"JFK: The Lost Bullet" Review

[David Von Pein]

Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":

1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970b-800wi

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html

2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.

Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
"SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
"victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;
and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
have been better, IMO.

3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got
a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.

Former Secret Service agent John J. Howlett and Dealey Plaza witnesses
Tina Towner and James Tague also made appearances. And Max Holland &
Co. definitely want America to believe that Tague was wounded by
Oswald's FIRST shot, although Tague (at least prior to 2011) always
maintained he wasn't stung in the face by the first bullet. He always
said it was a later shot that struck him.

4.) A detailed digital restoration of several of the assassination
films was done for the program, including the films taken by Abraham
Zapruder, Robert Hughes, Tina Towner, Mark Bell, and Elsie Dorman.
(And, perhaps, the Orville Nix film too. I can't recall if they said
the Nix film was actually digitally enhanced or not, but maybe it
was.)

And while the restoration of the films was nice to see (albeit in very
choppy, interrupted segments--a few seconds here, then a few seconds
there), I can't really see where it actually aided Mr. Holland's cause
in coming to his unique conclusion that Oswald's first (missed) shot
struck the traffic light PRIOR to Zapruder frame 133 (i.e., prior to
the time when Zapruder resumed filming the motorcade after briefly
stopping his camera).

In fact, the film that helped Holland by far the most wasn't an
"assassination" film at all. It was, instead, the film taken by the
U.S. Secret Service on November 27, 1963, during a filmed
reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza (the film which shows
what appears to be a possible defect, or hole, in the traffic light
structure).

5.) A pretty large mistake was made by the narrator near the start of
the 1-hour "Lost Bullet" show, when he said that both lone-assassin
believers and conspiracists alike agree on the fact that just TWO
bullets struck President Kennedy and just ONE bullet struck Governor
Connally.

I don't know where the "Lost Bullet" script writers got their
information, but as we all know here on these Internet forums, there
are many, many conspiracy theorists who believe that JFK was struck by
more than just two bullets on November 22nd.

In fact, from my online experience, the vast majority of conspiracists
who participate regularly in Internet discussions firmly believe that
a MINIMUM of three shots struck JFK's body; and many of those CTers
also think Connally was hit at least twice. (And if you happen to be
in league with James H. Fetzer, then you believe that a total of SEVEN
bullets struck the two victims -- 4 bullets hit Kennedy and 3 hit
Connally -- which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario, of course.)

6.) The "Lost Bullet" producers tried to pass off an audio clip of
NBC's Tom Pettit describing the shooting of Oswald as actually being a
description of the frenzied scene in Dealey Plaza after JFK was shot.
An interesting piece of deception there. No big deal, of course. But
it certainly wasn't accurate.

Overall, I think "JFK: The Lost Bullet" was just a "so-so"
documentary. Not too bad. But certainly not great either. The restored
film clips were nice to see, especially the Dorman and Towner films,
which looked really crisp and sharp. But it didn't look to me like the
Zapruder Film was any clearer or sharper than the 1998 MPI restored
digital copy that I own, or the stabilized version that I have on one
of my webpages (below):

http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo

And the laser-beam test that was done from the approximate (but not
exact) position of where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from was also
fairly good, but, as mentioned, I would have liked to see some more
details of that laser test, particularly from a variety of camera
angles, to confirm the correct alignment of the two limo victims.

I can hear the conspiracy theorists' complaints about that SBT laser
test now -- "They didn't have the angles right at all!" -- "The wounds
are in the wrong places altogether!" -- "They didn't fire any REAL
bullets into the stand-ins!" -- "They didn't even go INTO the building
to do the test! They were perched on a crane OUTSIDE the sixth floor!
So this test is worthless!" -- Etc., etc.

Max Holland's "11 second" and "Traffic Light" theories could possibly
be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course. And since
Max is attempting to fill in a gap concerning the shot that MISSED the
limousine's occupants, it becomes a very difficult (if not impossible)
task to really "prove" anything beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
the timing of Oswald's first shot and what happened to that bullet
after it left LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Holland didn't address the problem that his theory has with respect to
one very important timing issue -- that being: John Connally's
"timing" of that first shot. More about that can be found in this 2007
post of mine:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b1bff

David Von Pein
November 20-21, 2011

[Island]

On Nov 21, 8:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...

>
> David Von Pein
> November 20-21, 2011

Having been 11 when this savage, mysterious event occurred it has
amazed me all the twists and turns the story has taken over the years.
Every couple of years the JFK parade car gets backed up more and more
& I suspect in time there will be some Naat Geo or other TV program
claiming the attack started on Main Street.
As for me, I still go with what Mary Moorman said in her live Internet
interview earlier this year that the attack began when she took her
photo.
I realize this doesn't jive with what others who were there also have
said but it works for me. I'm not going to argue with her. There are
those who enjoy arguing about just about anything (I suspect it's my
ex wife & mother in law but can't prove it) and can quote you a
website link to back up their position. In the final analysis, Mary
Moorman is still the famous lady with the polaroid who was there and
we weren't.
If you review Mary's interview from earlier this year what she said
she heard and saw can be achieved with the MC and does not get LHO off
the hook. As far as CT'ers go, until the Justice Department arrests
someone or a revision to the WC & HSCA is announced any and all CT
research has been counter productive to all except those who made
money from their efforts.
Arguing over trifle things such as did Zapruder had stripes or little
fire trucks on his shorts produces about the same thing as arguing if
Bonnie Parker was eating a BLT or bolonia sandwich when she was
murdered with Clyde Barrow in 1934 IMO.
Thank you for the review. I agree, the digital versions of the films
would be worthwhile. When are they going to get around to enhancing
Bronson, Martin & Daniels?

[bigdog]

I began watching last night but fell asleep about halfway through (a
common occurence when I am watching TV at night while sipping whiskey). I
watched the second half on the DVR this morning.

I agree with what DVP has said and will throw in my own two cents.

One thing that jumped out at me early was when Holland said he had never
heard anyone discuss the possibility that Oswald's first shot might have
deflected off the traffic light/support. Really? That sure isn't a new
idea to me. I can't remember when I first heard that offered as a possible
explaination but I know it has come up many times before.

I don't think the laser recreation was anything more than a pretty good
approximation. Since the bullet hit while JFK was behind the sign, he
couldn't have positioned him exactly like he was when the bullet struck.
If he was positioning the subjects as they were seen in the Z-film, the
earliest frame he could use was Z225, which would have been pretty close
but not exact. Since JBC was rotating leftward at the time, he would have
been more forward facing at Z225 than he was when the bullet hit a few
frames earlier. Still, it did show that JBC was in the direct line of fire
for a bullet passing straight through JFK and that no wild deflection or
zigzagging bullet would have been necessary for the bullet to strike him
where it did.

I thought the recreation for the ejecting shells was interesting and a new
angle that as far as I know had never been done before. While not proving
anything with certainty, it did suggest that Oswald's rifle was in a
different position for one of the three shots which is consistent with the
rifle being pointed more vertically for the earliest shot. I think this
would be true whether the shot came around Z160 or when Holland suggests
it happened.

After making a reasonable argument for their case that the traffic light
deflected the bullet, it was mentioned that the research time wanted to
know what would happen to a high powered bullet after striking the traffic
light. I expect that they were going to conduct just such an experiment
but they never did. Without the benefit of such a recreation, it seems
unlikely to me that a bullet striking that light would have been
redirected toward Tague. It seems to me it would be more likely to deflect
the bullet downward rather than forward, but without that recreation, we
are just guessing. Holland didn't do much for his case by failing to do
such a thing. It is also possible that the traffic light caused the shot
to miss but a fragment from a later shot caused Tague's injury.

The figure in the window in the Hughes film doesn't seem to be aiming a
rifle so if Oswald did take the shot as early as Holland proposes, there
would have been little time to aim the rifle. This could have had more to
do with the bad miss than the traffic light.

I said before the show aired, that I would watch it with an open but
skeptical mind. After watching it, I remain open minded and skeptical.
Holland made some good arguments, but not good enough to make me believe
the shot happened as early as he claims. Maybe it did, but I don't think
that is the most likely answer. I did have a problem when he argued that
those who don't buy his theory need to offer a better explaination. It is
not logical to take the position that if we don't know what other
explaination there is, it must be this. I think we are all guilty of doing
that at one time or another, but it still makes no sense. Holland failed
to make a convincing case for his theory. As it stands, I see it as a
possibility but not the most likely one.

[claviger]

On Nov 21, 8:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...

>
> David Von Pein
> November 20-21, 2011

David,

Excellent analysis as usual. I believe the WCR estimated a time sequence
for 3 shots between 10.0 - 5.6 seconds. Many seized on the last number to
claim 3 shots can't be fired that fast with a bolt action rifle. It has
since been proved the Carcano rifle can fire 3 shots in less than 5.6
seconds, but the point is 10 seconds was a possibility from the beginning
so the 11 seconds theory by Holland is not far off the original estimate.
The first shot miss will always be a mystery for some but if LHO was an
amateur assassin then do doubt he was extremely nervous on the first shot
and easily could have pulled the trigger too hard at an awkward angle as
the Limousine passed by. A pro would not have attempted that early shot
and waited for a better angle.

[Gerry Simone (H)]

Good review.

I read the techinical report but not as detailed as I would like.

The test fired at signal assemblies, etc. Did they show that the jacket
and core separated in those tests?


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e2931683-37d9-48fe...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

NAME ADDENDUM:

In my first post above, I also should have mentioned that Larry
Sturdivan appeared in the "Lost Bullet" program. (I knew was going to
omit somebody when I wrote up my initial post on this. I was writing
it from memory after having seen the show a short time before.)

Anyway, it was good to see Mr. Sturdivan, too, who I never get tired
of quoting when it comes to one of the best quotes I've ever seen in
any JFK book (Sturdivan's 2005 gem, "The JFK Myths"). Let me repeat it
yet again in this thread (thank you):

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most
conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of
"Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of
the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman
abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with
all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry
M. Sturdivan (c.2005)

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I thought the recreation for the ejecting shells was interesting and
a new angle that as far as I know had never been done before." <<<

The FBI's Robert Frazier did, indeed, perform such "Shell Ejection
Pattern" tests in 1964:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the
cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139."

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the
ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle
at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port."

EISENBERG -- "And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes; I did."

===========

Frazier's diagrams appear in WC volume 17 (CE546 and CE547):


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0134b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0135a.htm

============

Bob Frazier's testimony concerning the ejection pattern of the
cartridge cases begins at 3 H 401, here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0205a.htm

[Sean Smiley]

On Nov 21, 6:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...

