The Absolute & Simple Facts!
Brokedad
1. The Warren Commission is not the factual truths.
2. The Warren Commission is an intentional subversion of the factual
truths.
3. LHO was an absolutely excellent shot when shooting at targets of less
than 500 yards and shooting from a fixed/stable firing position. When he
entered into the USMC he was firing within the EXPERT range, and when he
completed his basic rifle qualification, at this type firing position, he
fired in the UPPER ranges of EXPERT. (within the 94th to 96th percentile
rating)
4. The Model 91/38 Carcano Short rifle is an absolutely accurate weapon.
In fact, it fires on a comparable accuracy with the US issue M-14 rifle,
which is the basis for many of our current sniper weapons.
5. One can not state as fact that there was not a full "A-Team" of
snipers shooting at JFK on 11/22/63. However, one can state with absolute
accuracy that in the event that there was more than one shooter, then one
of the shooters completely missed everything and everyone, as:
6. JFK was struck by shots which were fired from ONLY above and behind.
7. Three shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, and
each of the three shots fired struck JFK.
8. Of those shots fired, the second shot/aka Z313 as well as the third
shot/aka that shot which struck directly in front of James Altgens
location, both struck JFK in the head.
9. To a relatively high degree of probability, and for the most part
beyond any reasonable doubt, LHO was the shooter responsible for these
three shots.
10. Despite this, the WC remains an intentional subversion of the simple
fact: Three shots were fired, and all three shots struck their target.
(exactly why would anyone think otherwise?)
11. Despite what some may attempt to feed you, the shooting feat in
Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was a relatively simple feat, and factually, does
not represent that great of a shooting feat.
12. The longest shot fired, being the third shot impact directly in front
of James Altgens position, was only 297 feet in distance.
13. There is absolutely nothing complicated in regards to the
shooting/shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. The difficuly lies in
unraveling all of the LIES of the Warren Commission in their attempt to
cover up the simple facts. Three shots fired---Three hits.
14. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and anyone who is foolish enough
to have fallen for and believed this, no doubt also fell for and believed
the SBT as promoted by the WC as well.
15. There is absolutely ZERO proof or evidence of any mythological
creatures and/or beings such as multiple assassins; body snatchers; easter
bunnies; the tooth fairy, or any other such creations of the imagination,
being loose and running around Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
16. The "Six Groove Bullet" only has four grooves created by rifling in
the weapon.
17. The "Bottom Mount" sling swivel in the backyard photo's, is not a
Bottom Mount sling swivel.
18. LHO absolutely was engaged in a variety of secretive and
clandestine/covert activities. As to whether these activities were
ultimately directed at JFK or whether LHO of his on volition took it upon
himself to shoot JFK can not be determined, primarily as a result of the
complete failuire of the WC to pursue and investigate this subject.
19. The "Giant Conspiracy" which many of the CT community frequently
refer to and which often includes virtually half of the US Government as
well as in inumerable amount of other, is BS. There exists absolutely ZERO
evidence to indicate that any portion of the US Government had anything to
do with the assassination of JFK.
20. As stated, the WC is an ultimate misrepresentation of the simple
facts, three shots fired, and three hits on JFK. Nevertheless, this
misrepresentation/aka lie, has absolutely nothing to do with any
association to the actual assassination. It was purely a "POLITICAL"
maneuever.
Lastly, rest assured that those who claim to have the ability for self
thought and deductive reasoning, yet nevertheless attempt to promote the
WC's fantasies, are, far more misguided and gullible than those who know
that something is wrong with the WC solution and in their attempts to
understand have chosen the misguided pathway of multiple assassins and
body snatchers/aka wound alteration specialists.
Tom Purvis
aka/one of the Simkin Monkeys
Shot#2/aka Z313:-----------------------Survey Stationing 4+65.3
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: Survey
Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
(note: Elm St. is 40-feet wide. As JFK passed directly in front of
James Altgens, he was approximately 20-feet from Altgens position)
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the
car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who
counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of
pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for
the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between.
There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the
head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree
of certainty.
=======================
Additional note: Without going into great detail and quoting them
all, there are multiple witnesses who observed the Z313 impact and so
testified that it was the SECOND SHOT fired.
The single best of these being:
Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age
about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to
park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place
over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and
said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat
there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston
onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left
side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of
course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at
that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had
done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good
look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when
that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
Note: James Altgens was standing across Elm St, across from "these
steps"..
====================================================================
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing,
====================================
However! One just may want to see what the WC had to say about all
this.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask you to state what that album depicts.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white
photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder
film----
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was
an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back
to include the area that we wanted to study.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full
view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence,
being No. 334, fixed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit
the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to
the President's head, and it ends at 334.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg
Nope! No Altgens here.
Most unusual since the US Secret Service as well as the FBI have, of
record, indicated that the third shot impacted directly in front of
James Altgens.
One would think that this would be of some relevance. Especially
since Lyndal Shaneyfelt clearly marked the third shot impact location
as well as the Altgens position which was exactly five feet prior to
the yellow curb mark and exactly at a construction joint location in
the concrete curb.
Sorry Folks! This is so simple and easy that a "Caveman" could figure
it out.
And, that goes for the facts of the assassination as well as all of
the manipulations which the WC went to in order to make a shot
completely disappear from the radar screen and then sell highly
gullible persons on "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" and the SBT scenario.
Tom Purvis
"Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!"
Andrew Mason
>
..
>
> 5. One can not state as fact that there was not a full "A-Team" of
> snipers shooting at JFK on 11/22/63. However, one can state with absolute
> accuracy that in the event that there was more than one shooter, then one
> of the shooters completely missed everything and everyone, as:
>
> 6. JFK was struck by shots which were fired from ONLY above and behind.
>
> 7. Three shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, and
> each of the three shots fired struck JFK.
>
> 8. Of those shots fired, the second shot/aka Z313 as well as the third
> shot/aka that shot which struck directly in front of James Altgens
> location, both struck JFK in the head.
Three shots struck JFK!! Please explain.
>
> 9. To a relatively high degree of probability, and for the most part
> beyond any reasonable doubt, LHO was the shooter responsible for these
> three shots.
>
> 10. Despite this, the WC remains an intentional subversion of the simple
> fact: Three shots were fired, and all three shots struck their target.
> (exactly why would anyone think otherwise?)
I agree that no shot missed the limo. But there is pretty strong
evidence that one shot did strike Gov. Connally, after JFK was showing
reactions to being hit in the neck on the first shot.
>
> 11. Despite what some may attempt to feed you, the shooting feat in
> Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was a relatively simple feat, and factually, does
> not represent that great of a shooting feat.
>
> 12. The longest shot fired, being the third shot impact directly in front
> of James Altgens position, was only 297 feet in distance.
>
> 13. There is absolutely nothing complicated in regards to the
> shooting/shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. The difficuly lies in
> unraveling all of the LIES of the Warren Commission in their attempt to
> cover up the simple facts. Three shots fired---Three hits.
>
> 14. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and anyone who is foolish enough
> to have fallen for and believed this, no doubt also fell for and believed
> the SBT as promoted by the WC as well.
I agree completely.
I agree with your basic contention that Oswald fired three shots and
that three shots struck in the limo - no SBT, no conspiracy.
I am having difficulty finding support for your explanation of the
shots, however.
How could all three shots have struck JFK? Which shot struck JBC?
How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that shot
both Connally and JFK had been wounded.
Andrew Mason
Spiffy_one
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
>
> Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: Survey
> Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
> Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
> later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
>
There is absolutely no ballistic evidence whatsoever to support
Kennedy being hit in the head by two shots. The autopsy reports
speaks for itself. Are you claiming Humes was part of a conspiracy or
are you claiming the three autopsists were incompetent?
Brokedad
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
>
> Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: �Survey
> Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
> Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
> later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
>
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show
you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if
that would be of any help to you.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you
Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been
discussing.
Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street
which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
It is of course recognized that there are those here who have never
taken the time, or had the ability to actually research the WC and
it's little games of obfuscation.
However! Failure to properly research as well as understand the
evidence is not sufficient grounds to run around promoting the
purported factual basis of the WC.
As example, other than those who have already demonstrated their
ability for research, does anyone else here see
a problem with the position of James Altgens having been "placed"
between the Moorman/Hill location and the TSDB?
When the simple reality is that Altgens was almost 40-feet farther
down Elm St. than the Moorman/Hill location, and almost directly
across the street from that point where the concrete steps/walkway is
located.
Sort of makes on wonder exactly what "School" of research some of
these promoters of the WC attended!
P.S. One of the motorcycle policemen who was directly adjacent to JFK
when the Z313 bullet impact occurred, is of record as having stated
that the President's head "exploded" from the second shot. Anyone
know who this was?
(hint: he was not called to testify before the Warren Commission)
"Parroting" will not work! It takes actual research.
Robert Harris
Don't you guys ever tire of making goofy assertions that you cannot
support to save your lives??
Does it bother you in the slightest that I can produce infinitely more
an better, very solid evidence which proves that Oswald could not have
fired all the shots that day?
Robert Harris
In article
<7752e6b1-549d-4d98...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
John Blubaugh
>
That sounds right.
> 2. The Warren Commission is an intentional subversion of the factual
> truths.
>
OK
> 3. LHO was an absolutely excellent shot when shooting at targets of less
> than 500 yards and shooting from a fixed/stable firing position. When he
> entered into the USMC he was firing within the EXPERT range, and when he
> completed his basic rifle qualification, at this type firing position, he
> fired in the UPPER ranges of EXPERT. (within the 94th to 96th percentile
> rating)
>
Bullshit. The last time he tried to qualify, he barely passed and his
fellow soldiers all have said he was a lousy shot and he couldn't drive
either. I am sure the results were tilted to get him through and help the
company's ranking. How many people ever failed to qualify? You would have
had to shoot someone on the shooting range to manage that.
> 4. The Model 91/38 Carcano Short rifle is an absolutely accurate weapon.
> In fact, it fires on a comparable accuracy with the US issue M-14 rifle,
> which is the basis for many of our current sniper weapons.
>
Horseshit, that is the worst piece of crap weapon in the world and
Oswald's was in worst shape than most and it is doubtful anyone could fire
three shots without it jamming much less hitting a target.
> 5. One can not state as fact that there was not a full "A-Team" of
> snipers shooting at JFK on 11/22/63. However, one can state with absolute
> accuracy that in the event that there was more than one shooter, then one
> of the shooters completely missed everything and everyone, as:
>
I don't see this as being perfectly clear.
> 6. JFK was struck by shots which were fired from ONLY above and behind.
>
I don't believe this one either. There was a shot from the grassy knoll
and it was the death shot in my opinion. I have held this opinion ever
since I was finally able to see the Z film.
> 7. Three shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, and
> each of the three shots fired struck JFK.
>
No, he was only hit twice and one shot missed. I think there is
general agreement on that.
> 8. Of those shots fired, the second shot/aka Z313 as well as the third
> shot/aka that shot which struck directly in front of James Altgens
> location, both struck JFK in the head.
>
How about the shot that hit the curb?
> 9. To a relatively high degree of probability, and for the most part
> beyond any reasonable doubt, LHO was the shooter responsible for these
> three shots.
>
That is also far from clear. How did he manage to be in the lunch room
drinking a Coke when he should have been on the stairs trying to get away.
How about the nitrate tests. That blunderbuss he was supposed to shooting
should have put a lot of it back in his face.
> 10. Despite this, the WC remains an intentional subversion of the simple
> fact: Three shots were fired, and all three shots struck their target.
> (exactly why would anyone think otherwise?)
>
Because the acustic evidence shows a fourth shot from the grassy knoll
and we know one shot hit the curb and the government went to great
lengths to cover that up.
> 11. Despite what some may attempt to feed you, the shooting feat in
> Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was a relatively simple feat, and factually, does
> not represent that great of a shooting feat.
>
It was a great shooting feat for someone who was a lousy shot and
supposedly missed General Walking when he was sitting still.
> 12. The longest shot fired, being the third shot impact directly in front
> of James Altgens position, was only 297 feet in distance.
>
Except that probably was the grassy knoll shot.
> 13. There is absolutely nothing complicated in regards to the
> shooting/shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. The difficuly lies in
> unraveling all of the LIES of the Warren Commission in their attempt to
> cover up the simple facts. Three shots fired---Three hits.
>
That is just not true and that is why the Warren Commission had to
invent the SBT because one shot is known to have missed completely.
> 14. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and anyone who is foolish enough
> to have fallen for and believed this, no doubt also fell for and believed
> the SBT as promoted by the WC as well.
>
No, I do not believe the SBT but I sure do believe a shot hit that
curb and a fragment wounded a man.
> 15. There is absolutely ZERO proof or evidence of any mythological
> creatures and/or beings such as multiple assassins; body snatchers; easter
> bunnies; the tooth fairy, or any other such creations of the imagination,
> being loose and running around Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
>
That isn't true, there is a great deal of evidence of another shooter.
The acustic evidence is only part of it.
> 16. The "Six Groove Bullet" only has four grooves created by rifling in
> the weapon.
>
I have no opinion on this.
> 17. The "Bottom Mount" sling swivel in the backyard photo's, is not a
> Bottom Mount sling swivel.
>
> 18. LHO absolutely was engaged in a variety of secretive and
> clandestine/covert activities. As to whether these activities were
> ultimately directed at JFK or whether LHO of his on volition took it upon
> himself to shoot JFK can not be determined, primarily as a result of the
> complete failuire of the WC to pursue and investigate this subject.
