat.* that in frame 225, the first frame JFK and Connally are both not blocked from view by the sign, the two neck wound locations of JFK line up rather well with the two "soon to be shot" wound locations on Connally's torso. To have the wound locations be off by three inches or less would be an amazing coincidence, and it appears to me that they are not off by that much. As far as the eye can tell, the wound locations appear right on.
Which proves absolutely nothing. Specter is not showing a trajectory from the SN through JFK.Certainly, the positions of JFK and Connally in frame 225 seem rather close to the positions of the two stand ins in the recreation of the SBT by Specter.
Not even close by my analysis. The bullet goes to JBC's left side. It has to. Just look at the FBI recreation:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm * and, of course, the wound locations at frame 225 line up pretty well with the location of the sniper's nest on the sixth floor
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FBI_dec63_trajectory.JPG
The real problem with the SBT is not its plausibility. It is the fact that it does not fit with any of the evidence. The witnesses who recalled the shot pattern 1.........2...3 is just a start.Now, is all this absolute proof of the SBT theory? Of course not. As Descartes said, the only fact a person can be absolutely certain of is "I think, therefore I am." But it's pretty darn persuasive. Either the conspirators were unbelievably lucky to have all these luck breaks, in both space in time, or, the Zapruder film really was faked to make it look like: * the SBT was true and * JFK was thrown back at frame 314 by something
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
How about the "JFK hit by the first bullet" witnesses:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
the "first shot after z186 witnesses":
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/map_first_shot_convergence.pdf
One witness may be unreliable. It depends. Witnesses are actually very reliable in recalling salient details of an event (the 1971 Marshall study cited by Eliz. Loftus showed that witnesses scored 98% in recalling the salient facts of an event: see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/loftus.PDF at p. 27).The only counter to the Zapruder film is the eyewitness testimony. It is a fundamental error to rely on eyewitness testimony to trump the Zapruder film, because: * eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliably
Many witnesses all saying the same thing, independently and without bias, are very reliable. Judges and juries rely on witness evidence all the time. Witnesses are not reliably unreliable. In other words, when 44 witnesses all recalled the shot pattern as 1.........2.....3 and only six recalled 1....2........3 (which is required for the SBT) - leave aside the huge amount of evidence that JFK was hit by the first bullet - this cannot happen unless there is a reason You cannot rely on them all being wrong in the same way without a reason. What would that reason be?
Of 178 witnesses whose evidence was compiled by the HSCA, 132 reported hearing exactly three shots, 17 recalled hearing two, 7 said they heard two or three shots (total: 88 percent). A total of 6 people said they thought they heard four shots and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. Another 7 people said they thought they heard 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots. : D. M. Green, “Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142.* the eyewitness's disagree with each other (as to be expected). Some think there were two shots. Some three. Of the three shot crowd, some thing that the last two shots were bunched, others that they were evenly spaced.
This is pretty convincing evidence (except, it appears, to the HSCA) that there were exactly three shots. It is not even an issue as far as I am concerned. There were exactly three shots.
There is less than a 10th of a second between the muzzle blast and the shock wave, which is indistinguishable to the human ear as two separate sounds. It confused no one. Besides, that would put the actual number of shots less than three and we know that there were three shots fired from the SN from the shells that were heard hitting the floor and were later found.* rifles make two loud noises with each single shot, the muzzle blast (traveling at Mach 1) and the sound made by the supersonic bullet itself (traveling at Mach 2). At the vicinity of the limousine at frame 313, for example, the two sounds would arrive about 0.12 seconds apart. Could this account for some reporting that the last "two" shots were bunched together?
No. People realized something was amiss - Connally certainly did. Clint Hill did. Besides, we are not relying on people's memories. We are relying on the fact that there are remarkable similarities between these recollections, which can have only one explanation: it is what they observed.* In the Zapruder film, it is clear, that except for the occupants of the limousine, the standing secret service agents and maybe one or two others, no one noticed anything amiss until frame 313. Charles Brehm, a veteran of many a desperate fight, like at D-Day, was applauding as the obviously wounded JFK and Connally was driven right by them. And the same is true of everyone else. Is it not the height of folly to rely of the memories of people on what happened who clearly did not think anything important was happening at the time?
The Zapruder film must be interpreted to fit the rest of the evidence. Otherwise its interpretation is just a theory about how it might have happened. There are an infinite number of possible ways something could have happened. What distinuguishes what might have happened from what actually happened is evidence. The SBT does not fit the evidence. My view is that you choose the explanation that fits all the evidence, not one that requires you to reject huge amounts of consistent and reliable evidence.The Zapruder film does not change it's memory. It will show the same thing the first time it is viewed and the one thousand time it is viewed. It is not influenced by what it may have heard from others. It won't mistake the double sound of a supersonic round as two different shots. This witness trumps all the others combined, particularly since the human eyewitnesses cannot agree with themselves.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Can anyone explain how Kennedy could react to a shot before it hit him?
Was he psychic?