>
> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>
> Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;
> and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> have been better, IMO.
>
> 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
> up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
> old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got
> a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository

Yes, a "colored man". Do you really believe he saw this man on the
6th floor?
dcw

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...

[claviger]

One of the questions about this assassination is why didn't LHO shoot
the President sooner on Houston St when the Limousine was approaching
his window? The angle was better and the target was getting larger.
One reason might be the SS guards could easily look up and return
fire. By letting the Limousine make the turn the SS would be in an
awkward position to return fire if they could even locate the sniper.
For whatever reason, the first shot was at a bad angle which indicates
an amateur sniper.

> As for me, I still go with what Mary Moorman said in her live Internet
> interview earlier this year that the attack began when she took her
> photo.
> I realize this doesn't jive with what others who were there also have
> said but it works for me. I'm not going to argue with her. There are
> those who enjoy arguing about just about anything (I suspect it's my
> ex wife & mother in law but can't prove it) and can quote you a
> website link to back up their position. In the final analysis, Mary
> Moorman is still the famous lady with the polaroid who was there and
> we weren't.

Other witnesses who were there plus the Zapruder film proves she was
mistaken.

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual because you are a WC defender you don't know what the WC
actually said and you refuse to actually read the WCR. They left it open
ended. 7 seconds or more.

> claim 3 shots can't be fired that fast with a bolt action rifle. It has
> since been proved the Carcano rifle can fire 3 shots in less than 5.6
> seconds, but the point is 10 seconds was a possibility from the beginning
> so the 11 seconds theory by Holland is not far off the original estimate.

Sure, sure. You could say 2 minutes if you want. But 11 seconds or more
does not match what witnesses recalled.

> The first shot miss will always be a mystery for some but if LHO was an
> amateur assassin then do doubt he was extremely nervous on the first shot
> and easily could have pulled the trigger too hard at an awkward angle as
> the Limousine passed by. A pro would not have attempted that early shot
> and waited for a better angle.
>

Whether it was Oswald or Santana that traffic light blocking a shot may
have panicked them into not taking the shot then and then needing to
take a shot just before the limo went under the tree.

>
>

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Nov 21, 6:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...

>
> David Von Pein
> November 20-21, 2011

David, you missed the most revealing moment in the program. After
pretending Euins had described a shot as early as Holland was
proposing, it claimed ""Euins has lived most of his life outside the
media spotlight, but his story remains the same--that all three shots,
including bullet C, came from the sixth floor of the book depository,
not from the grassy knoll."

Arrggghhh. Most everyone on this forum knows Euins testified to
hearing FOUR shots, not three! Holland certainly knows this as well.
As a result, it's hard not to conclude this deception was a deliberate
lie...as was much of the program. I mean, let's get real, they
pretended Tina Towner's comments supported that the first shot was
fired when Holland believes it was--when her film shows her to be
still filming when the limo was 20 feet or so past where he claims the
first shot was fired, and she has always claimed the first shot was
fired a second or so after she stopped filming.

Holland's theory is nonsense, and the program was one of the worst
ones yet. As time passes, one would think the politics of the shooting
would fade, and the unbiased presentation of facts improve. But it
seems to only get worse.

[Gerry Simone]

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:790b1e8d-4967-4381...@c4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...

Funny, LNers always cite Occam's Razor against CTers along the rationale
that Holland prefers his theory (frankly, OR's is inappropriate to disprove
one theory over another - it's just a method of choosing a scientific theory
over another before it is proven).

I couldn't watch it up here in the land of the true north, strong and free,
but after reading that technical write-up that McAdams posted, I can't
believe that the deflected bullet core from a traffic signal light/assembly
would ricochet off the turf to reach the curb near Tague. It rained that
day, so the sod would be moist, and chances are, would absorb or 'swallow'
that bullet fragment, if it happened that way.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/21/2011 3:17 PM, Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
> Good review.
>
> I read the techinical report but not as detailed as I would like.
>
> The test fired at signal assemblies, etc. Did they show that the jacket
> and core separated in those tests?
>

Did they show a neat little hole drilled out by a 1/4" drill bit?
How do they know the fixture wasn't built that way?
Any catalogs from 1960 showing traffic lights?
Any city records?
If Holland really thinks a bullet went through the metal and then went
on to hit the curb near Tague then he needs his own version of the
Posner Magic Twig Theory to strip off the jacket and let only the lead
core go on a different course to hit the curb.

[bigdog]

> and waited for a better angle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The WC's time frame hinged on which shot missed. They felt they were
correct in concluding that the two shots that hit JFK came between 4.8
and 5.6 seconds apart. If the second shot missed, that would have
required Oswald to fire all three shots in that amount of time.
Possible, but very difficult. Somehow, this gained wide acceptance as
the official conclusion of the WC even though the conclusion they
wrote they stated clearly that they could come to know conclusion as
to which shot missed. I think this became the defacto conclusion
because the early conspiracy authors found that scenario the easiest
to attack, hence we got Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas. I
guess that is a better title than Between 4.8 and 9.0 seconds in
Dallas.

[bigdog]

> Bronson, Martin & Daniels?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Moorman took her photo at or about Z313. Are you really going to tell
us that is when the attack occured? Are you going to tell us that
neither JFK nor JBC had been shot by then? Are you going to tell us
all those gyrations they began starting at Z226 were not in response
to having been shot? Because if the attack didn't start until Moorman
took her picture, that is what you are left with. You've chose a good
nickname, Island. Because an island is where you are going to be with
this theory. No one is going to join you on that island.l

[Gerry Simone]

Just because the Justice Dept doesn't care to re-open the case, doesn't mean
that researchers' efforts are wasted.

Besides, Carlos Marcellos confessed but he's dead, so they can't do much
now.

"Island" <rayne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10f0427c-9977-4eaa...@h21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/21/2011 9:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.

He originally was looking for a dent on the support bar, not a hole.
When he couldn't find any damage at all he changed his claim to a white
spot on the traffic light frame itself. He never says bullet hole.

> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

As typical for kookspeak he just leaves a dangling question.

> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970b-800wi
>
> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>

Fine, since the sniper's nest is closed. But did you notice his little
lie where he claimed that this was the first time since 11/22/63 that
any shots were fired from that window? He overlooked or forgot the 1978
shooting tests done for the HSCA.

> Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;

Part of the WC defender propaganda tricks and notice how Howlett repeats
the WC lies about the placement of the men. And then the hoaky moving of
the JFK standin showing the green laser dot hitting Connally's standin
"exactly" where Connally was hit. Well, actually no the dot does not hit
where Connally was actually hit. In the right armpit, not a few inches
to the right of the midline of his back.
And look where he placed the dot on JFK. Pure imagination, not matching
the WC marking or the autopsy or the HSCA finding.

> and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> have been better, IMO.
>
> 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
> up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
> old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got
> a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
> the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
> It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
> I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.
>

Maybe he was the only witness still alive that Holland could find.
But you gloss over how he lied about what Euins originally said. Holland
dare not impeach his own witness by pointing out what he actually said.
On 11/22/63 he said that the shooter was a colored man.
He told the WC that he heard 4 shots.
But neither of those support the WC so Holland leaves those out.

http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/custom2.html

Unfortunately, however, it remains in doubt when Brennan first began to
claim that he had seen the shooter himself rather than only the rifle.
In my judgment, the more reliable of the two witnesses is Amos Euins.
Unlike Brennan, whose original statements cannot be reconstructed at
all, Euins identified the TSBD shooter as a coloured man to a police
motorcycle officer, David V. Harkness, within five minutes of the
assassination. (6H310) Unfortunately, Harkness neglected to tell the
Warren Commission that Euins had identifed the shooter to him as a
coloured man. However, we know that Euins had done so because he was
overheard speaking to Harkness by newsman, James R. Underwood of
KRLD-TV, who had just alighted from the press car in which, sitting next
to Bob Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald, he had been travelling in the
motorcade. Underwood then questioned Euins further, establishing to his
satisfaction that Euins had seen a coloured man shooting. (6H170)
Euins’s testimony therefore supports the view that the shooter had been
Rowland’s elderly negro.
It is true that in an affidavit taken in the Sheriff’s Department on
November 22, 1963, Euins states that the gunman ‘was a white man.’
(16H963) But when he was deposed by the Warren Commission, Euins, while
not going so far as to state that he had seen a black man, did insist
that his Sheriff’s Department deposition was incorrect and that he had
never identified the man as a white man. His explanation was that the
person taking down his statement had misinterpreted his reference to a
‘white spot’ on the man’s head for the identification of a white man.
(2H208) Taking into account the considerable pressure he seems to have
been under to admit that he had originally identified the gunman as a
white man, denying that the man had been white seems to have been as far
as Euins felt able to go in the intimidating situation in which he had
suddenly found himself. (2H204, 205-6, 207) We can be certain that if
Euins had been as tenacious a personality as Rowland he would have
insisted that the shooter had been a coloured man.
There are two reasons why Euins’s testimony should be regarded as
reliable. First of all, Euins’s identification is consistent with
Rowland’s description of the elderly negro in two significant respects:
it placed the coloured man in the southeast window and it associated him
with a bald spot. By emphasizing that the man had had a bald spot, it is
clear that Euins had seen the exact same man Rowland identified as the
elderly negro. (2H204, 205-6, 207) Although the white man could
conceivably have moved from the western to the eastern window in time to
fire the shots, the bald spot could not have magically transferred
itself from the elderly negro’s head to his own. The only way the matter
of the bald spot could have arisen at all is if Euins really had seen
the elderly negro shooting.
Second, Euins’s identification of the shooter in the southeast window as
a coloured man was voluntary, spontaneous, and immediate. It can be
securely dated to a few minutes after the assassination, when Euins
could not have known that Rowland and several other witnesses had also
seen a coloured man on the sixth floor. That Euins did indeed tell
Underwood that he had seen a black gunman seems confirmed by an early
news report overheard in New York by lawyer Mark Lane. In his book
Plausible Denial (1991), Lane records hearing a news bulletin about the
assassination at the press room inside the Criminal Court Building in
lower Manhattan shortly after 1pm (EST):

A voice from Dallas: “It is thought that a Negro was involved in the
assassination attempt.” A black courtroom attendant shift from one foot
to the other as he tried to look innocent. The others in the room tried
not to stare at him. (p. 13)

Lane’s anecdote verifies the early circulation of a report indicating
that the assassin had been black. This report had reached New York at a
time when Lee Harvey Oswald had not even been apprehended. On present
information, there is no alternative explanation for the diffusion of
this story other than Euins via Underwood. In short, Euins really did
tell Harkness and Underwood within minutes of the assassination that he
had seen a coloured shooter.