>
I'll buy that.
> 19. The "Giant Conspiracy" which many of the CT community frequently
> refer to and which often includes virtually half of the US Government as
> well as in inumerable amount of other, is BS. There exists absolutely ZERO
> evidence to indicate that any portion of the US Government had anything to
> do with the assassination of JFK.
>
Well, they sure had plenty to do with covering it all up.
> 20. As stated, the WC is an ultimate misrepresentation of the simple
> facts, three shots fired, and three hits on JFK. Nevertheless, this
> misrepresentation/aka lie, has absolutely nothing to do with any
> association to the actual assassination. It was purely a "POLITICAL"
> maneuever.
>
Three shots and at least one miss. How do you explain away the shot
that hit the curb and ultimately wounded a man? Don't tell me the
wound was from a fragment of the headshot, the angle would be all
wrong.
> Lastly, rest assured that those who claim to have the ability for self
> thought and deductive reasoning, yet nevertheless attempt to promote the
> WC's fantasies, are, far more misguided and gullible than those who know
> that something is wrong with the WC solution and in their attempts to
> understand have chosen the misguided pathway of multiple assassins and
> body snatchers/aka wound alteration specialists.
>
Horse hockey. The government screwed up the investigation and the
autopsy and pushed for the conclusion they demanded. It was the cover-
up of the century.
> Tom Purvis
>
> aka/one of the Simkin Monkeys
>
> Shot#2/aka Z313:-----------------------Survey Stationing 4+65.3
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
>
> Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: Survey
> Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
> Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
> later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> Mr. ...
>
> read more »
jas
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
>
> Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: Survey
> Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
> Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
> later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
>
>
> read more »
Ok, you've made the point that there are certain aspects of the
assassination that can't be definitively proved or disproved, something I
think most are in agreement with, but answer me 2 questions:
1) Given that most of the rest of your theory agrees with the WC findings
that Oswald alone fired 3 shots from the 6th floor TSBD, what motive would
the Commission have in going to all the trouble of covering up 2 shots
hitting JFK as opposed to 3 when the end result remains the same? That's
like saying the 9/11 Commission was an intentionally subversive entity
because someone found that the plane that hit the south tower of the WTC
struck 15.3 feet lower than had been originally thought. ??????????
2) If you don't agree with the SBT, how do you explain Connally's wounds?
jas
Brokedad
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm
"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the
Boss's head"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Methinks that you had best go back and re-evaluate the pathological
evidence.
Forensically; ballistically; pathologically; and physically, JFK was
struck in the rear of the head by two seperate and distinct bullets.
I would hope that anyone who even claims to possess common sense would
recognize:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
The physical impossibility of an 1,800 (+) fps copper jacketed Carcano
bullet striking JFK while he was in this position, and striking at the
lower edge of the hairline, then turning to "tunnel" upwards through
the soft tissue at the base of the neck, to ultimately strike the
skull in the EOP region of the skull at a point which was higher than
the entry point at the base of the hairline.
When such bullet was fired on a downward angle of approximately 15 to
18 degrees downward.
Handwritten notes of Nellie Connally some 8 to 10 days after the
assassination:
'My God, they're going to kill us all,' wheeled back to the right,
crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless and pitiful
position a tall man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me
and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came the third shot.
With John in my arms, and still trying to stay down, I did not see the
third shot hit, but I felt something falling all over me. My sensation
was of spent buckshot."
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
Certainly do not see JBC and/or Nellie in that position here.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg
Certainly would appear that they are "down" out of sight here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third
shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third
shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot
did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that
was made after that.
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
Mr. LIEBELER - Indicating the buildings surrounding the intersection
of Houston Street and Elm Street; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OHHHH! This is soooooo difficult!
The SECOND SHOT fired struck JFK in the head, as observed by multiple
witnesses.
BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could
notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as
Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were
relatively close together.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
There were three shots fired, as stated by the great majority of
witnesses called before the Warren Commission, as well as the majority
of those witnesses present who were not called to testify and merely
gave their statements to the Dallas Police Department.
The LAST SHOT fired, also struck JFK in the head, as JFK was directly
in front of James Altgens location, which he observed to blow "flesh
particles" in his direction.
Nellie Connally, both in her early handwritten notes as well as during
the WC testimony, has clearly stated that she and JBC were down in the
seat at the time that the impact of the THIRD/LAST shot fired also
blew cerebral debri all over herself and JBC.
Neither Nellie nor JBC are down in the seat at the time of the Z313
impact.
Multiple witnesses have testified as to the location of the
Presidential Limo at the time of the LAST SHOT, and this location was
down by the stairway/steps.
====================================================================================
Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of
that evidence.
As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the
evidence.
But, it is actually quite simple to place into perspective!
Z313 impact blew cerebral tissue all over, but mostly UP into the air.
Altgens impact when JFK was bent well forward, blew cerebral tissue
all over Nellie and JBC.
Which most assuredly would serve to indicate that JFK was most
definitely struck in the back of the head by two seperate and distinct
projectiles, at two seperate and distinct locations.
P.S. In event that you fully understood the pathological damage to
the head of JFK, then you too would know that he was struck in the
rear of the head by two seperate and distinct bullets.
Brokedad
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
>
> > Shot#3/aka directly in front of James Altgens location: �Survey
> > Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in for the US Secret
> > Service assassination reenactment of December 1963, as well as the
> > later FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64.
>
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
" How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that
shot
both Connally and JFK had been wounded"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Says who?
The WC and JBC? As well as those who are of the opinion that they can
look at a film and
factually determine if a person has been wounded?
The beginning of this rumor can be traced back to the FBI
assassination reenactment of 2/7/64 when the FBI attempted to
completely delete the Z313 impact (second shot) and move it
back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet to a point where JBC can be observed
"reacting".
However, this stupid attempt to cover up was fully negated as it
placed the second shot (fabricated) impact location at a point which
was well prior to JFK even having passed the position/location of
Moorman & Hill and the yellow curb mark.
And, P.S. The FBI left the third shot impact location (that impact
directly in front of James Altgens location) in it's appropriate
location as previously determined by the SS assassination reenactment
of December 1963.
(hint) Rest assured that when shot at in Vietnam, I too "reacted to
external stimuli".
I ducked! Which most likely has much to do with why I am still around
to tell about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"How could all three shots have struck JFK? Which shot struck JBC?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A reasonable question!
The first shot.aka CE399 struck JFK in the back/shoulder, slightly
above the clavicle, in the vicinity of the C7 vertebrae.
As documented, this shot was fired in the approximate Z206 location.
=====================================================================================
The second shot/aka Z313, struck JFK in the top high (cowlick area) of
the head, blew off the "skull cap" section as seen in the Z-film, and
the bullet severely fragmented (actually was cut apart) primarily as a
result of the encounter with the skull in a horizontal plane as the
bullet attempted to exit the skull. This bullet is responsible for
most of the cerebral damage to the upper lobes of the brain as well as
the severely fractured and fragmented skull in the frontal vicinity of
the head.
One of the multitudes of fragments from this bullet is responsible for
the wrist wound to JBC, who was holding his right arm out with that
portion from the elbow to the hand in a horizontal plane.
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this
underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from
underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few
yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that
[indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?
========================================================================================
The third/last/final shot was fired as the Presidential Limo had
travelled approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313
location and the JFK was directly in front of the position of James
Altgens.
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
=======================================
Note: I would give the link to Costello's frames of the Zaparuder
film which clearly show James Altgens with his camera just up to his
eye. However, this link and the frames of the film have apparantly
been pulled from the internet.
======================================
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it
indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head.
(note:) This is the impact to the head of JFK which ultimately blew
cerebral tissue well forward and all over Nellie and JBC, as JBC was
laying over with his head in Nellie's lap with Nellie bent over him as
she described in her handwritten notes which were made some 8 to 10
days after the assassination.
One might want to add at this time that when JBC leaned over across
the jump seats, he exposed his entire back and shoulder in the void
area between his jump seat and the one in which Nellie sat.
Thus exposing the BACK/REAR of his coat to receipt of considerable
cerebral splatter. (which I might add could not have occurred at the
Z313 impact when JBC's back was fully protected from splatter by the
back of the jump seat in which he sat.
(Just a tidbit for those who have always asked why JBC's coat had been
laundered before it was admitted into evidence)
This position of course also exposed JBC's right rear shoulder to the
pathway of the shot as it exited the head of JFK.
This bullet impact to JFK is the one which the autopsy surgeons found
the entrance wound into the scalp at the lower edge of the hairline
and in which the bullet actually "tunneled" through the soft tissue of
the neck to ultimately strike the skull in the EOP region at a point
which was "higher"* then the point of entry into the scalp.
*The "higher" EOP entry is if one is sitting erect. The HSCA has of
course stated that the EOP entry which the autopsy surgeons stated was
found, was in fact some 4-inches (10 cm) lower on the skull than the
wound which they observed through examination of the autopsy X-rays as
well as photographs*
*The Clark Panel first made this discovery and it relates to the
bullet entry wound in the "Cowlick"/top rear high of the head which is
a result of the second/aka Z313 impact. Nevertheless, even though the
wound locations in the skull had a 4-inch difference as well as the
physical dimension of the "Cowlick" entry wound not matching the
physical dimensions of the EOP entry wound, this has been passed off
by those who fail to understand that JFK had two seperate entry
wounds, as being merely an "error" on the part of someone.
What makes this even worse, and mentioned here for the first recorded
time, is the fact that the wound of entry through the scalp for the
third shot, which struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline, is
even some 1 1/2 to 2 inches lower on the torso than was the actuall
EOP entry into the skull.
Thusly, we are actually referring to wounds of entry in which the
entry point through the scalp is some 5 1/2 to 6 inches apart.
The entry of this bullet into the scalp of JFK at the lower edge of
the hairline and then "tunneling" through the soft tissue at the base
of the skull prior to striking the skull at a point on the torso which
is in fact higher than the point of entry into the scalp is nothing
more then the result of the fact that JFK was not sitting erect at the
time of impact.
In fact, he was doubled over forward, leaning to his left, with his
head turned to the right and his chin almost against his chest.
Therefore, the bullet followed what was actually a slightly downward
as well as from right to left trajectory as it passed through the
scalp, struck the EOP, damaged the upper lobe of the occipital brain,
and thereafter left it's own pathway through the brain of JFK, which
pathway ran through the mid-brain.
As a result of the "doubled over" position which JFK was in at the
point of impact, this bullet also went through his coat at a point
which is located at the lower edge of the coat collar. The bullet
passed through the coat and line on an acute/oblique angle, exited the
coat and struck JFK directly in the edge of the hairline.
This bullet, after having passed throught the mid-brain of JFK, exited
in the frontal lobe vicinity where tremendous damage had already been
done by the exiting fragments from the Z313 impact, and thereafter
continued on to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay across
the open area of the jump seats with his back and should exposed.
The slightly elongated "horizontally" wound of JBC's back/shoulder has
nothing to do with some mythological wobbling bullet. It is primarily
a result of the fact that JBC was laying horizontally across the open
area of the jump seats and the bullet struck on a "DOWNWARD" angle of
attack. Which happens to make the wound appear to be elongated
horizontally when one then sits or stands erect.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++
The US Secret Service, during their reenactment of December 1963,
fully documented on their survey plat the approximately impact
location of each of the three shots fired in the course of the
assassination. To include the third/last/final shot impact point down
directly in front of the James Altgens location.
The FBI, who was in possession of all evidence, to include JFK's coat
and it's two seperate and distinctive bullet hole penetrations,
conducted their assassination reenactment on February 7, 1964.
In which, even they left the third shot/aka Altgens impact location in
it's original position.
Then, came the WC, who did such a great job that the stated that only
the Z313 impact could be documented, made the impact location of the
first shot disappear, blamed JBC's wounds on CE399 and the SBT/BS/
MAGIC BULLET theory, and thereafter completely made the third/last/
final shot impact down in front of James ALtgens location completely
disappear.
================================================================================
"THERE IS NO MAGIC"!
However!
"Politicians, not unlike magicians, can make things disappear!"
Anthony Marsh
Are you actually Harris in drag? You want to state something as a physical
fact based entirely on your incorrect interpretation of one witness.
> When the simple reality is that Altgens was almost 40-feet farther
> down Elm St. than the Moorman/Hill location, and almost directly
> across the street from that point where the concrete steps/walkway is
> located.
>
Yeah, so what? At the time of the head shot Moorman was behind the rear
bumper of the limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long. Altgens did not
say that he was even with the front bumper. If he was, as he said, 15 feet
away from the limo, then 4+21+15=40 feet which makes up the gap you are
worried about. BTW, you need a better map. 40 feet farther down Elm from
Moorman is NOT directly opposite the steps. My map is accurate to 6
inches.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/plaza313.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/zap313p.gif
> Sort of makes on wonder exactly what "School" of research some of
> these promoters of the WC attended!
>
Sorta makes me wonder exactly which map you have been using.
> P.S. One of the motorcycle policemen who was directly adjacent to JFK
> when the Z313 bullet impact occurred, is of record as having stated
> that the President's head "exploded" from the second shot. Anyone
> know who this was?
> (hint: he was not called to testify before the Warren Commission)
>
> "Parroting" will not work! It takes actual research.
>
When you start to do actual research, you need to get reliable materials.