> Former Secret Service agent John J. Howlett and Dealey Plaza witnesses
> Tina Towner and James Tague also made appearances. And Max Holland&
> Co. definitely want America to believe that Tague was wounded by
> Oswald's FIRST shot, although Tague (at least prior to 2011) always
> maintained he wasn't stung in the face by the first bullet. He always
> said it was a later shot that struck him.
>

But Holland will never reveal that. That's why he needs critics to keep
him honest.

> 4.) A detailed digital restoration of several of the assassination
> films was done for the program, including the films taken by Abraham
> Zapruder, Robert Hughes, Tina Towner, Mark Bell, and Elsie Dorman.
> (And, perhaps, the Orville Nix film too. I can't recall if they said
> the Nix film was actually digitally enhanced or not, but maybe it
> was.)
>
> And while the restoration of the films was nice to see (albeit in very
> choppy, interrupted segments--a few seconds here, then a few seconds
> there), I can't really see where it actually aided Mr. Holland's cause
> in coming to his unique conclusion that Oswald's first (missed) shot
> struck the traffic light PRIOR to Zapruder frame 133 (i.e., prior to
> the time when Zapruder resumed filming the motorcade after briefly
> stopping his camera).
>

I particularly enjoyed the fact that they dug up the 35mm print and
digitized it in HD. I hope the whole film with be a bonus feature on the
DVD. It may also have the actual shooting tests.
How long before we have new Costella frames?

> In fact, the film that helped Holland by far the most wasn't an
> "assassination" film at all. It was, instead, the film taken by the
> U.S. Secret Service on November 27, 1963, during a filmed
> reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza (the film which shows
> what appears to be a possible defect, or hole, in the traffic light
> structure).
>
> 5.) A pretty large mistake was made by the narrator near the start of
> the 1-hour "Lost Bullet" show, when he said that both lone-assassin
> believers and conspiracists alike agree on the fact that just TWO
> bullets struck President Kennedy and just ONE bullet struck Governor
> Connally.
>

Not sure that was just an innocent mistake. Sounds more like a blatant lie.

> I don't know where the "Lost Bullet" script writers got their
> information, but as we all know here on these Internet forums, there
> are many, many conspiracy theorists who believe that JFK was struck by
> more than just two bullets on November 22nd.
>

Not only that, but they seem unaware of the fact that the very first
SBT, advanced by the doctors, said Connally was hit by two different
bullets.

> In fact, from my online experience, the vast majority of conspiracists
> who participate regularly in Internet discussions firmly believe that
> a MINIMUM of three shots struck JFK's body; and many of those CTers

I don't think it is a vast majority any more. Many conspiracy believers
have abandoned the two shots to the head and more agree on one shot
causing both the back wound and the throat wound.

> also think Connally was hit at least twice. (And if you happen to be
> in league with James H. Fetzer, then you believe that a total of SEVEN
> bullets struck the two victims -- 4 bullets hit Kennedy and 3 hit
> Connally -- which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario, of course.)
>

Yeah, Fetzer and all 5 of his supporters.

> 6.) The "Lost Bullet" producers tried to pass off an audio clip of
> NBC's Tom Pettit describing the shooting of Oswald as actually being a
> description of the frenzied scene in Dealey Plaza after JFK was shot.
> An interesting piece of deception there. No big deal, of course. But
> it certainly wasn't accurate.
>

We can be sure that if Oliver Stone did that we'd never hear the end of it.

> Overall, I think "JFK: The Lost Bullet" was just a "so-so"
> documentary. Not too bad. But certainly not great either. The restored
> film clips were nice to see, especially the Dorman and Towner films,
> which looked really crisp and sharp. But it didn't look to me like the
> Zapruder Film was any clearer or sharper than the 1998 MPI restored
> digital copy that I own, or the stabilized version that I have on one
> of my webpages (below):
>

Shouldn't 35 mm be bigger than 8 mm?

> http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
>
> And the laser-beam test that was done from the approximate (but not
> exact) position of where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from was also
> fairly good, but, as mentioned, I would have liked to see some more
> details of that laser test, particularly from a variety of camera
> angles, to confirm the correct alignment of the two limo victims.
>
> I can hear the conspiracy theorists' complaints about that SBT laser
> test now -- "They didn't have the angles right at all!" -- "The wounds
> are in the wrong places altogether!" -- "They didn't fire any REAL
> bullets into the stand-ins!" -- "They didn't even go INTO the building
> to do the test! They were perched on a crane OUTSIDE the sixth floor!
> So this test is worthless!" -- Etc., etc.
>
> Max Holland's "11 second" and "Traffic Light" theories could possibly
> be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course. And since
> Max is attempting to fill in a gap concerning the shot that MISSED the
> limousine's occupants, it becomes a very difficult (if not impossible)
> task to really "prove" anything beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
> the timing of Oswald's first shot and what happened to that bullet
> after it left LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>

Like all kooks Holland can not prove his theory so he challenges others
to prove it wrong.

> Holland didn't address the problem that his theory has with respect to
> one very important timing issue -- that being: John Connally's
> "timing" of that first shot. More about that can be found in this 2007
> post of mine:
>

And he glosses over a critical issue I brought up. As Howlett admits,
JFK's hands are up in front of his throat when he emerges from behind
the sign. Thus no bullet can exit his throat and go on to hit Connally
at frame 224.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/21/2011 12:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> I began watching last night but fell asleep about halfway through (a
> common occurence when I am watching TV at night while sipping whiskey). I
> watched the second half on the DVR this morning.
>
> I agree with what DVP has said and will throw in my own two cents.
>
> One thing that jumped out at me early was when Holland said he had never
> heard anyone discuss the possibility that Oswald's first shot might have
> deflected off the traffic light/support. Really? That sure isn't a new
> idea to me. I can't remember when I first heard that offered as a possible
> explaination but I know it has come up many times before.
>

You heard it right here from me, many years before Holland thought of
it. But when I mentioned it all the WC defenders called me a kook and
dismissed the idea. One particular WC defender here said, "What traffic
light."

> I don't think the laser recreation was anything more than a pretty good
> approximation. Since the bullet hit while JFK was behind the sign, he
> couldn't have positioned him exactly like he was when the bullet struck.
> If he was positioning the subjects as they were seen in the Z-film, the
> earliest frame he could use was Z225, which would have been pretty close
> but not exact. Since JBC was rotating leftward at the time, he would have
> been more forward facing at Z225 than he was when the bullet hit a few
> frames earlier. Still, it did show that JBC was in the direct line of fire
> for a bullet passing straight through JFK and that no wild deflection or
> zigzagging bullet would have been necessary for the bullet to strike him
> where it did.
>
> I thought the recreation for the ejecting shells was interesting and a new
> angle that as far as I know had never been done before. While not proving

I give him credit for actually doing the test properly by trying to
replicate the positions of the boxes, but how does he justify the one
box at the end of the row to bounce that shell back into the sniper's
nest. The WC tests of the ejection pattern only gave general direction.
But did you notice that contrary to his lie they did not use the same
model rifle as Oswald's? They used the advertised Carbine which was
easier to buy that the short rifle. Look at the adjustable rear scope.

> anything with certainty, it did suggest that Oswald's rifle was in a
> different position for one of the three shots which is consistent with the
> rifle being pointed more vertically for the earliest shot. I think this
> would be true whether the shot came around Z160 or when Holland suggests
> it happened.
>
> After making a reasonable argument for their case that the traffic light
> deflected the bullet, it was mentioned that the research time wanted to
> know what would happen to a high powered bullet after striking the traffic
> light. I expect that they were going to conduct just such an experiment
> but they never did. Without the benefit of such a recreation, it seems

I believe they did and maybe filmed it. I might show up as a bonus on
the DVD.

> unlikely to me that a bullet striking that light would have been
> redirected toward Tague. It seems to me it would be more likely to deflect

They would never be able to do any test to prove the angle of
deflection. Just like the Posner Magic Twig Theory.

> the bullet downward rather than forward, but without that recreation, we
> are just guessing. Holland didn't do much for his case by failing to do
> such a thing. It is also possible that the traffic light caused the shot
> to miss but a fragment from a later shot caused Tague's injury.
>

Possible. But it might explain why the first shot didn't hit anyone.

> The figure in the window in the Hughes film doesn't seem to be aiming a
> rifle so if Oswald did take the shot as early as Holland proposes, there
> would have been little time to aim the rifle. This could have had more to
> do with the bad miss than the traffic light.
>

Too early to be aiming a shot.

> I said before the show aired, that I would watch it with an open but
> skeptical mind. After watching it, I remain open minded and skeptical.
> Holland made some good arguments, but not good enough to make me believe
> the shot happened as early as he claims. Maybe it did, but I don't think
> that is the most likely answer. I did have a problem when he argued that
> those who don't buy his theory need to offer a better explaination. It is
> not logical to take the position that if we don't know what other
> explaination there is, it must be this. I think we are all guilty of doing
> that at one time or another, but it still makes no sense. Holland failed
> to make a convincing case for his theory. As it stands, I see it as a
> possibility but not the most likely one.
>

I was very impressed by how shamelessly he lied.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think anyone can diagram such a trajectory. Some conspiracy
theorists have a missed shot hitting the concrete around the man hole on
the south infield grass.

[Anthony Marsh]

We have discussed that many times before. There are some technical
problems with shooting down onto Houston. And most people agree that the
sniper would rather shoot when the SS can not just look up and see him
shooting.

>
>> As for me, I still go with what Mary Moorman said in her live Internet
>> interview earlier this year that the attack began when she took her
>> photo.
>> I realize this doesn't jive with what others who were there also have
>> said but it works for me. I'm not going to argue with her. There are
>> those who enjoy arguing about just about anything (I suspect it's my

>> ex wife& mother in law but can't prove it) and can quote you a

[claviger]

On Nov 21, 3:51 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just because the Justice Dept doesn't care to re-open the case, doesn't mean
> that researchers' efforts are wasted.
>
> Besides, Carlos Marcellos confessed but he's dead, so they can't do much
> now.

Marcello is one of 20+ confessions as to who killed President Kennedy.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think he saw one of the colored men on the fifth floor. Remember that he
did not constantly watch the TSBD. He was trying to see the President.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I believe the WCR estimated a time sequence for 3 shots between 10.0
- 5.6 seconds." <<<

That's not quite what the Warren Commission said. The WC's "span" of
possible time for the whole shooting was "approximately 4.8 to in excess
of 7 seconds".

And the "in excess" really means 7.9 seconds exactly, because they added
2.3 seconds to the 5.6 timeline (if, that is, either the first or the
third shot was the "missed" shot).

And keep in mind that the WC never did come out and definitely say which
one of LHO's three shots was the missed shot. And that's a fact that CTers
love to ignore, so they can continuously "box" the WC into the cramped
"5.6-second" timeframe. But, in reality, no such FIRM 5.6- second timeline
exists--and it NEVER did, even in 1964.

My all-time favorite page of the Warren Report -- Page 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

[bigdog]

On Nov 21, 4:51 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just because the Justice Dept doesn't care to re-open the case, doesn't mean
> that researchers' efforts are wasted.
>

No, researchers efforts are wasted because they are on a wild goose chase.
They are trying to find evidnece for non-existent conspiracy. 48 years of
futility hasn't deterred them. They continue to think a break through is
right around the corner. How many corners do they have to turn before they
figure out they are going around and around the same block?

> Besides, Carlos Marcellos confessed but he's dead, so they can't do much
> now.
>

And of course, no one has ever confessed to a crime they didn't
commit.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David, you missed the most revealing moment in the program. After
pretending Euins had described a shot as early as Holland was proposing,
it claimed ""Euins has lived most of his life outside the media spotlight,
but his story remains the same--that all three shots, including bullet C,
came from the sixth floor of the book depository, not from the grassy
knoll." Arrggghhh. Most everyone on this forum knows Euins testified to
hearing FOUR shots, not three!" <<<

Yes, good point, Pat. Very good.

And Amos Euins, in his 1964 WC testimony, absolutely did say he heard
"four [shots], to be exact":

ARLEN SPECTER -- "How many shots did you hear altogether?"
AMOS EUINS -- "I believe there was four, to be exact."

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Are you going to tell us that neither JFK nor JBC had been shot by

then [Z313]? Are you going to tell us all those gyrations they began

starting at Z226 were not in response to having been shot? Because if the
attack didn't start until Moorman took her picture, that is what you are
left with." <<<

And such a silly theory still wouldn't fly, simply because of Governor
Connally's very powerful testimony -- i.e., Connally was definitely hit
BEFORE the head shot. It was only AFTER he had been hit that he heard the
fatal head shot, and then was sprayed with falling debris/ blood/brain.
Connally wasn't covered with blood and brain PRIOR to being shot in the
back.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/21/2011 3:49 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "I thought the recreation for the ejecting shells was interesting and
> a new angle that as far as I know had never been done before."<<<
>
> The FBI's Robert Frazier did, indeed, perform such "Shell Ejection
> Pattern" tests in 1964:
>
> MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the
> cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139."
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the
> ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle
> at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port."
>
> EISENBERG -- "And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "Yes; I did."
>
> ===========
>
> Frazier's diagrams appear in WC volume 17 (CE546 and CE547):
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0134b.htm
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0135a.htm
>

But they did not try to duplicate the conditions of the sniper's nest. So
his test does not tell us if the shells could have landed where they were
found. I give Holland credit for at least trying to do a realistic test
recreating he layout of the boxes in the sniper's nest. But where did he
come up with the big box at the end of the row?

And the whole exercise is moot if Fritz the Klutz picked up the shells and
then threw them down.

[claviger]

Euins did not testify he saw a "colored man". You are relying on a
hearsay source. Under oath Euins consistently said he could not tell what
color the sniper was. He did say the sniper had a white spot on his head.
If this was a bald spot then the sniper was a white man.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

How hard would have been to place the laser in the grassy knoll? And
then play a little with the angles.

-Ramon

[Herbert Blenner]

On Nov 21, 9:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>
> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...
>
> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.

Did they compare the shapes of the laser spots on the back and the head of
their Kennedy simulation with the medically documented elongated and
elliptical wounds? The purpose of the comparison would have been to check
the striking angles of the beam.

Herbert

[Gerry Simone]

3 shots in 5.6 seconds barely without aiming (okay the 1st shot can be an
accurate aim), but it took 2.3 seconds just to operate the bolt.

Those You Tube videos have a guy who's practiced over and over again with
a bolt that doesn't jam (Ce2766 jammed 1 out of 6 times I believe) on a
flat surface shooting at a stationary target. Hardly a comparison.

"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f3497d9-b59f-49b5...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 21, 8:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
> The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>
> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...
>
> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>

> Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;
> and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> have been better, IMO.
>
> 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
> up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
> old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got

> a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw

[Gerry Simone]

Tony, the report said that if the bullet hit the housing of the traffic
light (the surrounding flat part), that it would've been damage noticeable
from the street, so it couldn't have hit the flat part around the round
lights.

They figured it had to hit a round pipe part coupling or the mast. They
tested against such a part point blank and it leaves a very small
indentation, but they couldn't check the last five feet.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ecabdf6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Gerry Simone]

Thanks Pat!

What about Euins comment that he saw a gunman in DVP's commentary?


<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:74613d4a-01a7-4d88...@y14g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Irrelevant. They were only trying to prove that Connally was in front of
JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

Doesn't matter. Larry Sturdivan overruled it with his LIE that any
bullet hitting JFK's head on the right side MUST exit the left side of
his head and hit Jackie. So the angle does not matter.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, according to your interpretation the shooter could not be Oswald
because he did not have a bald spot on the top of his head. Brilliant.

[Anthony Marsh]

Never rely on testimony. The Altgens photo is all we need to prove that
there were shots before the head shot.

[Herbert Blenner]

They did not need a laser to tell whether the Kennedy stand in
partially blocked their view of the Connally stand in.

Herbert

[Rick]

> One of the questions about this assassination is why didn't LHO shoot
> the President sooner on Houston St when the Limousine was approaching
> his window? The angle was better and the target was getting larger.
> One reason might be the SS guards could easily look up and return
> fire. By letting the Limousine make the turn the SS would be in an
> awkward position to return fire if they could even locate the sniper.
> For whatever reason, the first shot was at a bad angle which indicates
> an amateur sniper.

Exactly. The obvious reason Oswald didn't fire while the limo was on
Houston was that he would be in full view of the motorcade at that point and
would likely have been taken out by the SS before he could even get off a
shot. He waited for the limo to take the turn because he knew no one would
likely be looking backward at that point.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "More [conspiracy believers] agree on one shot causing both the back wound and the throat wound." <<<

I think you're dead wrong about that, Tony. Almost every CTer I've
ever encountered on the Internet thinks the throat wound is an entry.
Hence, they constantly cite Dr. Perry's early (and incorrect) analysis
of the origin of that wound.

Most CTers (online anyway) have never abandoned their devotion to
Perry's early declaration about the throat wound being a wound of
entry. And, thusly, those CTers need three separate bullets hitting
JFK's body, instead of the verified two that actually struck him.

Hence, those silly CTers are stuck with two bullets that go into JFK
but never come back out the other side--and (naturally) both of those
bullets totally vanish after the shooting without a trace.

[claviger]

The only possibility for a black man with a white spot on his head is
Bonnie Ray Williams when white dust fell in his hair. LHO had a
balding pattern with a receding hairline on either side. He may have
combed his hair so that only one side looked like a bald spot.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The Altgens photo is all we need to prove that there were shots before the head shot." <<<

And all of these additional pieces of photographic/film evidence prove
that fact, too:

The Zapruder Film.
The Nix Film.
The Muchmore Film.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > Euins did not testify he saw a "colored man".  You are relying on a
> > hearsay source.  Under oath Euins consistently said he could not tell what
> > color the sniper was.  He did say the sniper had a white spot on his head.
> > If this was a bald spot then the sniper was a white man.
>
> So, according to your interpretation the shooter could not be Oswald
> because he did not have a bald spot on the top of his head. Brilliant.

So how many black men have a white bald spot on top of their head?

[Don Roberdeau]

> a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
> the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
> It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
> I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.

Good Day David.... Boy, what an interesting personal revelation of
yours about EUINS.

(Personally, thinking back on it, I think TINA TOWNER looked good....
but in all honesty, I could have cared-less what anyone in that show
*looked* like:)

When you and I aolpm-chatted in early 2007, you admitted to me that
you had never tried to speak with, nor, had you ever interviewed even
one DP witness.... Perhaps, you could choose to take this opportunity
to actually contact EUINS and interview him for us - and ask him why
he's changed the number of shots he warrenatti-testified to that he
heard from 4, down to his current 3.... and, ask him about those last
2 being bunched distinctly closer, etc.

;{ )-]


Best Regards in Research,

Don


Donald Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

For your considerations....

Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and
Assassination Evidence,Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding
Researchers Discoveries and Considerations....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html


Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations,
Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories,
Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient
Resource.... http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif


Visual Report: "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while
JFK was Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif


Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. :
the Real World, versus, Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8543/realityvscad.gif


Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and
Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll"....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394


T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore


For the United States:

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/advisory7regional.gif

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/

[claviger]

On Nov 21, 9:23 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 3 shots in 5.6 seconds barely without aiming (okay the 1st shot can be an
> accurate aim), but it took 2.3 seconds just to operate the bolt.

This is a 'fafo' (fait faux) or as we might say in english: a
'fofact' (faux+fact). Blakey and Cornwell put that factoid to the
test and busted it completely:
THE MANNLICHER-CARCANO FIRING TEST
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

[PDF] HSCA Volume VIII: Acoustics Study - Addendum C. Memorandum ...
http://www.aarclibrary.org / publib / jfk / hsca / reportvols / vol8 /
pdf / HSCA_Vol8_AS_4C_Firing.pdf

So did the CBS firing range test in 1967:
John F. Kennedy assassination rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#Ballistics_Research_Laboratory_tests

> Those You Tube videos have a guy who's practiced over and over again with
> a bolt that doesn't jam (Ce2766 jammed 1 out of 6 times I believe) on a
> flat surface shooting at a stationary target.  Hardly a comparison.

See above.

[Don Roberdeau]

On Nov 21, 8:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 11/21/2011 9:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> > Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> > 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> > second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> > bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> > above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.
>

> He originally was looking for a dent on the support bar, not a hole.
> When he couldn't find any damage at all he changed his claim to a white
> spot on the traffic light frame itself. He never says bullet hole.

>
> > The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> > Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> > traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> > Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> > is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> As typical for kookspeak he just leaves a dangling question.

>
> >http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...
>
> >http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> > 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> > the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> > floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> > a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> > Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>

> Fine, since the sniper's nest is closed. But did you notice his little
> lie where he claimed that this was the first time since 11/22/63 that
> any shots were fired from that window? He overlooked or forgot the 1978
> shooting tests done for the HSCA.

>
> > Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> > "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> > "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> > I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;
>

> Part of the WC defender propaganda tricks and notice how Howlett repeats
> the WC lies about the placement of the men. And then the hoaky moving of
> the JFK standin showing the green laser dot hitting Connally's standin
> "exactly" where Connally was hit. Well, actually no the dot does not hit
> where Connally was actually hit. In the right armpit, not a few inches
> to the right of the midline of his back.
> And look where he placed the dot on JFK. Pure imagination, not matching
> the WC marking or the autopsy or the HSCA finding.