Anthony Marsh
While I agree with you that there is absolutely no ballistic evidence
whatsoever to support Kennedy being hit in the head by two shots, your
argument has two flaws. First the use of the term ballistic seems to refer
to analysis of the jacket of the bullet while actually only tiny lead
fragments were recovered. No intact bullet or fragment with an intact
jacket was recovered from the head. Some people ASSuME that the jacket
fragments found in the limo came from the head shot, but there is no proof
for that. Second, you should not rely on the autopsy for anything. The
autopsy doctors were indeed incompetent and missed several things. Then
after the autopsy they participated in a conspiracy to cover up the facts,
such as Boswell and Humes lying about the wound locations. When the
government has to lie about the facts you know they can not prove their
case.
Anthony Marsh
I don't know if any of you have tried this, but one way to have your cake
and eat it too is to have the "missed" shot hit the chrome topping. And I
offered to sell someone a theory that the shot which hit the chrome
topping ricocheted and hit JFK in the forehead. That way all shots could
have come from the TSBD, but explain JFK being hit in the forehead.
Anthony Marsh
What do you think of the Humes SBT?
Andrew Mason
>
> 2) If you don't agree with the SBT, how do you explain Connally's wounds?
>
Simple. He was hit directly in the right armpit and wrist with on the
second shot (after JFK is hit in the throat on the first shot). The
second shot was closer to the third shot and by the time of the second
shot, JFK had moved left and the car had turned slightly right so the
right armpit was just to the right of JFK's head. That is why at least two
witnesses observed JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head. Look
for JFK's hair flying up and you will pinpoint the time of the second
shot.
The damage to JBC's left thigh is a little more challenging to figure out
until you plot the trajectory of the bullet passing through JFK. The
bullet path is slightly to the left of the centre of JBC's jump seat. This
is perplexing until you actually put JBC in the position he is seen in at
z193-200 (turned sharply to the right looking at the crowd on the right
with his shoulders - turned so he is facing to Zapruder's left) and
realize that neither JBC's shoulder nor the jump seat blocks the path from
JFK's neck.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
(lengthy OP snipped)
Your theory refutes itself. You have Oswald firing three shots and
hitting JFK with all three. Yet you reject the SBT. What sort of magic
bullet can you offer to explain JBC's wounds if it was not from a
bullet that hit JFK first.
John Canal
>This bullet impact to JFK is the one which the autopsy surgeons found
>the entrance wound into the scalp at the lower edge of the hairline
>and in which the bullet actually "tunneled" through the soft tissue of
>the neck to ultimately strike the skull in the EOP region at a point
>which was "higher"* then the point of entry into the scalp.
Just one question. But, before that, let me say this: The estimated
diameter of the point of exit just forward of the coronal suture was the
basis for the FPP, with Humes and Boswell agreeing with them, concluding
that point was the "principal" exit...meaning only very small fragments
exited elsewhere. Ok, so if that's true, and, if one looks at the
photograph of the x-ray of the largest late-arriving skull piece and, in
particlar at the beveled out corner of that piece that had the metallic
residue on it, I don't see how one could disagree with their
"principal-exit-just forward-of-the-coronal-suture" conclusion. Soooooo, I
like to know if you theorize that a major portion of your cowlick entering
bullet exited there or "OR" that a major portion of your "hairline
impact-tunnel-up-EOP-entering" bullet exited there?
The reason I ask is that it seems to me, BOTH options (paths from either
of your two entry points to the aforementioned "principal" exit point)
leave you with difficulty reconciling the damage to the windshield frame
and glass.
Maybe you've got this figured out and I missed your explanation...either
way, but would you comment on that?
Thanks.
John Canal
Andrew Mason
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> " How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that
> shot
> both Connally and JFK had been wounded"
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Says who?
>
> The WC and JBC? As well as those who are of the opinion that they can
> look at a film and
> factually determine if a person has been wounded?
You cannot look at just the zfilm and tell where JBC is wounded. I would
agree with that statement. But you can look at the rest of the evidence,
together with the zfilm, and figure some things out.
First, you have Nellie C. who said that JBC was sitting up and turned
right when the second shot was heard. She said that the third and last
caused a spray of matter - it felt like spent buckshot. JBC said he felt
it too, and it was after he was shot.
Second, you have driver Wm. Greer who said that he turned around
immediately after the second shot then turned forward and turned around
again just before the second shot. He turns around between z276 and z280
for the first time. He then turns around again at about z300-305. He
never turns around again.
Then you have all the witnesses in the follow-up car. David Powers,
seated in the jump seat on the right side directly behind JFK. He said
that JFK moved quite far to his left on the first shot, JBC disappeared
from his view on the second shot and the third shot hit JFK in the head.
Hickey said that JFK's hair flew up on the second shot but it did not
hit him. He said the third shot hit him in the head. Kinney said the
same. These are just a few examples.
Nearly everyone said that the third shot hit JFK in the head and that
was the last shot.
How does all this consistent evidence turn out to be consistently wrong?
How is it possible for so many people to observe an event and,
independently, report seeing the event all the same way but each be
mistaken in exactly the same way? I would say that not only is it
unlikely, it is so unlikely as to be impossible.
>
> The beginning of this rumor can be traced back to the FBI
> assassination reenactment of 2/7/64 when the FBI attempted to
> completely delete the Z313 impact (second shot) and move it
> back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet to a point where JBC can be observed
> "reacting".
> However, this stupid attempt to cover up was fully negated as it
> placed the second shot (fabricated) impact location at a point which
> was well prior to JFK even having passed the position/location of
> Moorman & Hill and the yellow curb mark.
Why does the position of Moorman and Hill have anything to do with this?
What about the positions of all the other witnesses who consistently
stated the limo positions where the three shots occurred?
This is completely consistent to what JBC is seen doing after z230. He
is turning around to his right to see JFK. According to Holland, the
second shot was after that.
>
> The third/last/final shot was fired as the Presidential Limo had
> travelled approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313
> location and the JFK was directly in front of the position of James
> Altgens.
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
> would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
> about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
> that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Altgens also said that the head shot was the last. He was quite sure
about it, as were many others.
And you have medical evidence of this?
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++
>
> The US Secret Service, during their reenactment of December 1963,
> fully documented on their survey plat the approximately impact
> location of each of the three shots fired in the course of the
> assassination. To include the third/last/final shot impact point down
> directly in front of the James Altgens location.
Contrary to what Altgens said. He said that the headshot occurred in
front of him. From where he was standing, the limo was only about 10
feet from his position so even if he was accurate in estimating 15 feet,
that could be anywhere from 10 feet before JFK passed or 10 feet after.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
SO, it is your opinion that no one can tell when the men have been hit
by looking at films and photos? So, you can't figure out by looking at
Z-313 that Kennedy had just been shot in the head? You can't figure out
by looking at the Altgens photo that both Kennedy and Connally have
already been hit? You can't look at Z-225 and see that Kennedy has
already been hit? You think he is just play acting or coughing?
You can't look at the films and photos of JFK out at Love Field and tell
that he has not been shot yet? Or do you think Walt Disney painted all
the Zapruder frames to erase evidence of shots? What?
> The beginning of this rumor can be traced back to the FBI
> assassination reenactment of 2/7/64 when the FBI attempted to
> completely delete the Z313 impact (second shot) and move it
> back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet to a point where JBC can be observed
> "reacting".
No such thing.
> However, this stupid attempt to cover up was fully negated as it
> placed the second shot (fabricated) impact location at a point which
> was well prior to JFK even having passed the position/location of
> Moorman& Hill and the yellow curb mark.
> And, P.S. The FBI left the third shot impact location (that impact
> directly in front of James Altgens location) in it's appropriate
> location as previously determined by the SS assassination reenactment
> of December 1963.
>
Huh?
Show me the two bullet holes on the back of Kennedy's head.
Brokedad
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My Bad!
===================================================================
> 6. JFK was struck by shots which were fired from ONLY above and behind.
"I don't believe this one either. There was a shot from the grassy
knoll
and it was the death shot in my opinion. I have held this opinion
ever
since I was finally able to see the Z film."
===================================================================
I was obviously unaware that you were in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and
observed this highly mythological creature. Were you another of those
witnesses which the WC failed to call?
Therefore, the basis on which the "two shots to the head from the
rear" is premised upon those witnesses who were called to testify and
effectively stated as much.
SS Agent Glen Bennett in the follow-up SS car who stated that he
observed the second shot strike the right rear high of the Boss's
head.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
Emmett Hudson who was standing on the concrete stairway to the
stockade fence and also observed the impact of this, the second shot,
to the rear of JFK's head, as well as stating the approximate
location of the Presidential Limo at the time that he heard the third
shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the
second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
And Charles Brehm who stated that he observed the President hit in the
head, causing his hair to "fly up", and that a third shot followed
immediately.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
As well as Howard Brennan who clearly testified that he was looking at
the sixth floor window at the time of the last shot, and who in August
1964 informed CBS that "The President's head just exploded", which
indicates that he observed the second shot impact, as well as again
repeating that he was looking at the sixth floor window and observed
the shooter make the last shot and then pull the weapon into the
window.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
Or, how about SS Agent Landis?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
"It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared
that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I
can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get
by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or
shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through
the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, of course we also have James Altgens, who clearly testified that
he observed the LAST shot fired strick JFK in the head from the rear.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
And although there are several witnesses who clearly testified as to
the approximate location of the Presidential Limo at the time of the
third shot, any who have actually conducted research into the matter
generally assume that in event that the third/last/final shot also
impacted JFK in the head, that Altgens was the only one to observe
this impact.
Apparantly not so!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-mcint.htm
After the second shot, I looked at the President and witnessed his
being struck in the head by the third and last shot.
======================================================================================
Now! Exactly where was it that you were standing when you observed
this highly mythological creature/assassin firing from the Grassy
Knoll?
Three shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the TSDB. Each
of the shots fired struck JFK.
Shot#2/aka Z313 struck JFK in the top right rear of the head shortly
after he had passed the Moorman/Hill/first yellow curb mark location
at survey stationing 4+65.3.
Shot#3/aka the Altgens Location impact approximately 30-feet farther
down Elm St. exactly five feet prior to coming into alignment with the
second yellow curb marking (survey stationing 4+95), struck JFK in the
right rear of the head at the lower edge of the hairline.
Three realtively simple shots and three hits.
Brokedad
Nope! Not when you know the absolute and factual truth and go to the
lengths that the WC went to in order to make Shot#3 completely
disappear.
And, it is one of those "political" things.
> 2) If you don't agree with the SBT, how do you explain Connally's wounds?
Quite simple also! Fragment to the wrist from the Z313 impact, and
Shot#3 after exiting JFK's head struck JBC in the right rear shoulder
as he lay across the open area of the jump seats, thus exposing his
back and shoulder to the considerable cerebral tissue splatter as well
as the bullet as it exited JFK's head.
Dr. GREGORY - My initial impression was that whatever produced the
wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed
as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two
things. The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is
irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials,
threads, and carry them into the wound with it.
Dr. GREGORY - I think it is plausible that the bullet, having struck
the President's head, may have broken into more than one fragment. I
think you apprised me of the fact that it did, in fact, disperse into
a number of fragments, and they took tangential directions from the
original path apparently.
Mr. SPECTER - Assuming the fact that the autopsy surgeon presented for
the record a statement that the fragments moved forward into the
vicinity of the President's right eye, as the diagram shows, that
there were approximately 40 star-like fragments running on a line
through the head on the trajectory, and that there was substantial
fragmentation of the bullet as it passed through the head, what is
your view about that?
Dr. GREGORY - I think it is possible that a fragment from that
particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right
arm.
====================================================
It was clearly defined as an irregular fragment of limited velocity
which cut and tore it's way into the back side of the wrist, carrying
with it considerable fabric from the coat and shirt.
Now! Exactly why would a missile which did this to the wrist, not do
the exact same thing to the let????
Andrew Mason
> On 2/4/2009 11:46 AM, Brokedad wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 9:56�am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Brokedad wrote:
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> " How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that
>> shot
>> both Connally and JFK had been wounded"
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Says who?
>>
>> The WC and JBC? As well as those who are of the opinion that they can
>> look at a film and
>> factually determine if a person has been wounded?
>>
>
> SO, it is your opinion that no one can tell when the men have been hit
> by looking at films and photos?
No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
> So, you can't figure out by looking at
> Z-313 that Kennedy had just been shot in the head? You can't figure out
> by looking at the Altgens photo that both Kennedy and Connally have
> already been hit?
No, I can't. In fact there is quite strong evidence (shot
pattern, Altgens, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman) that JBC is not
hit in the back at z255.
> You can't look at Z-225 and see that Kennedy has
> already been hit?
Yes. But it is only because I know from other evidence that there
was a shot fired and that he was wounded in the neck/throat. I
need more than just the zfilm. However, I don't need more than
frame 313 to conclude that JFK has been hit in the head by a high
energy bullet.
> You think he is just play acting or coughing?
> You can't look at the films and photos of JFK out at Love Field and tell
> that he has not been shot yet? Or do you think Walt Disney painted all
> the Zapruder frames to erase evidence of shots? What?
You are taking a simple point and making a ridiculous
generalization. Whether one can tell from the zfilm whether
something is or is not happening depends on how unequivocal the
film is. If you cannot see JBC being hit but can only see a
reaction, how do you tell from the zfilm that he is reacting to
being hit by a bullet and not reacting to the sound of it and his
horrific realization that an assassination is taking place -
(which as actually what he said he did)?
>
>> The beginning of this rumor can be traced back to the FBI
>> assassination reenactment of 2/7/64 when the FBI attempted to
>> completely delete the Z313 impact (second shot) and move it
>> back up Elm St. some 24.5 feet to a point where JBC can be observed
>> "reacting".
>
>
> No such thing.
?? That was not my statement.
>
>> However, this stupid attempt to cover up was fully negated as it
>> placed the second shot (fabricated) impact location at a point which
>> was well prior to JFK even having passed the position/location of
>> Moorman& Hill and the yellow curb mark.
>> And, P.S. The FBI left the third shot impact location (that impact
>> directly in front of James Altgens location) in it's appropriate
>> location as previously determined by the SS assassination reenactment
>> of December 1963.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
Again, not my statement.
Andrew Mason
Brokedad
Are you of the impression that JEH & Company would advertise that the
first shot merely lodged in the back of JFK a short distance without
knowing full well what could cause an 1,800 to 2,000 fps bullet to merely
penetrate the human torso a "short distance"?
PLEASE! Give the FBI as well as the SS credit for having at least some
semblance of intelligence.
P.S. I do not deal in "theory".
Forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts are sufficiently
available to answer the simple questions of the JFK assassination.
Lastly:
Brokedad
Are you an attorney? That supposedly simple question certainly appears
not unlike some of those which Specter & Company utilized to confuse the
simple issues.
P.S. It is neither "my" Cowlick entry nor "my" hairline-tunneling-EOP
entry.
Humes; Boswell: and Finck (too include Kellerman who also observed it)
gave us the lower edge of hairline entry in which the bullet "tunnelled"
up through the soft tissue at the base of the neck to strike the skull in
the region of the EOP at a point which is in fact higher in elevation (as
one sits erect) then was the point of entry into the scalp.
The Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel are the ones who gave us
the "Cowlick" entry point in which they not only disagreed with the
physical dimensions of the wound as reported by the atuopsy surgeons, but
also stated that the wound of entry into the skull was in fact some 10 cm
(4-inches) higher on the skull than that wound which the autopsy surgeons
reported.
However! I will take full credit for having pointed to the simple fact
that the EOP entry point into the scalp was in fact some 1 1/2 to 2 inches
lower on the torso than was the entry into the skull in the vicinity of
the EOP. Which, now gives us a physical dimension of almost 6-full inches
that one would have to accept that the autopsy surgeons made in location
of the entry wound which they fully reported and recorded during the
course of the autopsy.
To include I might add, having taken a sample from the scalp penetration
at the lower edge of the hairline and having microscopically examined this
sample after slides had been prepared.
So, in event that your "taste" is to attempt to discredit the lower edge
of the scalp/EOP entry, then might I suggest that you take up this issue
with the two remaining living autopsy surgeons.
And in event that this "taste" is to attempt to discredit the "Cowlick"
entry, then might I recommend that you take this up with the Clark Panel;
the HSCA Medical Panel, as well as with every qualified person who has had
attempt to review the autopsy X-rays and photographs.
It IS NOT an either/or situation!
Both penetrations through the rear of the skull of JFK fully exist, which
to a rational thinking person, would serve to indicate that JFK was struck
in the rear of the head by two seperate bullets.
Which by the way, just happens to be the Z313/Cowlick impact entry point,
as well as the (approximately) Z349/350 Directly in front of James Altgens
location, third/last/final shot fired in the three-shot shooting sequence.
Now! In event that you can ask a simple and straight-forward (non-
compounded) question, then I would be more than willing to "give-a- shot"
at explaining whatever it is that you ask.
There has been more than sufficient confusion created on this subject
matter by those who would ask "compounded" questions and then attempt to
extract whatever suits their theories best as the answer which they wish
to promote.
The windshield damage; the molding damage; as well as the "Tague/curb
strike" as well as the fractured wrist of JBC were created by fragments
from the bullet which struck at the Z313/Cowlick entry.
There will of course be those who will claim that "you can not prove
this", when in reality, it is quite simple.
Only one bullet fragmented!-------Pure "rocket science" to figure that one
out!
Brokedad
> > The second shot/aka Z313, struck JFK in the top high (cowlick area) of
> > the head, blew off the "skull cap" section as seen in the Z-film, and
> > the bullet severely fragmented (actually was cut apart) primarily as a
> > result of the encounter with the skull in a horizontal plane as the
> > bullet attempted to exit the skull. �This bullet is responsible for
> > most of the cerebral damage to the upper lobes of the brain as well as
> > the severely fractured and fragmented skull in the frontal vicinity of
> > the head.
>
> > One of the multitudes of fragments from this bullet is responsible for
> > the wrist wound to JBC, who was holding his right arm out with that
> > portion from the elbow to the hand in a horizontal plane.
>
> > Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this
> > underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from
> > underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few
> > yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that
> > [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
> > Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
> > Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
> > Mr. STERN - To his right?
Whew! Another of those multiple and "compounded" questionaire's!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Contrary to what Altgens said. He said that the headshot occurred in
> front of him. From where he was standing, the limo was only about 10
> feet from his position so even if he was accurate in estimating 15 feet,
> that could be anywhere from 10 feet before JFK passed or 10 feet after.
>
======================
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
=====================
Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite
a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third
shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203
understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the
President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15
feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without
having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you
were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
down the street; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
======================
Now! Be sure and correct me in event that I am wrong, however, it
would appear that Altgens stated that he was "about 15 feet from the
car on the west side of the car"
Homework time: Elm St has three lanes. Elm St was 40-feet wide.
Each lane of Elm St. was approximately 13 1/3 feet in width.
Therefore, the Presidential Limo, travelling down the center lane,
would be approximately 15 feet from Altgens position when the vehicle
was directly in front of James Altgens (13 1/3 feet for first lane,
(+/-) a couple of feet to the side of the limo as it travelled down
the center lane = approximately 15 feet from Altgens position standing
on the curb to the side of the limo as it passed directly in front of
Altgens.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
And you have medical evidence of this?
Why not contact the National Archives. In event that you will send
them a few dollars then I have little doubt that they will send you a
copy of the "Abrasion Collar" drawing which was presented as a part of
the Medical Panel evaluation of wounds. It happens to clearly
demonstrate how the wound of entry becomes "elongated" based on the
angle of attack of the projectile against the skin and tissue of the
body.
Had JBC been sitting even close to erect at time of impact of the
projectile into his right rear shoulder, then the bullet would have
created a VERTICALLY elongated wound of entry.
Rather than the HORIZONTALLY elongated wound of entry which he
incurred.
P.S. Also helps to discuss the subject matter with a Forensic
Pathologist or two, or even a qualified Medical Examiner, in event
that one does not fully get this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
> Why does the position of Moorman and Hill have anything to do with this?
> What about the positions of all the other witnesses who consistently
> stated the limo positions where the three shots occurred?
A relatively broad and "open-ended" question. Nevertheless, as
examples:
1. The Moorman/Hill location is critical in understanding as the
first yellow curb marking is clearly defined.
The Z313 impact was 5-feet farther down Elm St. from the location of
the edge of this marking.
Corresponding! James Altgens was standing exactly 5-feet from the
second yellow curb marking (at the location of a construction joint in
the concrete curbing I might add).
The distance between the edges of the two yellow curb markins was
approximately 42.5 feet.
Therefore, at the time of the Z313 impact, JFK was some 37.5 feet back
up Elm St. from the Altgens location.
Which, due to the street elevation difference between the limo and
where Altgens was standing, as well as the angular position of the
limo in Elm St., made it physically impossible for him to have
observed the Z313 impact to the head of JFK, even had he been looking.
(which he was not, as he was resetting the focal length on his
camera's lense)
Secondly, in event that one will fully follow the WC's charades, they
will find that the WC "moved" Altgens location to a point which would
have placed him back up Elm St. so far that he would have been
standing between the Moorman/Hill/first yellow stripe location, and
the TSDB. Approximately 60-feet away from where he was actually
standing.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you
Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been
discussing.
Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which
would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--
about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side
that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street
which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm
Now! One could, in event that they so desired, assume that James
Altgens was so confused that he did not know whether he was standing
between the Moorman/Hill/first yellow stripe location and the TSDB, or
whether he was standing farther down Elm St. past the Moorman/Hill/
first yellow curb mark, almost to the second yellow curb marking, and
closer to the triple overpass than to the TSDB.
However, since James Altgens picture, as taken in the Zapruder film,
appeared in newspapers nationwide shortly after the assassination, I
would personally assume that James Altgens knew almost exactly where
he was standing.
Especially since:
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show
you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if
that would be of any help to you.
With this, the WC then continued their charade and gave us the
completely phony alignment of the reenactment photograph which
purportedy represented the Altgens Z255 position.
CE900
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0054a.htm
In which the reenactment photo is not even close to have been taken
from the Altgens position.*
*One should add in that the US Secret Service was fully aware of the
Altgens position and took reenactment photo's from his absolute and
exact location which is/was clearly defined by the construction joint
in the concrete curbing of Elm St. which was located exactly 5-feet
prior to the second yellow curb marking.
Lastly, in regards to the Moorman/Hill location (in this storyline
anyway), one would be remiss were they to NOT point out that, as with
much of the evidence, the Altgens 255 photo as presented in the
"Reenactment", has been severely trimmed, in the reenactment photo as
well as the submitted seperately Commissin Exhibit.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0304b.htm
In that regards, let me now reveal for the first time a partial reason
for that trimming.
The WC placed James Altgens location as being between the Moorman/Hill
location and the TSDB.
However, and heretofore (for the first time I might add), one can
easily look at a full sized (non-trimmed) copy of the Altgens Z255
photo and:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=561&fullsize=1
Which clearly shows the crack in the asphalt pavement of Elm St. which
runs across the street and intersects the curbing in the center of the
first yellow curb mark location (ie: Moorman/Hill location) as well as
also showing the shadow of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.
Which most assuredly should tell a prudent person that James Altgens
was located considerably farther down Elm St. than the Moorman/Hill
location, and most certainly was not in some asinine position which
placed him between the Moorman/Hill location and the TSDB.
Without a full grasp of the importance of the Moorman/Hill location;
the yellow curb markings; identifiable features in the asphalt street;
construction joints in concrete sidewalks and curbing; and the true
and exact position of James Altgens down by the second yellow curb
marking, one is most unlikely to understand the witness statements and
how they correlate with the the impact locations for the second/aka
Z313 shot as well as the third/last/final shot which struck JFK in the
head directly in front of James Altgens location.
Sufficient?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
First, you have Nellie C. who said that JBC was sitting up and turned
> right when the second shot was heard. She said that the third and last
> caused a spray of matter - it felt like spent buckshot. JBC said he felt
> it too, and it was after he was shot.
Did you happen to notice that what JBC stated from his hospital bed
does not correspond with that testimony which he later gave to the WC?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
Nearly everyone said that the third shot hit JFK in the head and that
> was the last shot.
Do not know exactly who "nearly everyone" is, but the witnesses did
not state any such thing.
Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight
down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about
halfway between the tripple underpass and Houston, where the steps are
- somewhere near about halfway.
I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the
second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
note: In event that one will go across the street from the "steps",
and then go back up the street a short distance, they will come to the
second yellow curb marking and James Altgens location.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say it was the second shot that hit him in the
head?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
============
And:
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this
underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from
underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few
yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that
[indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his
seat,
Now! Had not Mr. Costello removed his Z-film frames, one can see in
frame Z312 JBC with his right forearm basically parallel to the ground
and extended slightly to the right, which happens to have placed his
arm and wrist in the exact position necessary to have received the
fragment wound to the wrist from the Z313 impact and severely
fragmenting bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - Assuming the fact that the autopsy surgeon presented for
the record a statement that the fragments moved forward into the
vicinity of the President's right eye, as the diagram shows, that
there were approximately 40 star-like fragments running on a line
through the head on the trajectory, and that there was substantial
fragmentation of the bullet as it passed through the head, what is
your view about that?
Dr. GREGORY - I think it is possible that a fragment from that
particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right
arm.
A pretty safe assumption considersing the the wound was created by an
irregular fragment of limited velocity which cut and tore the radial
nerve as well as having torn various fibers of fabric from the coat
and shirt and carried them down into the wound of entry on the back
side of the wrist.
jas
Yes but Purvis' theory (the original post) says that JFK was hit in the
head twice and once in the back from 3 shots by Oswald from the 6th floor
TSBD. If the first bullet (per your theory) didn't pass through JFK and
Connally, which out of those 3 bullets hit Connally in the back?
Your two scenarios don't match, a common anti-SBT-argument and
conspiracist faux pas. It has to be one or the other, not both.
jas
>
> - Show quoted text -
[Original posts deleted due to saving space]
Sorry, can't buy your idea that a bullet struck the street to ricochet up
to hit JFK in the head while he was leaning over to the left.
Look at the Z-film. Eyeball common sense says the trajectory doesn't line
up for your scenario. There's simply too much rear limo blocking a bullet
ricochet off the street. The problem is augmented by JFK's head being too
low. Thirdly, you have the problem of the SS car being almost directly
behind the limo and blocking a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor TSBD
to the street.