>
> > and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> > to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> > would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> > have been better, IMO.
>
> > 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
> > up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
> > old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got
> > a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
> > the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
> > It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
> > I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.
>

> Maybe he was the only witness still alive that Holland could find.
> But you gloss over how he lied about what Euins originally said. Holland
> dare not impeach his own witness by pointing out what he actually said.
> On 11/22/63 he said that the shooter was a colored man.
> He told the WC that he heard 4 shots.
> But neither of those support the WC so Holland leaves those out.
>
> http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/custom2.html
>
> Unfortunately, however, it remains in doubt when Brennan first began to
> claim that he had seen the shooter himself rather than only the rifle.
> In my judgment, the more reliable of the two witnesses is Amos Euins.
> Unlike Brennan, whose original statements cannot be reconstructed at
> all, Euins identified the TSBD shooter as a coloured man to a police
> motorcycle officer, David V. Harkness, within five minutes of the
> assassination. (6H310) Unfortunately, Harkness neglected to tell the
> Warren Commission that Euins had identifed the shooter to him as a
> coloured man. However, we know that Euins had done so because he was
> overheard speaking to Harkness by newsman, James R. Underwood of
> KRLD-TV, who had just alighted from the press car in which, sitting next
> to Bob Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald, he had been travelling in the
> motorcade. Underwood then questioned Euins further, establishing to his
> satisfaction that Euins had seen a coloured man shooting. (6H170)
> Euins’s testimony therefore supports the view that the shooter had been
> Rowland’s elderly negro.
> It is true that in an affidavit taken in the Sheriff’s Department on
> November 22, 1963, Euins states that the gunman ‘was a white man.’
> (16H963) But when he was deposed by the Warren Commission, Euins, while
> not going so far as to state that he had seen a black man, did insist
> that his Sheriff’s Department deposition was incorrect and that he had
> never identified the man as a white man. His explanation was that the
> person taking down his statement had misinterpreted his reference to a
> ‘white spot’ on the man’s head for the identification of a white man.
> (2H208) Taking into account the considerable pressure he seems to have
> been under to admit that he had originally identified the gunman as a
> white man, denying that the man had been white seems to have been as far
> as Euins felt able to go in the intimidating situation in which he had
> suddenly found himself. (2H204, 205-6, 207) We can be certain that if
> Euins had been as tenacious a personality as Rowland he would have
> insisted that the shooter had been a coloured man.
> There are two reasons why Euins’s testimony should be regarded as
> reliable. First of all, Euins’s identification is consistent with
> Rowland’s description of the elderly negro in two significant respects:
> it placed the coloured man in the southeast window and it associated him
> with a bald spot. By emphasizing that the man had had a bald spot, it is
> clear that Euins had seen the exact same man Rowland identified as the
> elderly negro. (2H204, 205-6, 207) Although the white man could
> conceivably have moved from the western to the eastern window in time to
> fire the shots, the bald spot could not have magically transferred
> itself from the elderly negro’s head to his own. The only way the matter
> of the bald spot could have arisen at all is if Euins really had seen
> the elderly negro shooting.
> Second, Euins’s identification of the shooter in the southeast window as
> a coloured man was voluntary, spontaneous, and immediate. It can be
> securely dated to a few minutes after the assassination, when Euins
> could not have known that Rowland and several other witnesses had also
> seen a coloured man on the sixth floor. That Euins did indeed tell
> Underwood that he had seen a black gunman seems confirmed by an early
> news report overheard in New York by lawyer Mark Lane. In his book
> Plausible Denial (1991), Lane records hearing a news bulletin about the
> assassination at the press room inside the Criminal Court Building in
> lower Manhattan shortly after 1pm (EST):
>
> A voice from Dallas: “It is thought that a Negro was involved in the
> assassination attempt.” A black courtroom attendant shift from one foot
> to the other as he tried to look innocent. The others in the room tried
> not to stare at him. (p. 13)
>
> Lane’s anecdote verifies the early circulation of a report indicating
> that the assassin had been black. This report had reached New York at a
> time when Lee Harvey Oswald had not even been apprehended. On present
> information, there is no alternative explanation for the diffusion of
> this story other than Euins via Underwood. In short, Euins really did
> tell Harkness and Underwood within minutes of the assassination that he
> had seen a coloured shooter.

>
> > Former Secret Service agent John J. Howlett and Dealey Plaza witnesses
> > Tina Towner and James Tague also made appearances. And Max Holland&
> > Co. definitely want America to believe that Tague was wounded by
> > Oswald's FIRST shot, although Tague (at least prior to 2011) always
> > maintained he wasn't stung in the face by the first bullet. He always
> > said it was a later shot that struck him.
>

> But Holland will never reveal that. That's why he needs critics to keep
> him honest.

>
> > 4.) A detailed digital restoration of several of the assassination
> > films was done for the program, including the films taken by Abraham
> > Zapruder, Robert Hughes, Tina Towner, Mark Bell, and Elsie Dorman.
> > (And, perhaps, the Orville Nix film too. I can't recall if they said
> > the Nix film was actually digitally enhanced or not, but maybe it
> > was.)
>
> > And while the restoration of the films was nice to see (albeit in very
> > choppy, interrupted segments--a few seconds here, then a few seconds
> > there), I can't really see where it actually aided Mr. Holland's cause
> > in coming to his unique conclusion that Oswald's first (missed) shot
> > struck the traffic light PRIOR to Zapruder frame 133 (i.e., prior to
> > the time when Zapruder resumed filming the motorcade after briefly
> > stopping his camera).
>

> I particularly enjoyed the fact that they dug up the 35mm print and
> digitized it in HD. I hope the whole film with be a bonus feature on the
> DVD. It may also have the actual shooting tests.
> How long before we have new Costella frames?

>
> > In fact, the film that helped Holland by far the most wasn't an
> > "assassination" film at all. It was, instead, the film taken by the
> > U.S. Secret Service on November 27, 1963, during a filmed
> > reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza (the film which shows
> > what appears to be a possible defect, or hole, in the traffic light
> > structure).
>
> > 5.) A pretty large mistake was made by the narrator near the start of
> > the 1-hour "Lost Bullet" show, when he said that both lone-assassin
> > believers and conspiracists alike agree on the fact that just TWO
> > bullets struck President Kennedy and just ONE bullet struck Governor
> > Connally.
>

> Not sure that was just an innocent mistake. Sounds more like a blatant lie.

>
> > I don't know where the "Lost Bullet" script writers got their
> > information, but as we all know here on these Internet forums, there
> > are many, many conspiracy theorists who believe that JFK was struck by
> > more than just two bullets on November 22nd.
>

> Not only that, but they seem unaware of the fact that the very first
> SBT, advanced by the doctors, said Connally was hit by two different
> bullets.

>
> > In fact, from my online experience, the vast majority of conspiracists
> > who participate regularly in Internet discussions firmly believe that
> > a MINIMUM of three shots struck JFK's body; and many of those CTers
>

> I don't think it is a vast majority any more. Many conspiracy believers
> have abandoned the two shots to the head and more agree on one shot

> causing both the back wound and the throat wound.
>

> > also think Connally was hit at least twice. (And if you happen to be
> > in league with James H. Fetzer, then you believe that a total of SEVEN
> > bullets struck the two victims -- 4 bullets hit Kennedy and 3 hit
> > Connally -- which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario, of course.)
>

> Yeah, Fetzer and all 5 of his supporters.

>
> > 6.) The "Lost Bullet" producers tried to pass off an audio clip of
> > NBC's Tom Pettit describing the shooting of Oswald as actually being a
> > description of the frenzied scene in Dealey Plaza after JFK was shot.
> > An interesting piece of deception there. No big deal, of course. But
> > it certainly wasn't accurate.
>

> We can be sure that if Oliver Stone did that we'd never hear the end of it.

>
> > Overall, I think "JFK: The Lost Bullet" was just a "so-so"
> > documentary. Not too bad. But certainly not great either. The restored
> > film clips were nice to see, especially the Dorman and Towner films,
> > which looked really crisp and sharp. But it didn't look to me like the
> > Zapruder Film was any clearer or sharper than the 1998 MPI restored
> > digital copy that I own, or the stabilized version that I have on one
> > of my webpages (below):
>

> Shouldn't 35 mm be bigger than 8 mm?

>
> >http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
>
> > And the laser-beam test that was done from the approximate (but not
> > exact) position of where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from was also
> > fairly good, but, as mentioned, I would have liked to see some more
> > details of that laser test, particularly from a variety of camera
> > angles, to confirm the correct alignment of the two limo victims.
>
> > I can hear the conspiracy theorists' complaints about that SBT laser
> > test now -- "They didn't have the angles right at all!" -- "The wounds
> > are in the wrong places altogether!" -- "They didn't fire any REAL
> > bullets into the stand-ins!" -- "They didn't even go INTO the building
> > to do the test! They were perched on a crane OUTSIDE the sixth floor!
> > So this test is worthless!" -- Etc., etc.
>
> > Max Holland's "11 second" and "Traffic Light" theories could possibly
> > be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course. And since
> > Max is attempting to fill in a gap concerning the shot that MISSED the
> > limousine's occupants, it becomes a very difficult (if not impossible)
> > task to really "prove" anything beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
> > the timing of Oswald's first shot and what happened to that bullet
> > after it left LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>

> Like all kooks Holland can not prove his theory so he challenges others
> to prove it wrong.

>
> > Holland didn't address the problem that his theory has with respect to
> > one very important timing issue -- that being: John Connally's
> > "timing" of that first shot. More about that can be found in this 2007
> > post of mine:
>

> And he glosses over a critical issue I brought up. As Howlett admits,
> JFK's hands are up in front of his throat when he emerges from behind
> the sign. Thus no bullet can exit his throat and go on to hit Connally
> at frame 224.>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...

>
> > David Von Pein
> > November 20-21, 2011

Good Day Tony.... Excellent summation for EUINS first statements.
Thank You.