I will say this however: Looking at Connally, and taking the exact moment
of the head shot entirely out of context from the rest of the evidence, it
looks like it's possible that he could have been hit by a fragment from
the head shot. *However,* we have that stubborn thing called *The Sum of
the Evidence* to contend with. Not only do the fragments in Connally's
wrist match in weight what was missing from CE399, but a fragment
trajectory from a bullet impact of the head shot would be too shallow to
match the actual trajectory found through Connally simply because JFK's
head was too low.
Furthermore, how do you account for the bullet hole in the front of JFK's
neck if, as you tout, there were only 3 shots fired alone by Oswald from
the 6th floor TSBD?
You see? Your theory gets mucked up at too many points.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/4/2009 11:46 AM, Brokedad wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 9:56�am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brokedad wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> " How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that
>>> shot
>>> both Connally and JFK had been wounded"
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Says who?
>>>
>>> The WC and JBC? As well as those who are of the opinion that they can
>>> look at a film and
>>> factually determine if a person has been wounded?
>>>
>>
>> SO, it is your opinion that no one can tell when the men have been hit
>> by looking at films and photos?
>
> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the zfilm
> alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head. You can see
> it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>
Wow, are you sure? I bet there are some theories out that that the head
shot was not at Z-313.
>> So, you can't figure out by looking at Z-313 that Kennedy had just
>> been shot in the head? You can't figure out by looking at the Altgens
>> photo that both Kennedy and Connally have already been hit?
>
> No, I can't. In fact there is quite strong evidence (shot pattern,
> Altgens, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman) that JBC is not hit in the back at
> z255.
>
My point, amplified. Anyone can tell. But you can't.
>> You can't look at Z-225 and see that Kennedy has already been hit?
>
> Yes. But it is only because I know from other evidence that there was a
> shot fired and that he was wounded in the neck/throat. I need more than
> just the zfilm. However, I don't need more than frame 313 to conclude
> that JFK has been hit in the head by a high energy bullet.
>
No, I said just based on the films and photos. And you still can't see
that JFK had been hit by Z-225?
>> You think he is just play acting or coughing?
>> You can't look at the films and photos of JFK out at Love Field and
>> tell that he has not been shot yet? Or do you think Walt Disney
>> painted all the Zapruder frames to erase evidence of shots? What?
>
> You are taking a simple point and making a ridiculous generalization.
Hey, that's my job. It is what is known in the trade as a straw man
argument. It has to be as ridiculous as possible to make the point emphatic.
> Whether one can tell from the zfilm whether something is or is not
> happening depends on how unequivocal the film is. If you cannot see JBC
> being hit but can only see a reaction, how do you tell from the zfilm
> that he is reacting to being hit by a bullet and not reacting to the
> sound of it and his horrific realization that an assassination is taking
> place - (which as actually what he said he did)?
Connally look at the Zapruder frames and could see that he was hit at
about Z-230. Look at some war footage and see if you can figure out when
the victim has been shot. Sometimes it is not clear down to the closest
millisecond, but usually you can tell by a second or two.
bigdog
>
> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
> zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
> You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>
This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
his right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
Nellie.
It is easy to look at individual frames post Z224 and argue that JBC is
not showing any sign of being struck, but when the Z-film is run at normal
speed and one focuses on JBC as soon as he re-emerges from behind the
sign, one can see he is clearly reacting to being shot as both his upper
body and right arm respond to the serious wounds suffered. Anyone who
argues that JBC has not been hit by Z225 is engaging in an excercise in
self delusion.
Anthony Marsh
So what? You are misinterpreting witness testimony to fit your wacky
theory. In front of him does not mean the bumper was even with his
position. It means the limo had not passed his position by the time of the
head shot.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
The Humes SBT for example.
John Canal
Near the end of my original reply, I wrote:
Sorry..see above. The fragments that hit the windshield were large and the only
exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was just forward
of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally inconsistent
with any fragments hitting the windshied glass/trim,
But I meant to write (with the correction in caps):
Sorry..see above. The fragments that hit the windshield were large and the only
exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was just forward
of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally inconsistent
with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK hitting the windshied
glass/trim.
John Canal
John Canal
Brokedad says...
No.
>That supposedly simple question certainly appears
>not unlike some of those which Specter & Company utilized to confuse the
>simple issues.
Sorry about that...but this is not the simplest of issues, IMO.
>P.S. It is neither "my" Cowlick entry nor "my" hairline-tunneling-EOP
>entry.
Hmmmm
>Humes; Boswell: and Finck (too include Kellerman who also observed it)
>gave us the lower edge of hairline entry in which the bullet "tunnelled"
>up through the soft tissue at the base of the neck to strike the skull in
>the region of the EOP at a point which is in fact higher in elevation (as
>one sits erect) then was the point of entry into the scalp.
They were repeatedly asked to pick out the entry in the BOH photo and the
choices were the red spot in the cowlick and the white spot [tissue] near the
hairline--neither choice fit their near EOP recollection..but they did chose the
near hairline spot as the entry on a couple of occassions.
That said, in the end they stuck to the location in the autopsy report.
>The Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel are the ones who gave us
>the "Cowlick" entry point in which they not only disagreed with the
>physical dimensions of the wound as reported by the atuopsy surgeons, but
>also stated that the wound of entry into the skull was in fact some 10 cm
>(4-inches) higher on the skull than that wound which the autopsy surgeons
>reported.
You believe the Clark Panel? Are these the same guys who:
1. Said F8 wasn't usable because the contrast was poor? Note that the HSCA had
no trouble pointing out the entry in that photo. Note also that Sturdivan and
Zimmerman were amazed at the clarity of that photo.
2. Missed seeing on the lateral x-ray the trail of opacities extening from the
area of the EOP? Note that the FPP's Dr. Joe Dais, as well as Zimmerman an
Sturdivan saw those opacities. They undoubtedly represent the beveled out bone
from the inner table of skull around the near EOP entry.
3. Claimed that the occipital bone wasn't fragmented? Note that the autopsy
report said over and over that the occipial was framented! Did Fisher ever read
the AR?
4. Thought that the roundish, 6.5 mm opacity on the AP film represented a real
bullet fragment? Here's some notes about that conclusion.
A. Sturdivan was assigned to consult Fisher on the wound-ballistics aspects of
his [Fisher's examination] and Fisher never asked Sturdivan whether or not he
thought the 6.5 mm opacity represented a bullet fragment. Sturdivan is certain
it is an artifact.
B. Howard Donahue told Fisher that the 6.5 mm opacity did not represent a
fragment that sheered off the bullet and Fisher simply said, "Well, you know
more about firearms than me."
C. Mantik, who examined the originals no less than six times, insists grid lines
can be seen on that opacity...which means it can't represent metal!
D. You were in Nam and must be familar with how bullets behave...can you even
begin to imagine a slice of metal sheering off a FMJ round as it penetrated the
skull?
E. None of the autopsists recall either seeing or recovering metal corresponding
with that opacity on 11-22-63.
Bottom line it's not a bullet fragment, like the Clark/HSCA experts claimed.
>However! I will take full credit for having pointed to the simple fact
>that the EOP entry point into the scalp was in fact some 1 1/2 to 2 inches
>lower on the torso than was the entry into the skull in the vicinity of
>the EOP.
Excuse me for a moment. You're reall saying the bullet impacted some 1 1/2
inches below the EOP and then tunelled up under the scalp and made a sharp turn
to enter the skull at the level of the EOP? And then where did it go?
>Which, now gives us a physical dimension of almost 6-full inches
>that one would have to accept that the autopsy surgeons made in location
>of the entry wound which they fully reported and recorded during the
>course of the autopsy.
I thought you said the bullet entered near the EOP? Well, you're correct it did
because four independent replicatons of F8, verified to be accurate by John
Stringer, show a bullet entry near the EOP level. And that's consistent with the
rain damage, the aforementioned trail of opacities, and what witnesses besides
HB&F said.
>To include I might add, having taken a sample from the scalp penetration
>at the lower edge of the hairline and having microscopically examined this
>sample after slides had been prepared.
>
>So, in event that your "taste" is to attempt to discredit the lower edge
>of the scalp/EOP entry, then might I suggest that you take up this issue
>with the two remaining living autopsy surgeons.
Well, I've never been able to track down Finck, but I've interviewed Boswell
twice. The entry was slightly above the EOP....and they said the entry in the
scalp corresponded with the hole in the skull. Also Zimmerman and Humes both
said when you look at the hole in the skull in F8 you can see through the scalp
that was being held up on the BOH when that photo was taken.
>And in event that this "taste" is to attempt to discredit the "Cowlick"
>entry, then might I recommend that you take this up with the Clark Panel;
>the HSCA Medical Panel, as well as with every qualified person who has had
>attempt to review the autopsy X-rays and photographs.
LOL! You take their word, when none of them saw the body, over the autospy docs?
Mantik said there isn't even a bullet hole in the cowlick to be seen n the AP
film, just fractures. Hell, the NASA engineer [Canning] had to fudge JFK's Z-312
lean by more than half to cheat the trajectory line from the exit through their
mythical cowlick entry back near the SN. YUP, THAT WAS A NASA ENGINEER--maybe
he's the one who checked out the Challenger before it took off in January 1986?
Note, BTW, that myers recalculated Canning's work and the cowlick entry
trajectory line points back some 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex
building. Now the trajectory line of that alleged cowlick entry extended forward
is even harder to explain than the line extende back...if that's possible.
>It IS NOT an either/or situation!
>
>Both penetrations through the rear of the skull of JFK fully exist, which
>to a rational thinking person, would serve to indicate that JFK was struck
>in the rear of the head by two seperate bullets.
So, which is it..do you think, because HB&F said adamantly there was only one
hit to the head, they were in on a conspiracy or as qualified to do an autopsy
as a 8 year old child playing doctor?
>Which by the way, just happens to be the Z313/Cowlick impact entry point,
>as well as the (approximately) Z349/350 Directly in front of James Altgens
>location, third/last/final shot fired in the three-shot shooting sequence.
One hit to the head...obviouly at 312/313.
>Now! In event that you can ask a simple and straight-forward (non-
>compounded) question, then I would be more than willing to "give-a- shot"
>at explaining whatever it is that you ask.
Ok, let's try this. You must know that the two fragments that hit the windshield
glass/trim together comprised about 38% of the weight of the round. You also
must know that much lead had to make an exit defect of substantial size and the
exit defect along the coronal suture fits that requirement very nicely...noting
that there were NO other exit defect found (only one entry too, BTW).
Ok, with those facts in mind let's consider possible paths from your proposed
two entry locations to THE ONLY EXIT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE AMOUNT
OF LEAD FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO.
1. From the cowlick entry to that aforementioned exit...that exiting trajectory
heads down into the limo and not nearly in the direction of the windshield.
2. Your near hairline impacting and then tunelling up under the scalp bullet
would have had to have done magical tricks to travel to that exit point.
>There has been more than sufficient confusion created on this subject
>matter by those who would ask "compounded" questions and then attempt to
>extract whatever suits their theories best as the answer which they wish
>to promote.
My apologies.
>The windshield damage; the molding damage; as well as the "Tague/curb
>strike" as well as the fractured wrist of JBC were created by fragments
>from the bullet which struck at the Z313/Cowlick entry.
Sorry..see above. The fragments that hit the windshield were large and the only
exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was just forward
of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally inconsistent
with any fragments hitting the windshied glass/trim,
Now, if you want to say that the autopsists were so incometent (like Harris and
Mash think) that they missed seeing another large exit (not to mention another
entry) to the head, then you have a theory that I don't want to argue with...for
the same reasons I don't argue with Marsh or Harris.
>There will of course be those who will claim that "you can not prove
>this", when in reality, it is quite simple.
See above.
>Only one bullet fragmented!-------Pure "rocket science" to figure that one
>out!
Well, I'm not a rocket scientist...nor a forensic pathologist, but I have read
the medical evidence and have done some research on the head wounds and agree
with HB&F that only one bullet hit JFK in the head.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
First, you have no business claiming that more than one fragment hit the
windshield. There was only point of contact. Second, you have not
quantified nor tried to prove how big the lead core fragment which left
lead in the glass would need to be in order to crack the windshield, but
not go through it.
Third, if YOU can get a fragment from the your EOP entrance to hit the
windshield then anyone else can likewise manipulate the evidence and get
a fragment from their cowlick entrance to hit the windshield.
If you are going to start making up deflections then your opponents are
also allowed to make up deflections.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
>> zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
>> You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>
>
> This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
> was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
> his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
Well, yes we can tell that he was not hit at Z-224 because his jacket
does NOT bulge out. Thanks.
> his right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
> down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
> complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
> to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
> Nellie.
>
Connally analyzed those frames and said 230.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 4, 9:18�pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 1:26�am, Brokedad<temptypock...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> (lengthy OP snipped)
>>
>> Your theory refutes itself. You have Oswald firing three shots and
>> hitting JFK with all three. Yet you reject the SBT. What sort of magic
>> bullet can you offer to explain JBC's wounds if it was not from a
>> bullet that hit JFK first.
>
>
>
> first shot merely lodged in the back of JFK a short distance without
> knowing full well what could cause an 1,800 to 2,000 fps bullet to merely
> penetrate the human torso a "short distance"?
>
The FBI did not state as a fact or believe that the shot which hit
Kennedy lodged in his back. FBI agents merely wrote down whatever Humes
said. Humes was the idiot about that, not the FBI. The FBI was the idiot
for speculating about an ice bullet.
Andrew Mason
The answer is "Yes I can see that he has been hit by z225. Since I know
from evidence other than the zfilm that JFK was hit in the neck by a
bullet, I can tell from the zfilm that he certainly has been hit by z225."
In frame z313, on the other hand, you can tell just from the film alone
that he has been hit by a high energy missile, very likely (if not
certainly) a bullet . The film is conclusive and unequivocal. It is not
conclusive that JBC has been shot by z225 or by z230 or by z255. In
fact, I can state with a high level of certainty that he has NOT been
hit in the right armpit at or before z255.
>
>>> You think he is just play acting or coughing?
>>> You can't look at the films and photos of JFK out at Love Field and
>>> tell that he has not been shot yet? Or do you think Walt Disney
>>> painted all the Zapruder frames to erase evidence of shots? What?
>>
>>
>> You are taking a simple point and making a ridiculous generalization.
>
>
> Hey, that's my job. It is what is known in the trade as a straw man
> argument. It has to be as ridiculous as possible to make the point
> emphatic.
>
>> Whether one can tell from the zfilm whether something is or is not
>> happening depends on how unequivocal the film is. If you cannot see JBC
>> being hit but can only see a reaction, how do you tell from the zfilm
>> that he is reacting to being hit by a bullet and not reacting to the
>> sound of it and his horrific realization that an assassination is taking
>> place - (which as actually what he said he did)?
>
>
> Connally look at the Zapruder frames and could see that he was hit at
> about Z-230. Look at some war footage and see if you can figure out when
> the victim has been shot. Sometimes it is not clear down to the closest
> millisecond, but usually you can tell by a second or two.
Not only can I not tell from the film that he is hit at z230, I
emphatically say, based on all the evidence, that he has not been hit there.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
>>zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
>>You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>
>
>
> This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
> was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
> his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
> his right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
> down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
> complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
> to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
> Nellie.
You are confusing "unequivocal and conclusive" evidence with "probative"
evidence. The evidence you point to is probative but it is not by any
means conclusive. If you have conclusive evidence of a particular fact, by
definition you cannot have evidence that is probative (ie. may persuade a
reasonable person) of the existance of a conflicting fact.
I can point to JBC's evidence that he was definitely hit by the second
shot and to Nellie's evidence that JFK was reacting to his neck wound
before the second shot, to Greer's evidence that he turned around
immediately after the second shot (he turns at z280 for the first time) as
probative of a very different conclusion. I could also point to the shot
pattern evidence, the first shot location evidence (after z186) and the
"first shot hit JFK" evidence to support the conclusion that it is not
possible for JBC to have been hit by z224.
You would say that this evidence is not conclusive. I would agree, but it
definitely is probative. Therefore, your interpretation of what you
believe is happening to JBC at z224 is probative but not conclusive
evidence.
>
> It is easy to look at individual frames post Z224 and argue that JBC is
> not showing any sign of being struck, but when the Z-film is run at normal
> speed and one focuses on JBC as soon as he re-emerges from behind the
> sign, one can see he is clearly reacting to being shot as both his upper
> body and right arm respond to the serious wounds suffered. Anyone who
> argues that JBC has not been hit by Z225 is engaging in an excercise in
> self delusion.
I am not sure what your definition of self-delusion is. Try this one:
self delusion: having persuaded one self that evidence which is persuasive
but conflicts with large bodies of real evidence is, nevertheless
conclusive eg. believing that one can tell conclusively that JBC is hit in
the chest by z225.
See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
Andrew Mason
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
====================================================================
It has to be one or the other, not both.
====================================================================
Says who?
Brokedad
========================================================
You see? Your theory gets mucked up at too many points.
========================================================
Sorry, can't buy your idea that a bullet struck the street to
ricochet up
> to hit JFK in the head while he was leaning over to the left.
========================================================
There can be little doubt that someone is highly "mucked up"! Or if
they so desire, delete the letter "M" and add in the 6th letter of the
alphabet.
Whoever, and however, you obtained such an asinine concept is totally
beyond me.
Brokedad
==================================================================
Anyone who argues that JBC has not been hit by Z225 is engaging in an
excercise in
self delusion.
===================================================================
And anyone who apparantly has never been shot at should not present
hypothetical concepts as to exactly how one reacts to such severe
external stimuli.
Brokedad
====================================================================
is totally inconsistent with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN
THE COWLICK hitting the windshied
glass/trim.
====================================================================
Exactly which stage of the bullet fragmentation would that be?? In event
that it is in regards to the first stage of fragmentation, then I fully
concur. These fragments would have had to exit upwards, which fortunately
correlates with exactly what can be seen in the Z-film. And, these exiting
fragments would have had the greatest velocity as they sheared at the time
of first encounter with the inner table of the skull as the bullet began
it's initial exit.
However, in event that you are referring to anything after this, then I
must completely disagree.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:498c592b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 2/5/2009 11:57 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
>>> zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
>>> You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>>
>>
>> This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
>> was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
>> his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
>
> Well, yes we can tell that he was not hit at Z-224 because his jacket does
> NOT bulge out. Thanks.
>
>> his right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
>> down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second
>> to
>> complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
>> to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
>> Nellie.
Marsh wrote;
> Connally analyzed those frames and said 230.
I write;
Connally said he was hit between frames 231-234. (Volume IV page 145)
JBC's Dr. Shaw said JBC was hit at 236. (Volume IV page 114.
Marsh needs to read the evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> On 2/5/2009 11:57 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
> >> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
> >> zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
> >> You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>
> > This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
> > was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
> > his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
>
> Well, yes we can tell that he was not hit at Z-224 because his jacket
> does NOT bulge out. Thanks.
>
Tony, why do you insist on playing these silly sematic games. You know
perfectly well there is a definite movement in the right side of his
jacket. This movement has at times been called a flip or a bulge or some
other term. No matter what term is used to describe it, some CT will take
exception to it. Call it whatever you want. His jacket makes a defintive
movement which covers up his shirt to the right of the tie and this
movement lasts just one frame. Coupled with the definitive arm movements
by both JFK and JBC immediately following Z224, this gives us a clear
indication of when the SB hit. I agree that the bullet did not hit at
Z224. It probably hit a frame or two earlier. Super slow motion film of
bullets passing through objects indicate the bullet goes through first and
then the previously inert material moves following it. The relatively slow
speed of the Z-film makes it impossible to assign a specific frame that
the SB hit. It might even have hit in the interval between two frames.
What we can determine is the sequence of events. Bullet strikes. JBC's
jacket bulges. JFK and JBC's arms raise up dramatically. JBC twists
violently to his right.
> > This right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
> > down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
> > complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
> > to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
> > Nellie.
>
> Connally analyzed those frames and said 230.
>
So should we believe that Connally jerked his right arm upward before
the bullet hit his wrist? Was he trying to catch the bullet?
Brokedad
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
===================================================================
Sorry about that...but this is not the simplest of issues, IMO.
===================================================================
Truthfully! It is quite simple!
That someone intentionally went to great lengths to make it as
confusing as possible is also a given fact.
=================================================================
D. You were in Nam and must be familar with how bullets behave...can
you even
> begin to imagine a slice of metal sheering off a FMJ round as it penetrated the
> skull?
==================================================================
First priority was to attempt to not get shot!
Not too much time expended in discussion on the ballistic/forensic
aspects of what the bullet would or would not do.
Nevertheless, the answer is yes, the skull bone of a living human has
the ability to sheer the nose from a FMJ bullet. Along with some
other pretty amazing abilities.
As regards the purported "6.5mm" fragment. I prefer the term
"artifact" at this point.
=====================================================================
Excuse me for a moment. You're reall saying the bullet impacted some 1
1/2
> inches below the EOP and then tunelled up under the scalp and made a sharp turn
> to enter the skull at the level of the EOP? And then where did it go?
=====================================================================
The bullet impact into the scalp was at a location at the lower edge
of the hairline, which anatomically is at a point which is lower than
the EOP of the skull.
Humes & Boswell both explained to the HSCA how the bullet "tunnelled"
through the soft tissues at the base of the skull prior to impact with
the skull itself.
As one reads this questioning they have to pay extremely close
attention in order to ascertain at what point Humes & Boswell are
referencing the scalp entry point and at what point they are
referencing the entry point location into the skull.
P.S. The "tunnelling" was on a downward angle, which along with the
elongated nature of the skull penetration/aka angle of attack, will
tell most exactly what position the head had to be in at the time of
impact.
And, after exit, the bullet continued "downward".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm
I cannot say that three bullets did not strike in the automobile from
my examination, but it appears and due to the reconstruction at
Dallas, it appears that if the one bullet did strike the President,
then it landed in the automobile, and if it landed in the automobile,
and we found no evidence of it having hit the car itself, then I say
it is possible that it struck the Governor.
Now, as to the sequence of the shots, that one obviously was before
the head shot. If there was a third shot fired, I could not tell you
from anything I know whether it was the first, the second, or the
third.
Mr. FRAZIER - Assuming all those assumptions we had before; no. I
would say that, and again I have not the technical evidence to back
this up one way or the other but you make these assumptions and I
would say under those conditions only two shots hit the occupants or
the car because the one through the President had to cause Connally's
wound otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it
did not strike somewhere else.
Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally.
And the second shot had to strike the President in the head.
(hint: One is getting extremely close to he one and only true "Magic
Bullet" here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with CE399 which
merely lodged a short distance into the back of JFK.)
========================================================================================
Well, I've never been able to track down Finck, but I've interviewed
Boswell
> twice. The entry was slightly above the EOP....and they said the entry in the
> scalp corresponded with the hole in the skull. Also Zimmerman and Humes both
> said when you look at the hole in the skull in F8 you can see through the scalp
> that was being held up on the BOH when that photo was taken.
>
Finck moved to Switzerland years ago. He, not unlike Dr. Humes also
long ago ceased to/refused to discuss the subject matter with
virtually anyone.* Humes would not discuss the subject with me
either, however I am aware that he and Dr. Boswell discussed with each
other many of the topics which Dr. Boswell and I discussed over the
period of a year or so.
*You are welcome to his phone number if you like, but rest assured he
wants to put this behind him.
================================
The entry was slightly above the EOP.
================================
That is a part of what has many thinking that there is a conflict in
what Humes and Boswell have stated.
Entry into the scalp was BELOW the EOP. Entry into the skull was
ABOVE the EOP.
No conflict. Merely confusion as to what is being asked and what is
being answered.
====================================================================================
> Ok, let's try this. You must know that the two fragments that hit the windshield
> glass/trim together comprised about 38% of the weight of the round. You also
> must know that much lead had to make an exit defect of substantial size and the
> exit defect along the coronal suture fits that requirement very nicely...noting
> that there were NO other exit defect found (only one entry too, BTW).
>
> Ok, with those facts in mind let's consider possible paths from your proposed
> two entry locations to THE ONLY EXIT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE AMOUNT
> OF LEAD FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO.
>
> 1. From the cowlick entry to that aforementioned exit...that exiting trajectory
> heads down into the limo and not nearly in the direction of the windshield.
>
> 2. Your near hairline impacting and then tunelling up under the scalp bullet
> would have had to have done magical tricks to travel to that exit point.
+++++++++++++++++++++
from your proposed
> two entry locations
Your near hairline impacting and then
tunelling up under the scalp bullet
+++++++++++++++++++++
Again, if I may reiterate! Neither of these are "my" wound
designations. The "cowlick" entry is so designated by the full
Medical Panel of the HSCA investigation.
The lower edge of hairline, tunneling through soft tissue at base of
the neck to impact the skull 2.5cm right and slight above the EOP,
happens to belong to Humes/Boswell/& Finck.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. From the cowlick entry to that aforementioned exit...that exiting
trajectory
> heads down into the limo and not nearly in the direction of the windshield.
Actually, it heads parallel with the top of the skull, which is why
the bullet nose was cut partially off on initial exit.
FMJ bullets are quite sturdy, but when traversing in a virtual
horizontal plane against the horizontal plane of the skull, it is
quite amazing what the skull bone can actually do to one of the
purportedly sturdy bullets.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2. Your near hairline impacting and then tunelling up under the scalp bullet
> would have had to have done magical tricks to travel to that exit point.
Think downward! That may place into perspective exactly where the
projectile went after having exited the frontal/temporal area of JFK's
head.
======================================================================================
John: Let's attempt to keep this as simple as possible and thereafter
discuss the TWO SEPERATE and distinctive wounds to the head in their
respective impact locations:
IE: Cowlick entry:-------------------------------------------------
Z313
EOP entry:----------------------------------------------------------
Survey Stationing 4+95/aka directly in front of James Altgens location
and some 29.7 feet farther down Elm St. from the Z313 impact.
Few here would have even studied the medical evidence as much as you
and I both appear to have done.
No doubt you possibly asked Dr. Boswell some questions which I should
have gotten around to asking, and rest assured I asked him many
questions which should have been asked of him long ago by anyone who
was actually searching for the forensic truths to this matter.
John Canal
Brokedad says...
>
>On Feb 6, 5:53=EF=BF=BDam, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Correction:
>>
>> Near the end of my original reply, I wrote:
>>
>e only
>> exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was just f=
>orward
>> of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally inconsis=
>tent
>> with any fragments hitting the windshied glass/trim,
>>
>> But I meant to write (with the correction in caps):
>>
>e only
>> exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was just f=
>orward
>> of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally inconsis=
>tent
>> with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK hitting the wind=
>shied
>> glass/trim.