[Don Roberdeau]

On Nov 21, 4:47 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:790b1e8d-4967-4381...@c4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I began watching last night but fell asleep about halfway through (a
> > common occurence when I am watching TV at night while sipping whiskey). I
> > watched the second half on the DVR this morning.
>
> > I agree with what DVP has said and will throw in my own two cents.
>
> > One thing that jumped out at me early was when Holland said he had never
> > heard anyone discuss the possibility that Oswald's first shot might have
> > deflected off the traffic light/support. Really? That sure isn't a new
> > idea to me. I can't remember when I first heard that offered as a possible
> > explaination but I know it has come up many times before.
>
> > I don't think the laser recreation was anything more than a pretty good
> > approximation. Since the bullet hit while JFK was behind the sign, he
> > couldn't have positioned him exactly like he was when the bullet struck.
> > If he was positioning the subjects as they were seen in the Z-film, the
> > earliest frame he could use was Z225, which would have been pretty close
> > but not exact. Since JBC was rotating leftward at the time, he would have
> > been more forward facing at Z225 than he was when the bullet hit a few
> > frames earlier. Still, it did show that JBC was in the direct line of fire
> > for a bullet passing straight through JFK and that no wild deflection or
> > zigzagging bullet would have been necessary for the bullet to strike him
> > where it did.

>
> > I thought the recreation for the ejecting shells was interesting and a new

> > angle that as far as I know had never been done before. While not proving
> > anything with certainty, it did suggest that Oswald's rifle was in a
> > different position for one of the three shots which is consistent with the
> > rifle being pointed more vertically for the earliest shot. I think this
> > would be true whether the shot came around Z160 or when Holland suggests
> > it happened.
>
> > After making a reasonable argument for their case that the traffic light
> > deflected the bullet, it was mentioned that the research time wanted to
> > know what would happen to a high powered bullet after striking the traffic
> > light. I expect that they were going to conduct just such an experiment
> > but they never did. Without the benefit of such a recreation, it seems
> > unlikely to me that a bullet striking that light would have been
> > redirected toward Tague. It seems to me it would be more likely to deflect
> > the bullet downward rather than forward, but without that recreation, we
> > are just guessing. Holland didn't do much for his case by failing to do
> > such a thing. It is also possible that the traffic light caused the shot
> > to miss but a fragment from a later shot caused Tague's injury.
>
> > The figure in the window in the Hughes film doesn't seem to be aiming a
> > rifle so if Oswald did take the shot as early as Holland proposes, there
> > would have been little time to aim the rifle. This could have had more to
> > do with the bad miss than the traffic light.
>
> > I said before the show aired, that I would watch it with an open but
> > skeptical mind. After watching it, I remain open minded and skeptical.
> > Holland made some good arguments, but not good enough to make me believe
> > the shot happened as early as he claims. Maybe it did, but I don't think
> > that is the most likely answer. I did have a problem when he argued that
> > those who don't buy his theory need to offer a better explaination. It is
> > not logical to take the position that if we don't know what other
> > explaination there is, it must be this. I think we are all guilty of doing
> > that at one time or another, but it still makes no sense. Holland failed
> > to make a convincing case for his theory. As it stands, I see it as a
> > possibility but not the most likely one.
>
> Funny, LNers always cite Occam's Razor against CTers along the rationale
> that Holland prefers his theory (frankly, OR's is inappropriate to disprove
> one theory over another - it's just a method of choosing a scientific theory
> over another before it is proven).
>
> I couldn't watch it up here in the land of the true north, strong and free,
> but after reading that technical write-up that McAdams posted, I can't
> believe that the deflected bullet core from a traffic signal light/assembly
> would ricochet off the turf to reach the curb near Tague.  It rained that
> day, so the sod would be moist, and chances are, would absorb or 'swallow'
> that bullet fragment, if it happened that way.


Good Day Gerry.... THAT is an excellent point about any bullet/bullet
fragment being more likely to have been absorbed into the DP's wet
ground.... I do not believe I have ever considered that before.
Thanks.

[Don Roberdeau]

On Nov 21, 4:45 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 6:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> > Geographic documentary, "JFK: The Lost Bullet":
>
> > 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> > second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible
> > bullet hole in a portion of the metal traffic-light frame which hung
> > above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.

> > The traffic-light defect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,
> > Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that
> > traffic-light defect was caused by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey
> > Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> > is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>

> >http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...
>
> >http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> > 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "Lost Bullet" researchers re-staged
> > the Single-Bullet Theory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth
> > floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> > a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> > Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>

> > Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> > "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> > "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> > I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;

> > and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> > to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> > would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> > have been better, IMO.
>
> > 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned
> > up for the "Lost Bullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-
> > old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got
> > a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
> > the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
> > It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
> > I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.
>

> > Former Secret Service agent John J. Howlett and Dealey Plaza witnesses
> > Tina Towner and James Tague also made appearances. And Max Holland &
> > Co. definitely want America to believe that Tague was wounded by
> > Oswald's FIRST shot, although Tague (at least prior to 2011) always
> > maintained he wasn't stung in the face by the first bullet. He always
> > said it was a later shot that struck him.
>

> > 4.) A detailed digital restoration of several of the assassination
> > films was done for the program, including the films taken by Abraham
> > Zapruder, Robert Hughes, Tina Towner, Mark Bell, and Elsie Dorman.
> > (And, perhaps, the Orville Nix film too. I can't recall if they said
> > the Nix film was actually digitally enhanced or not, but maybe it
> > was.)
>
> > And while the restoration of the films was nice to see (albeit in very
> > choppy, interrupted segments--a few seconds here, then a few seconds
> > there), I can't really see where it actually aided Mr. Holland's cause
> > in coming to his unique conclusion that Oswald's first (missed) shot
> > struck the traffic light PRIOR to Zapruder frame 133 (i.e., prior to
> > the time when Zapruder resumed filming the motorcade after briefly
> > stopping his camera).
>

> > In fact, the film that helped Holland by far the most wasn't an
> > "assassination" film at all. It was, instead, the film taken by the
> > U.S. Secret Service on November 27, 1963, during a filmed
> > reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza (the film which shows
> > what appears to be a possible defect, or hole, in the traffic light
> > structure).
>
> > 5.) A pretty large mistake was made by the narrator near the start of
> > the 1-hour "Lost Bullet" show, when he said that both lone-assassin
> > believers and conspiracists alike agree on the fact that just TWO
> > bullets struck President Kennedy and just ONE bullet struck Governor
> > Connally.
>

> > I don't know where the "Lost Bullet" script writers got their
> > information, but as we all know here on these Internet forums, there
> > are many, many conspiracy theorists who believe that JFK was struck by
> > more than just two bullets on November 22nd.
>

> > In fact, from my online experience, the vast majority of conspiracists
> > who participate regularly in Internet discussions firmly believe that
> > a MINIMUM of three shots struck JFK's body; and many of those CTers

> > also think Connally was hit at least twice. (And if you happen to be
> > in league with James H. Fetzer, then you believe that a total of SEVEN
> > bullets struck the two victims -- 4 bullets hit Kennedy and 3 hit
> > Connally -- which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario, of course.)
>

> > 6.) The "Lost Bullet" producers tried to pass off an audio clip of
> > NBC's Tom Pettit describing the shooting of Oswald as actually being a
> > description of the frenzied scene in Dealey Plaza after JFK was shot.
> > An interesting piece of deception there. No big deal, of course. But
> > it certainly wasn't accurate.
>

> > Overall, I think "JFK: The Lost Bullet" was just a "so-so"
> > documentary. Not too bad. But certainly not great either. The restored
> > film clips were nice to see, especially the Dorman and Towner films,
> > which looked really crisp and sharp. But it didn't look to me like the
> > Zapruder Film was any clearer or sharper than the 1998 MPI restored
> > digital copy that I own, or the stabilized version that I have on one
> > of my webpages (below):
>

> >http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
>
> > And the laser-beam test that was done from the approximate (but not
> > exact) position of where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from was also
> > fairly good, but, as mentioned, I would have liked to see some more
> > details of that laser test, particularly from a variety of camera
> > angles, to confirm the correct alignment of the two limo victims.
>
> > I can hear the conspiracy theorists' complaints about that SBT laser
> > test now -- "They didn't have the angles right at all!" -- "The wounds
> > are in the wrong places altogether!" -- "They didn't fire any REAL
> > bullets into the stand-ins!" -- "They didn't even go INTO the building
> > to do the test! They were perched on a crane OUTSIDE the sixth floor!
> > So this test is worthless!" -- Etc., etc.
>
> > Max Holland's "11 second" and "Traffic Light" theories could possibly
> > be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course. And since
> > Max is attempting to fill in a gap concerning the shot that MISSED the
> > limousine's occupants, it becomes a very difficult (if not impossible)
> > task to really "prove" anything beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
> > the timing of Oswald's first shot and what happened to that bullet
> > after it left LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>

> > Holland didn't address the problem that his theory has with respect to
> > one very important timing issue -- that being: John Connally's
> > "timing" of that first shot. More about that can be found in this 2007
> > post of mine:
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...
>
> > David Von Pein
> > November 20-21, 2011
>

> David, you missed the most revealing moment in the program. After
> pretending Euins had described a shot as early as Holland was
> proposing, it claimed ""Euins has lived most of his life outside the
> media spotlight, but his story remains the same--that all three shots,
> including bullet C, came from the sixth floor of the book depository,
> not from the grassy knoll."
>
> Arrggghhh. Most everyone on this forum knows Euins testified to
> hearing FOUR shots, not three! Holland certainly knows this as well.
> As a result, it's hard not to conclude this deception was a deliberate
> lie...as was much of the program. I mean, let's get real, they
> pretended Tina Towner's comments supported that the first shot was
> fired when Holland believes it was--when her film shows her to be
> still filming when the limo was 20 feet or so past where he claims the
> first shot was fired, and she has always claimed the first shot was
> fired a second or so after she stopped filming.
>
> Holland's theory is nonsense, and the program was one of the worst
> ones yet. As time passes, one would think the politics of the shooting
> would fade, and the unbiased presentation of facts improve. But it
> seems to only get worse.

Hi Pat.... I agree with every word you wrote.

The bias's were ever-transparent and evident. (as with 80+% of the
lame-stream "journalists" and "reporters" these decades)

First very thing I said when AMOS EUINS gave statements in this
2011TLB show was that he warrenatti-testified to 4 shots (EUINS was a
ROTC member with experience around guns and experience firing a .22
rifle prior to the attack).... yet in the show EUINS still exampled to
HOLLAND that the last 2 shots he remembered were bunched distinctly
closer than the first 2. (as many of the witnesses, close witnesses,
and weapons-experienced witnesses also detailed for us, and, even the
WC admitted in its canard).... Would loved to have seen a split-screen
- with one screen on HOLLAND's face - when EUINS exampled the shots
were bunched.... at least the producers left it in that EUINS states
now that the shots were bunched. (IIRC, the warrenatti never even
asked about that the shots were bunched)

There were several transparent attempts at subliminal LN-oriented
persuasion, also.... one of the most obvious being, for example, in
the show's first several showings of Z-313+, the producers are so
obviously "afraid" (for lack of a better word) of the head shot
segment that they chose to edit and extremely rapidly cut away from it
(sometimes even before Z-321 when JFK bounced-off his seat back) or
the producers rapidly cut and shifted into the next show segment, not
allowing the viewer to see the full head/arm/torso "back-and-to-the-
left" propelling motions, no matter what you think propelled President
KENNEDY that way.

Also, was it my imagination, or did the ZAP 35mm HD-enhanced copy used
in the show have an overall noticeable more amount of "water" spot
defects? I actually thought the brightness on the ZAP35-HD was
enhanced a bit too much.

I also noticed that in one showing of the key Z-170+ segment, the
producers displayed that very key segment as shaking noticeably even
much MORE than even Mr. ZAPRUDER shook it (per the MCI copy) during
his pre-313 largest shaking's. Like the non-detail seen of the
producers HUGHES film SL crop, the ZAP35-HD-170 to 208 frames were
crap when it came to revealing key details and considerations.

TINA TOWNER stated the 1st shot she remembered happened a second or
two after she quit filming, yet HOLLAND/producers tried to use her as
support for HOLLAND's "theory" of where they had placed the limo when
they interviewed her.

Did you notice how during the well-stabilized NIX film head shot
motion sequence the producers crop-tightened in on the limo, only, and
they had employed-edited that cropped view with a bright circular
highlight around only JFK & JBK, but they surround-darkened the limo
everywhere else, including their darkening the trunk area and above
the trunk area?

BTW, how much was HOLLAND given circa 2001for his (still-
unpublicized) JFK assassination book advance? (I've read differing
amount$)

I took note of much more in this....show.... but that is enough for
now.

This show's producers (and maybe/probably HOLLAND along with them)
knew ahead of time exactly what they wanted, and did not want, to
choose to highlight to the GP = general population.

[Anthony Marsh]

Almost, not quite. The difference is apples and oranges. The WC was
using Oswald's rifle. Blakey was not. He was using a different rifle.
Oswald's rifle was in terrible shape when they tested it.
And Blakey did not aim at any targets.
Later marksmen claim to be able to shoot all 6 rounds of a clip in 7
seconds.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. I am showing you the implications of your stance. Oswald did not
have a bald spot, white spot on his head.
OTOH when you look at the Dillard photo you can see a white highlight on
the hair of the three black men on the fifth floor. That's probably what
Euins saw and why he thought the shooter was a black man.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/22/2011 8:55 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "More [conspiracy believers] agree on one shot causing both the back wound and the throat wound."<<<
>
> I think you're dead wrong about that, Tony. Almost every CTer I've
> ever encountered on the Internet thinks the throat wound is an entry.

Not true. Even in this forum will only find a couple of conspiracy
believers who think that. Most of the old time researchers do not think
that.

> Hence, they constantly cite Dr. Perry's early (and incorrect) analysis
> of the origin of that wound.
>

Who is this "they" who "constantly cite"?
Maybe one or two people.

> Most CTers (online anyway) have never abandoned their devotion to
> Perry's early declaration about the throat wound being a wound of
> entry. And, thusly, those CTers need three separate bullets hitting
> JFK's body, instead of the verified two that actually struck him.
>

Silly. You could also bring up the Fletcher Prouty and Bob Cutler kooks
who think the throat wound was caused by a dart. THAT's not two BULLETS.
Or you could cite the Fetzerites who claim there were two back wounds.
Or you could cite the Liftonites who claim all the shots came from the
front and any back wounds were created artificially.
And if you're really desperate you could cite one kook who thinks that
the head wound came from the SS.
But you won't because you agenda is to smear ALL conspiracy believers
and label them all as kooks so that you don't have to debate them. It's
called Poisoning the Well, which you WC defenders use so often.

> Hence, those silly CTers are stuck with two bullets that go into JFK
> but never come back out the other side--and (naturally) both of those
> bullets totally vanish after the shooting without a trace.
>

Nope, your autopsy doctors were stuck with theorizing about an ice
bullet which melted rather than exiting. Because you put this case in
the hands of incompetents.

[Anthony Marsh]

That sounds good on paper, but it does not work in real life. Sarah Jane
Moore got off a shot before the SS spotted her. No one spotted Hinckley
before he was able to fire. I would like to see you accurately return
fire from the running board at a sniper in some unknown window in front
of you. Then again I guess Hickey could have sprayed the whole building
with his AR-15 and killed a dozen innocent spectators. But his boss
might frown on such habits.
Given how long it took ANYONE to react the shooter could not have been
stopped in time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Keep trying to make excuses. Maybe his face was so dirty that he looked
like a black man?

[Sandy McCroskey]

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "David, you missed the most revealing moment in the program. After
> pretending Euins had described a shot as early as Holland was proposing,
> it claimed ""Euins has lived most of his life outside the media spotlight,
> but his story remains the same--that all three shots, including bullet C,
> came from the sixth floor of the book depository, not from the grassy
> knoll." Arrggghhh. Most everyone on this forum knows Euins testified to
> hearing FOUR shots, not three!" <<<
>

> Yes, good point, Pat. Very good.
>
> And Amos Euins, in his 1964 WC testimony, absolutely did say he heard
> "four [shots], to be exact":
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "How many shots did you hear altogether?"
> AMOS EUINS -- "I believe there was four, to be exact."
>
>

Seems to me that this doesn't actually contradict what the show (which I
haven't seen) said (though the point could have been phrased more
carefully). We know there were three shots. Amos Euins thought he heard
one more, but his story, unchanged to this date, was that all the shots he
heard seemed to come from the sixth floor of the book depository, not from
the grassy knoll.


/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

I think the point is that WC defenders misstate what witnesses said in
order to prop up the WC.
Did you hear Euins rule OUT the grassy knoll. Several witnesses
immediately said the grassy knoll and then after the WCR came out they
said the TSBD.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Nov 21, 9:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

What they did is an insult to the viewership and lack of journalistic
integrity.

Whatever happened to the obligation to report the other side? Is this
"fair and balanced"?? Oooops, I now realize that NatGeo is owned by
Faux! So much for fairness...

-Ramon

[bigdog]

What else would you expect of a back shooting little weasel? He didn't
even have the guts to face JFK as he shot him dead.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/22/2011 3:56 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:30 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 8:52 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> How hard would have been to place the laser in the grassy knoll? And
>>> then play a little with the angles.
>>
>>> -Ramon
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Larry Sturdivan overruled it with his LIE that any
>> bullet hitting JFK's head on the right side MUST exit the left side of
>> his head and hit Jackie. So the angle does not matter.
>
> What they did is an insult to the viewership and lack of journalistic
> integrity.
>

News Corp.

> Whatever happened to the obligation to report the other side? Is this
> "fair and balanced"?? Oooops, I now realize that NatGeo is owned by
> Faux! So much for fairness...
>

I think the Supreme Court struck that down.

> -Ramon
>
>

[David Von Pein]

>>> "When you and I [Don Roberdeau] aolpm-chatted in early 2007, you admitted to me that you had never tried to speak with, nor, had you ever interviewed even one DP witness.... Perhaps, you could choose to take this opportunity to actually contact EUINS and interview him for us - and ask him why he's changed the number of shots he warrenatti-testified to that he heard from 4, down to his current 3.... and, ask him about those last 2 being bunched distinctly closer, etc." <<<

Good idea. That's a mystery to me.

And my earlier comments about Euins looking good obviously had nothing
to do with ANYTHING at all pertaining to the evidence in the case, or
to how reliable or unreliable a witness Euins might be, etc.

And I'm detecting a little "dig" of another sordid sort in your
comments too, Don. (But maybe that was unintentional, eh?) :)

And, yes, Tina Towner, indeed, looked pretty good too.

But if you REALLY want to see someone "looking good", watch the first
video on my Olivia Newton-John webpage below. This is enough to make
any red-blooded American male want to forget about the Grassy Knoll
and the Depositiory for a few minutes (even on the anniversary of the
assassination). ~grin~ .....

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/06/olivia-newton-john.html

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Nope, your autopsy doctors were stuck with theorizing about an ice bullet which melted rather than exiting. Because you put this case in the hands of incompetents." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only a person like Anthony Marsh would have enough brass to call a
group of men (H,B,&F) "incompetents" regarding a certain issue
(whether or not the bullet that hit JFK in the back exited his throat)
-- even when that SAME GROUP OF MEN came to the obviously CORRECT
conclusion concerning that bullet in their final autopsy report.

And I also like knowing (thanks to Tony) that it was ME, personally,
who "put this case" into the hands of Humes, Boswell, and Finck some
48 years ago today.

Tony must be in league with Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell -- just blame
EVERYBODY in the whole country for Kennedy getting shot.

Tony, you're a gem.

[caer...@yahoo.com]

Perhaps the only thing I wish had been mentioned in the program, which
wasn't, was the business about more witnesses than otherwise saying that
shots one and two were farther apart, which does support a somewhat
earlier first shot.

John King

[Rick]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ecbd16f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

But Oswald would have no way of knowing any of that. Moore and Hinckley
didn't make their attempts until more than a decade later. No one had
made an attempt on a president since 1950, so this was totally uncharted
territory. From Oswald's perspective, he sees the limo coming toward him
with SS agents on the running boards looking forward in his direction and
presumably scanning windows. He knows the TSBD would dominate the view of
anyone coming down Houston St., and he'd have to no reason to doubt the
legendary efficiency of the SS agents, so why take a chance in firing at
the oncoming car? It would make perfect sense for him to wait until the
limo turned away from him to fire his shots.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

You are referring to legislated equal time. I am referring to the
moral duty not to mislead the readers/viewers

-Ramon

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/22/2011 6:57 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Nope, your autopsy doctors were stuck with theorizing about an ice bullet which melted rather than exiting. Because you put this case in the hands of incompetents."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Only a person like Anthony Marsh would have enough brass to call a
> group of men (H,B,&F) "incompetents" regarding a certain issue
> (whether or not the bullet that hit JFK in the back exited his throat)
> -- even when that SAME GROUP OF MEN came to the obviously CORRECT
> conclusion concerning that bullet in their final autopsy report.
>

No, many forensic pathologists have said the same thing.
So you are vouching that there was a bullet wound near the EOP and all
the HSCA forensic pathologists were wrong?

> And I also like knowing (thanks to Tony) that it was ME, personally,
> who "put this case" into the hands of Humes, Boswell, and Finck some
> 48 years ago today.
>

You are wedded to the incompetence of the Bethesda doctors.