>>
>> John Canal
>is totally inconsistent with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN
>THE COWLICK hitting the windshied
> glass/trim.
>Exactly which stage of the bullet fragmentation would that be??
Huh?
Any large bullet fragments (that came from a bullet entering the cowlick)
exiting just forward of the coronal suture would have hit a skull that was
slanted towards their path...meaning if they deflected upon exit (after
traveling from the cowlick), they would have been deflected down..not up
towards the windshield area.
It didn't happen--there was no bullet that entered the cowlick:
1. There are no low density (bone chips) opacites on the x-rays in that
area to account for the bone around shuch an entry that would have been
beveled out.
2. The brain damage was from low through the mid-brain to
high...consistent with a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting forward
of the coronal suture.
3. You know from your experience (and from the revelation that grid lines
can be seen on the 6.5 mm opacity) that it [the 6.5 mm opacity] does not
represent a bullet fragment.....so, if it miraculously appeared after the
assassination in the cowlick, doesn't that send signals to you that some
individuals possibly wanted to "move" the entry up so that it appeared to
be consistent with a shot fired from six floors up? The Clark Panel
created the cowlick entry.
4. Consistent with that conclusion, Mantik, who has examined the originals
no less than six times, insists no hole in the cowlick can be seen on the
x-rays. Why would he lie?---others who subsequently see the originals
would look for this and his reputation would be trashed completely and
forever if they caught him lying.
5. Only one entry to and exit from his head was noted during the autopsy.
If you resolve the conflict between this finding and your theory you must
prove that the autopsists were either in on a cover-up (which is
incredibly unlikely, because there were more individuals in that morgue
than you can shake a stick at)...***OR*** that they were bricklayers
posing as pathologists---you can hardly prove either choice. To be sure,
that's the theory killer that's in the way of Marsh's and Harris' theory
and it's a gaping hole in yours as well.
Good luck.
[...]
John Canal
Andrew Mason
I am not sure I understand the problem. I say that the first
bullet passed through JFK's neck but did not strike JBC in the
right armpit. Rather it went to the left side of the middle of
JBC's seat. The second shot struck JBC in the right armpit but
did not strike JFK at all (and it deflected away from the point
of contact with JBC's radius). The third shot struck JFK in the head.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that there was any shooter
other than Oswald. This scenario fits perfectly with Oswald
firing all shots. The only thing it does not fit is the
conviction held by many that JBC is reacting to the second shot
in z230-270. He is reacting to the first shot, just as he said.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
If you have a history of falling back on a deflection theory to salvage
the problems in your wacky theory, you are in no position to tell others
what deflections are possible or not possible.
> It didn't happen--there was no bullet that entered the cowlick:
Correct. So, what is that thing they all see in the cowlick area? Do you
agree with Humes that it is a bloodclot?
>
> 1. There are no low density (bone chips) opacites on the x-rays in that
> area to account for the bone around shuch an entry that would have been
> beveled out.
>
Not that there have to be.
> 2. The brain damage was from low through the mid-brain to
> high...consistent with a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting forward
> of the coronal suture.
>
> 3. You know from your experience (and from the revelation that grid lines
> can be seen on the 6.5 mm opacity) that it [the 6.5 mm opacity] does not
> represent a bullet fragment.....so, if it miraculously appeared after the
> assassination in the cowlick, doesn't that send signals to you that some
> individuals possibly wanted to "move" the entry up so that it appeared to
> be consistent with a shot fired from six floors up? The Clark Panel
> created the cowlick entry.
>
Are you suggesting a cover-up? You mean like a conspiracy to deceive the
American public? Why, I'm shocked.
> 4. Consistent with that conclusion, Mantik, who has examined the originals
> no less than six times, insists no hole in the cowlick can be seen on the
> x-rays. Why would he lie?---others who subsequently see the originals
> would look for this and his reputation would be trashed completely and
> forever if they caught him lying.
>
Right. No hole can be seen in the back of the head.
> 5. Only one entry to and exit from his head was noted during the autopsy.
So freaking what? No exit wound was noted to the throat. They messed up
big time. The Three Stooges.
> If you resolve the conflict between this finding and your theory you must
> prove that the autopsists were either in on a cover-up (which is
> incredibly unlikely, because there were more individuals in that morgue
> than you can shake a stick at)...***OR*** that they were bricklayers
Yet you feel free to posit a massive conspiracy by everybody to create a
6.5 opacity. Try to be consistent.
Anthony Marsh
No, not Oswald's WCC 6.5 mm M-C FMJ bullets.
> As regards the purported "6.5mm" fragment. I prefer the term
> "artifact" at this point.
>
> =====================================================================
>
> Excuse me for a moment. You're reall saying the bullet impacted some 1
> 1/2
>> inches below the EOP and then tunelled up under the scalp and made a sharp turn
>> to enter the skull at the level of the EOP? And then where did it go?
> =====================================================================
>
> The bullet impact into the scalp was at a location at the lower edge
> of the hairline, which anatomically is at a point which is lower than
> the EOP of the skull.
> Humes& Boswell both explained to the HSCA how the bullet "tunnelled"
> through the soft tissues at the base of the skull prior to impact with
> the skull itself.
> As one reads this questioning they have to pay extremely close
> attention in order to ascertain at what point Humes& Boswell are
> referencing the scalp entry point and at what point they are
> referencing the entry point location into the skull.
>
> P.S. The "tunnelling" was on a downward angle, which along with the
> elongated nature of the skull penetration/aka angle of attack, will
> tell most exactly what position the head had to be in at the time of
> impact.
>
> And, after exit, the bullet continued "downward".
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm
>
> I cannot say that three bullets did not strike in the automobile from
> my examination, but it appears and due to the reconstruction at
> Dallas, it appears that if the one bullet did strike the President,
> then it landed in the automobile, and if it landed in the automobile,
> and we found no evidence of it having hit the car itself, then I say
> it is possible that it struck the Governor.
Yeah, maybe by ignoring the damage to the limousine.
> Now, as to the sequence of the shots, that one obviously was before
> the head shot. If there was a third shot fired, I could not tell you
> from anything I know whether it was the first, the second, or the
> third.
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Assuming all those assumptions we had before; no. I
> would say that, and again I have not the technical evidence to back
> this up one way or the other but you make these assumptions and I
> would say under those conditions only two shots hit the occupants or
> the car because the one through the President had to cause Connally's
> wound otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it
> did not strike somewhere else.
That again assumed that it did not hit bone and did not deflect.
> Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally.
> And the second shot had to strike the President in the head.
>
> (hint: One is getting extremely close to he one and only true "Magic
> Bullet" here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with CE399 which
> merely lodged a short distance into the back of JFK.)
>
CE 399 could not possibly have lodged only a short distance into the
back of JFK.
> ========================================================================================
Why do you say THE projectile? If the bullet broke up inside the head,
that may be only one fragment of many. Perhaps the extruded lead core.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 6, 8:05 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2009 11:57 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
>>>> zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
>>>> You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>> This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
>>> was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
>>> his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
>> Well, yes we can tell that he was not hit at Z-224 because his jacket
>> does NOT bulge out. Thanks.
>>
>
> Tony, why do you insist on playing these silly sematic games. You know
> perfectly well there is a definite movement in the right side of his
> jacket. This movement has at times been called a flip or a bulge or some
Why have you abandoned the lapel flip? That used to be so much fun. I
agree that you can see something happening, but I do not agree with what
you describe it as being or representing.
> other term. No matter what term is used to describe it, some CT will take
> exception to it. Call it whatever you want. His jacket makes a defintive
> movement which covers up his shirt to the right of the tie and this
> movement lasts just one frame. Coupled with the definitive arm movements
> by both JFK and JBC immediately following Z224, this gives us a clear
> indication of when the SB hit. I agree that the bullet did not hit at
> Z224. It probably hit a frame or two earlier. Super slow motion film of
Then you disagree with Lattimer's explanation.
> bullets passing through objects indicate the bullet goes through first and
> then the previously inert material moves following it. The relatively slow
> speed of the Z-film makes it impossible to assign a specific frame that
> the SB hit. It might even have hit in the interval between two frames.
> What we can determine is the sequence of events. Bullet strikes. JBC's
> jacket bulges. JFK and JBC's arms raise up dramatically. JBC twists
> violently to his right.
>
Jeez, what about his wrist? What about his hat? Don't forget to add
these to your list.
>>> This right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
>>> down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
>>> complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
>>> to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
>>> Nellie.
>> Connally analyzed those frames and said 230.
>>
> So should we believe that Connally jerked his right arm upward before
> the bullet hit his wrist? Was he trying to catch the bullet?
>
Must be psychic, eh? WC defenders must think that JFK was psychic to
start reacting before Z-224 when the bullet did not hit til then.
Anthony Marsh
The Zapruder film does not show bullet fragments.
Brokedad
> In article <97715a23-0db9-479b-b231-2f6b6284f...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Huh?
Any large bullet fragments (that came from a bullet entering the cowlick)
exiting just forward of the coronal suture would have hit a skull that was
slanted towards their path...meaning if they deflected upon exit (after
traveling from the cowlick), they would have been deflected down..not up
towards the windshield area.
Actually!
As the bullet began it's initial exit from the interior of the skull, It's
virtually horizontal plane of exit against a slightly depressed horizontal
plane of the skull, would have caused a portion of the nose of the bullet
to shear off and the bullet to begin to split open. Thus sending severed
fragments from the bullet nose in an "upwards" as well as downwards
directions, along with having left metallic residue embedded primarily on
the inner table of the skull.
Quite amazing that the frame Z313 of the film demonstrates this "non-
phenomenon ", along with the fact that the skull exibits the exit beveling
as well as embedded metallic residue, along with the relatively simple
fact that this happens to be virtually the only means by which the skull
of a living human being can effectively "split open" the lead core of a
FMJ bullet, as is fully demonstrated in a thorough evaluation of CE567.
Now, as to fragmentation path's! Are we referencing that portion of the
nose of the bullet which split off and went in an upward
position?-----Forget about them other than the "Tague/curb" impact and
exactly which shot Tague associated his cheek scratch to.
Or? Are we referencing any potential portions of the bottom side of the
bullet nose which may have sheared off and thereafter began a slightly
downward (through the brain) exit pathway.
Certainly, we are not referencing all of the "dust-like" particles of lead
which were created as a result of the force of the bullet against the
almost horizontal resistance of the skull, which ultimately sliced the
lead core of the bullet open.
Then again that leaves us with CE 567 (which passage exit was through the
upper lobe of the brain, thereby ripping and tearing cerebral tissue) and
there is CE569 which although missing it's lead core, quite obviously had
that portion intact at the time of impact.
So, if, and when, one undertakes a complete study of these bullet
fragments in order to make an attempt at comprehension of exactly how the
normally soft bone of the living skull can split open the core of a FMJ
Carcano bullet, as well as thereafter literally cut that bullet in half,
then one may come to a slightly better understanding as to exactly how
many various bullet fragments exited the skull and brain of JFK from the
Z313/Cowlick entry impact, as well as exactly which of these bullet
fragments may have exited the top of the skull on a virtually horizontal
plane which would have sent them straight forward towards the windshield
and windshield molding.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It didn't happen--there was no bullet that entered the cowlick:
Methinks that the HSCA Medical Panel (along with the autopsy photographs;
autopsy x-rays; autopsy report in regards to physical damage to the upper
lobes of the brain; photographs and X-rays of skull fragments retrieved;
etc;, tell a completely different story.
In addition to the simple fact that it is a physical impossibility for the
impact of a bullet fired at a downward angle at Z313 to have struck JFK in
the back of the neck at the lower edge of the hairline, and thereafter
immediately turned upwards to pass through the upper lobes of the brain
and exit in the frontal/frontal temporal vicinity in the front of the
head.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. There are no low density (bone chips) opacites on the x-rays in that
area to account for the bone around shuch an entry that would have been
beveled out.
How about this? "There are no low density (bone chips) opacities
WHICH CAN BE READILY OBSERVED on the X-rays in tha area.
Which, most assuredly does not mean that there are none there.
Especially when one takes into consideration the complete lack of
quality of the autopsy X-rays.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The brain damage was from low through the mid-brain to
high...consistent with a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting forward
of the coronal suture.
Well! Since we are referring to bullet pathways through the brain and the
cerebral damage created by each of these bullets, one can not state the
someone is mixing "apples and oranges".
However, one could easily state that one is mixing their two seperate and
distinct types of apples.
That pathway across the upper lobes of the brain in which there is
tremendous cerebral damage (tearing, etc;), represents that damage as
created the the "graze/tangent" shot impact of the Cowlick entry at Z313
in which the bullet severely fragmented due primarily as a result of it's
exit against the horizontal plane of the top of the skull.
That pathway which begins at the "tip" of the occipital lobe, happens to
thereafter run through the mid-brain. Where, the pathway thereafter
"communicates" with the upper lobe damage in the frontal/frontal temporal
area of the brain.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. You know from your experience (and from the revelation that grid lines
can be seen on the 6.5 mm opacity) that it [the 6.5 mm opacity] does not
represent a bullet fragment.....so, if it miraculously appeared after the
assassination in the cowlick, doesn't that send signals to you that some
individuals possibly wanted to "move" the entry up so that it appeared to
be consistent with a shot fired from six floors up? The Clark Panel
created the cowlick entry.