[Sean Smiley]

Taking this down a different avenue.... Didn't witness Arnold Rowland
(belatedly) say that he saw a black man on the 6th floor?
dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Nov 21, 4:49 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 12:51 pm, Island <raynefa...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here are some of my random thoughts about Max Holland's 2011 National
> > > Geographic documentary, "JFK: TheLostBullet":
>
> > > 1.) Assassination researcher Max Holland attempted to bolster his "11
> > > second" shooting timeline with an interesting discovery: A possible

> > >bullethole in a portion of the metaltraffic-lightframe which hung

> > > above Elm Street on 11/22/63 when President Kennedy was assassinated.

> > > Thetraffic-lightdefect can be clearly seen in the November 27, 1963,

> > > Secret Service re-enactment film (photo below). Now, whether that

> > >traffic-lightdefect was caused by abulletfired from Lee Harvey

> > > Oswald's rifle, no one can say for sure (not even Max Holland). But it
> > > is an intriguing discovery nonetheless.
>
> > >http://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e20153930d7bce970...
>
> > >http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/1963-secret-service-film.html
>
> > > 2.) Via laser beam technology, the "LostBullet" researchers re-staged

> > > the Single-BulletTheory. The laser-beam "shooter" wasn't on the sixth

> > > floor exactly, but instead was perched outside the sniper's window on
> > > a crane or cherry-picker device that hoisted him six floors above Elm
> > > Street. His "shot" lined up (generally) with the SBT shot.
>
> > > Although it would have been nice to see some more details of this
> > > "SBT" part of the program, which was very brief, and only showed the
> > > "victims" (the stand-ins for JFK and Connally) in tight close-ups, and
> > > I really couldn't tell if the men were lined up correctly in the car;
> > > and I couldn't really tell whether they had Connally turned far enough
> > > to his right. And there was no indication of where the "laser shot"
> > > would have exited on JFK's body. So this segment, while okay, could
> > > have been better, IMO.
>
> > > 3.) Some assassination figures who haven't been seen in decades turned

> > > up for the "LostBullet" filming in Dealey Plaza, including 63-year-

> > > old Amos Euins, who was a key witness on 11/22/63, as he actually got

> > > a look at the gunman on the sixth floor of the Depository, and he saw
> > > the rifle in the window, which Euins said resembled a "pipe" to him.
> > > It's good to see Amos again. And, boy, he looks great at age 63 too.
> > > I'd swear he was in his 40s or early 50s.
>
> > > Former Secret Service agent John J. Howlett and Dealey Plaza witnesses
> > > Tina Towner and James Tague also made appearances. And Max Holland &
> > > Co. definitely want America to believe that Tague was wounded by
> > > Oswald's FIRST shot, although Tague (at least prior to 2011) always

> > > maintained he wasn't stung in the face by the firstbullet. He always

> > > said it was a later shot that struck him.
>
> > > 4.) A detailed digital restoration of several of the assassination
> > > films was done for the program, including the films taken by Abraham
> > > Zapruder, Robert Hughes, Tina Towner, Mark Bell, and Elsie Dorman.
> > > (And, perhaps, the Orville Nix film too. I can't recall if they said
> > > the Nix film was actually digitally enhanced or not, but maybe it
> > > was.)
>
> > > And while the restoration of the films was nice to see (albeit in very
> > > choppy, interrupted segments--a few seconds here, then a few seconds
> > > there), I can't really see where it actually aided Mr. Holland's cause
> > > in coming to his unique conclusion that Oswald's first (missed) shot

> > > struck thetrafficlightPRIOR to Zapruder frame 133 (i.e., prior to

> > > the time when Zapruder resumed filming the motorcade after briefly
> > > stopping his camera).
>
> > > In fact, the film that helped Holland by far the most wasn't an
> > > "assassination" film at all. It was, instead, the film taken by the
> > > U.S. Secret Service on November 27, 1963, during a filmed
> > > reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza (the film which shows
> > > what appears to be a possible defect, or hole, in thetrafficlight
> > > structure).
>
> > > 5.) A pretty large mistake was made by the narrator near the start of

> > > the 1-hour "LostBullet" show, when he said that both lone-assassin

> > > believers and conspiracists alike agree on the fact that just TWO

> > > bullets struck President Kennedy and just ONEbulletstruck Governor
> > > Connally.
>
> > > I don't know where the "LostBullet" script writers got their

> > > information, but as we all know here on these Internet forums, there
> > > are many, many conspiracy theorists who believe that JFK was struck by
> > > more than just two bullets on November 22nd.
>
> > > In fact, from my online experience, the vast majority of conspiracists
> > > who participate regularly in Internet discussions firmly believe that
> > > a MINIMUM of three shots struck JFK's body; and many of those CTers
> > > also think Connally was hit at least twice. (And if you happen to be
> > > in league with James H. Fetzer, then you believe that a total of SEVEN
> > > bullets struck the two victims -- 4 bullets hit Kennedy and 3 hit
> > > Connally -- which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario, of course.)
>

> > > 6.) The "LostBullet" producers tried to pass off an audio clip of

> > > NBC's Tom Pettit describing the shooting of Oswald as actually being a
> > > description of the frenzied scene in Dealey Plaza after JFK was shot.
> > > An interesting piece of deception there. No big deal, of course. But
> > > it certainly wasn't accurate.
>

> > > Overall, I think "JFK: TheLostBullet" was just a "so-so"

> > > documentary. Not too bad. But certainly not great either. The restored
> > > film clips were nice to see, especially the Dorman and Towner films,
> > > which looked really crisp and sharp. But it didn't look to me like the
> > > Zapruder Film was any clearer or sharper than the 1998 MPI restored
> > > digital copy that I own, or the stabilized version that I have on one
> > > of my webpages (below):
>
> > >http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
>
> > > And the laser-beam test that was done from the approximate (but not
> > > exact) position of where Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from was also
> > > fairly good, but, as mentioned, I would have liked to see some more
> > > details of that laser test, particularly from a variety of camera
> > > angles, to confirm the correct alignment of the two limo victims.
>
> > > I can hear the conspiracy theorists' complaints about that SBT laser
> > > test now -- "They didn't have the angles right at all!" -- "The wounds
> > > are in the wrong places altogether!" -- "They didn't fire any REAL
> > > bullets into the stand-ins!" -- "They didn't even go INTO the building
> > > to do the test! They were perched on a crane OUTSIDE the sixth floor!
> > > So this test is worthless!" -- Etc., etc.
>

> > > Max Holland's "11 second" and "TrafficLight" theories could possibly

> > > be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course. And since
> > > Max is attempting to fill in a gap concerning the shot that MISSED the
> > > limousine's occupants, it becomes a very difficult (if not impossible)
> > > task to really "prove" anything beyond all reasonable doubt regarding
> > > the timing of Oswald's first shot and what happened to thatbullet
> > > after it left LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>
> > > Holland didn't address the problem that his theory has with respect to
> > > one very important timing issue -- that being: John Connally's
> > > "timing" of that first shot. More about that can be found in this 2007
> > > post of mine:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df7ca678545b...
>
> > > David Von Pein
> > > November 20-21, 2011
>

> > Having been 11 when this savage, mysterious event occurred it has
> > amazed me all the twists and turns the story has taken over the years.
> > Every couple of years the JFK parade car gets backed up more and more
> > & I suspect in time there will be some Naat Geo or other TV program
> > claiming the attack started on Main Street.
> > As for me, I still go with what Mary Moorman said in her live Internet
> > interview earlier this year that the attack began when she took her
> > photo.
> > I realize this doesn't jive with what others who were there also have
> > said but it works for me. I'm not going to argue with her. There are
> > those who enjoy arguing about just about anything (I suspect it's my
> > ex wife & mother in law but can't prove it) and can quote you a
> > website link to back up their position. In the final analysis, Mary
> > Moorman is still the famous lady with the polaroid who was there and
> > we weren't.
> > If you review Mary's interview from earlier this year what she said
> > she heard and saw can be achieved with the MC and does not get LHO off
> > the hook. As far as CT'ers go, until the Justice Department arrests
> > someone or a revision to the WC & HSCA is announced any and all CT
> > research has been counter productive to all except those who made
> > money from their efforts.
> > Arguing over trifle things such as did Zapruder had stripes or little
> > fire trucks on his shorts produces about the same thing as arguing if
> > Bonnie Parker was eating a BLT or bolonia sandwich when she was
> > murdered with Clyde Barrow in 1934 IMO.
> > Thank you for the review. I agree, the digital versions of the films
> > would be worthwhile. When are they going to get around to enhancing
> > Bronson, Martin & Daniels?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Moorman took her photo at or about Z313. Are you really going to tell
> us that is when the attack occured? Are you going to tell us that
> neither JFK nor JBC had been shot by then? Are you going to tell us
> all those gyrations they began starting at Z226 were not in response
> to having been shot? Because if the attack didn't start until Moorman
> took her picture, that is what you are left with. You've chose a good
> nickname, Island. Because an island is ...
>

Moorman took more than one photo. An earlier one shows a motorcycle
patrolman she knew in the foreground and the TSBD (but not the sixth
floor) in the background.

As I recall, that photo is reproduced in one of the Trask Books - perhaps
_Pictures of the Pain_.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> ex wife& mother in law but can't prove it) and can quote you a

>>> website link to back up their position. In the final analysis, Mary
>>> Moorman is still the famous lady with the polaroid who was there and
>>> we weren't.
>>> If you review Mary's interview from earlier this year what she said
>>> she heard and saw can be achieved with the MC and does not get LHO off
>>> the hook. As far as CT'ers go, until the Justice Department arrests

>>> someone or a revision to the WC& HSCA is announced any and all CT

>>> research has been counter productive to all except those who made
>>> money from their efforts.
>>> Arguing over trifle things such as did Zapruder had stripes or little
>>> fire trucks on his shorts produces about the same thing as arguing if
>>> Bonnie Parker was eating a BLT or bolonia sandwich when she was
>>> murdered with Clyde Barrow in 1934 IMO.
>>> Thank you for the review. I agree, the digital versions of the films
>>> would be worthwhile. When are they going to get around to enhancing

>>> Bronson, Martin& Daniels?- Hide quoted text -

>>
>>
>> Moorman took her photo at or about Z313. Are you really going to tell
>> us that is when the attack occured? Are you going to tell us that
>> neither JFK nor JBC had been shot by then? Are you going to tell us
>> all those gyrations they began starting at Z226 were not in response
>> to having been shot? Because if the attack didn't start until Moorman
>> took her picture, that is what you are left with. You've chose a good
>> nickname, Island. Because an island is ...
>>
>
> Moorman took more than one photo. An earlier one shows a motorcycle
> patrolman she knew in the foreground and the TSBD (but not the sixth
> floor) in the background.
>
> As I recall, that photo is reproduced in one of the Trask Books - perhaps
> _Pictures of the Pain_.
>
> Hank
>

Google Images should pop up a few versions. Most are dark.