I would hope that you would take the time to "re-study" exactly what is
being referenced when speaking of the 6.5mm opacity, which happens to be
metallic residue embedded on the INNER TABLE of the skull of JFK, and
which also happens to be that point at which the Z313/Cowlick entry
projectile began it's exit from the upper lobe of the skull of JFK.
And, actually, the Clark Panel attempt to hide their revelations as
they knew the complete conflict with the autopsy surgeon's reported
entry wound location.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Consistent with that conclusion, Mantik, who has examined the originals
no less than six times, insists no hole in the cowlick can be seen on the
x-rays. Why would he lie?---others who subsequently see the originals
would look for this and his reputation would be trashed completely and
forever if they caught him lying.
Have absolutely no idea as to exactly what Mantik may or may not have
looked at in that regards. However, I do know that the entire Clark Panel
as well as the entire HSCA Medical Panel, as well as virtually every
qualified person of my knowledge to examine the anterior/posterior X-ray
of JFK, continues to repeat that there exists a wound of entry located
high and in the top rear of the head of JFK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5. Only one entry to and exit from his head was noted during the autopsy.
If you resolve the conflict between this finding and your theory you must
prove that the autopsists were either in on a cover-up (which is
incredibly unlikely, because there were more individuals in that morgue
than you can shake a stick at)...***OR*** that they were bricklayers
posing as pathologists---you can hardly prove either choice. To be sure,
that's the theory killer that's in the way of Marsh's and Harris' theory
and it's a gaping hole in yours as well.
Nope!
The "one entry/one exit" merely defines that a complete and intact bullet
entered the skull at the lower area/EOP region of the skull, and, what
would appear as possibly an intact bullet existed the skull in the
frontal/frontal temporal vicinity of the front of the head.
In even that one so desires to make a complete ass of himself, then he
can assume that this was the exact same bullet.
HOWEVER!
Since we have two bullet pathways of damage through the brain of JFK.
1. That severe damage through the upper lobes in which he brain
tissue was ripped and torn by the fragmented bullet
2. That nice neat little pathway which begins at the tip of the
occipital lobe and thereafter ran through the mid-brain, to thereafter
communicate with that damage to the upper lobe in the frontal/frontal
temporal area,
Then, a logical person just may assume that JFK was in fact struck in
the back of the head by two seperate and distinctive bullets.
Such a hypothesis just may be further re-inforced when it is
recognized that:
A. the bullet which struck in the cowlick of the skull severely
fragmented, yet there is absolutely no evidence of bullet fragments to be
found within the EOP region of the skull in the lateral X-rays.
B. That pathway through the mid-brain was not a pathway which was created
by a bullet fragment which, for all known applications, will cut and tear
the brain as it makes it's passageway through the tissues.
C. The Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel have clearly stated
that JFK has an entry wound of the skull which is located in the
Cowlick/right rear high of the head. (which conveniently happens to
correlate exactly with where SS Agent Glen Bennett states that he observed
the SECOND SHOT impact strike JFK)
D. All autopsy surgeons, to include others present at the autopsy, have
clearly identified a bullet impact point which struck JFK in the back of
the neck at the lower edge of the hairline, and which bullet passage way
then tunnelled in an anatomically UPWARDS direction throught the soft
tissues at the base of the neck to ultimately strike the skull of JFK at a
point in the vicinity of the EOP which was anatomically higher than was
the point of entry into the scalp. A complete physical impossiblility for
someone who is sitting even close to erect.
E. Not to mention the simple facts of the elongated nature of the EOP
entry wound through the skull of JFK as well as the fact that prior to
striking JFK in the lower edge of the hairline, the bullet also passed
completely through his coat, having struck the coat at a loction which
happens to be almost exactly 2.5cm right of mid-seam and directly below
the edge of the coat collar.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good luck.
Not needed! Luck is for those who sit around and either make guesses or
hope that some great revelation is going to come their way and open the
door of enlightment.
And, just perhaps this may be of some assistance in that regards.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036b.htm
jas
>
> - Show quoted text -
[Some of original post deleted]
Yes, but if the first bullet passes through JFK's upper torso and doesn't
strike Connally, where did it go? Other than the fragments from the head
shot, and the wounds in Connally from the SBT, (the known evidence) that
were found, there wasn't any other bullet or bullet material found that
would match another entire bullet.
jas
.
>
> ========================================================
> You see? Your theory gets mucked up at too many points.
>
> ========================================================
>
> Sorry, can't buy your idea that a bullet struck the street to
> ricochet up> to hit JFK in the head while he was leaning over to the left.
>
> ========================================================
>
> There can be little doubt that someone is highly "mucked up"! Or if
> they so desire, delete the letter "M" and add in the 6th letter of the
> alphabet.
>
> Whoever, and however, you obtained such an asinine concept is totally
>
> - Show quoted text -
[Some of original post deleted for space]
I can always tell I've struck a chord of rationale against an anti-
Commission argument when the personal attacks begin. That's ok, I
understand. I know I've ruffled your feathers somewhat.
At least I have the decency to not call your theory asinine.
John Canal
Brokedad says...
>
>On Feb 6, 7:38=EF=BF=BDpm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <97715a23-0db9-479b-b231-2f6b6284f...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Brokedad says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 6, 5:53=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDam, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> Correction:
>>
>> >> Near the end of my original reply, I wrote:
>>
> th=3D
>> >e only
>> >> exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was jus=
>t f=3D
>> >orward
>> >> of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally incon=
>sis=3D
>> >tent
>> >> with any fragments hitting the windshied glass/trim,
>>
>> >> But I meant to write (with the correction in caps):
>>
> th=3D
>> >e only
>> >> exit found that would have been consistent with that much lead was jus=
>t f=3D
>> >orward
>> >> of the coronal suture and that exit, trajectory wise, is totally incon=
>sis=3D
>> >tent
>> >> with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK hitting the w=
>ind=3D
>> >shied
>> >> glass/trim.
>>
>> >> John Canal
>> >is totally inconsistent with any fragments FROM A BULLET ENTERING IN
>> >THE COWLICK hitting the windshied
>> > glass/trim.
>=BD
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Any large bullet fragments (that came from a bullet entering the cowlick)
>s
>> slanted towards their path...meaning if they deflected upon exit (after
>> traveling from the cowlick), they would have been deflected down..not up
>> towards the windshield area.
>>
>> It didn't happen--there was no bullet that entered the cowlick:
>>
>> 1. There are no low density (bone chips) opacites on the x-rays in that
>> area to account for the bone around shuch an entry that would have been
>> beveled out.
>>
>> 2. The brain damage was from low through the mid-brain to
>> high...consistent with a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting forward
>> of the coronal suture.
>>
>> 3. You know from your experience (and from the revelation that grid lines
>> can be seen on the 6.5 mm opacity) that it [the 6.5 mm opacity] does not
>> represent a bullet fragment.....so, if it miraculously appeared after the
>> assassination in the cowlick, doesn't that send signals to you that some
>> individuals possibly wanted to "move" the entry up so that it appeared to
>> be consistent with a shot fired from six floors up? The Clark Panel
>> created the cowlick entry.
>>
Are you saying the bullet was transiting his head on a horizontal path? I
hope not. The angle of the path from your mythical cowlick entry to the
exit just forward of the coronal suture was roughly 20 degrees down re.
true horizontal. Note that Canning fudged the lean of JFK to demonstrate
the bullet's downward path to be roughly 16 degrees but Myers produced the
correct ange of decent of the bullet.
Now the large fragments, approached the inside of his skull on that
roughly 20 degree downward path and struck the exit point with the skull
angled sharply "towards" the exiting fragments....no smoke and mirrors
explanation will convince anyone above a three year old that the fragments
under those circumstances will deflect upward towards the windshield.
>against a slightly depressed horizontal
??????
>plane of the skull, would have caused a portion of the nose of the bullet
>to shear off and the bullet to begin to split open.
Sorry but the bullet came apart after traveling about two to three inches
into his head. M. Fackler explained that sequence very well--1) the nose
deformed severely as it penetrated the rear skull, 2) immediately the
deformed nose began to slow, 3) the base began to compress against the
slower nose, 4) after a few hundred microseconds (it takes time for the
pieces to seperate) the bullet fragmented, 5) practically weightless
metallic debris from the rupture came off the fragmenting bullet (they
were subsequently carried upwards along with brain tssue), 6) while a few
fragments came off the fragmenting bullet and curved forwards, the nose
and base, which probably were still attached until they struck the inside
of his skull at the exit point just forward of the coronal suture,
traveled on pretty much a straight course towards the exit point, and 7)
the base and nose probably seperated as they penetrated the skull at the
exit point with their paths then diverging a few degrees as they made they
way to the windshield area (note that because the large fragments were
traveling on an upwards path from the EOP area (re. horizontal, as opposed
to the roughly 20 degree downward path that they would have had to take
from any cowlick entry), they did not meet a skull upon exiting that was
so sharpy angled against their path and, thus, did not deflect much as
they made their way to the windshield area.
>Thus sending severed
>fragments from the bullet nose in an "upwards" as well as downwards
>directions,
Talk about magic bullets.
>along with having left metallic residue embedded primarily on
>the inner table of the skull.
>
>Quite amazing that the frame Z313 of the film demonstrates this "non-
>phenomenon ",
Youn can see in the Z-film the bullet fragments being deflected upwards as
they struck a skull angled sharply against their path?
>along with the fact that the skull exibits the exit beveling
>as well as embedded metallic residue, along with the relatively simple
>fact that this happens to be virtually the only means by which the skull
>of a living human being can effectively "split open" the lead core of a
>FMJ bullet,
I just know you know enough about the behavior of bullets to not say the
bullet fragmented upon exit...right?
>as is fully demonstrated in a thorough evaluation of CE567.
Yes, so 567 is badly deformed...it started to get that way as it impacted
and penetrated the rear skull.
>Now, as to fragmentation path's! Are we referencing that portion of the
>nose of the bullet which split off and went in an upward
>position?
NO.
-----Forget about them other than the "Tague/curb" impact and
>exactly which shot Tague associated his cheek scratch to.
I have,
>Or? Are we referencing any potential portions of the bottom side of the
>bullet nose which may have sheared off and thereafter began a slightly
>downward (through the brain) exit pathway.
"Slighty" downward from the cowlick towards the exit point? How about
roughly 20 degrees down, re. horizontal?
>Certainly, we are not referencing all of the "dust-like" particles of lead
Nope.
>which were created as a result of the force of the bullet against the
>almost horizontal resistance of the skull,
If they were "created" then why don't we see hardly any close to the rear
skull as opposed to most being well forward of your cowlick entry point?
>which ultimately sliced the
>lead core of the bullet open.
>Then again that leaves us with CE 567 (which passage exit was through the
>upper lobe of the brain, thereby ripping and tearing cerebral tissue)
Your problem there is that the longitudinal laceration, that went
completely through the brain back to front, began at the tip of the
occipital lobe and NOT at the posterior portion of the parietal lobe. The
autopsy docs described no brain damage to the posterior part of the
cerebrum...sorry.
>and there is CE569 which although missing it's lead core, quite obviously had
>that portion intact at the time of impact.
And...?
>So, if, and when, one undertakes a complete study of these bullet
>fragments in order to make an attempt at comprehension of exactly how the
>normally soft bone of the living skull can split open the core of a FMJ
>Carcano bullet, as well as thereafter literally cut that bullet in half,
>then one may come to a slightly better
"Better"?
>understanding as to exactly how
>many various bullet fragments exited the skull and brain of JFK from the
>Z313/Cowlick entry impact, as well as exactly which of these bullet
>fragments may have exited the top of the skull on a virtually horizontal
>plane which would have sent them straight forward towards the windshield
>and windshield molding.
Wow?
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>It didn't happen--there was no bullet that entered the cowlick:
>
>Methinks that the HSCA Medical Panel (along with the autopsy photographs;
>autopsy x-rays; autopsy report in regards to physical damage to the upper
>lobes of the brain; photographs and X-rays of skull fragments retrieved;
>etc;, tell a completely different story.
Come on, Tom, the HSCA rubber stamped the Clark Panel's made up cowlick
entry. Did you completely ignore the red flags showing that the Clark
Panel tried to deceive everyone with regard to the entry location and
supposedly intact occipital skull that I included n my initial reply to
your post?
>In addition to the simple fact that it is a physical impossibility for the
>impact of a bullet fired at a downward angle at Z313 to have struck JFK in
>the back of the neck at the lower edge of the hairline,
I can't keep this "exchange" going, just like I can't with Marsh and
Harris--they (H&B) were confused because of the photo (F3) when they said
the bullet hit near the hairline....in the end, they stuck to their guns,
i.e. the bullet entered the skull 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above
the EOP (just as F8 shows)...WITH THE ENTRY HOLE IN THE SCALP
CORRESPONDING TO THE ENTRY IN THE SKULL!
>and thereafter
>immediately turned upwards to pass through the upper lobes of the brain
>and exit in the frontal/frontal temporal vicinity in the front of the
>head.
That's one scary trajectory! Did Garrison come up with that?
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>1. There are no low density (bone chips) opacites on the x-rays in that
>area to account for the bone around shuch an entry that would have been
>beveled out.
>
>How about this? "There are no low density (bone chips) opacities
>WHICH CAN BE READILY OBSERVED on the X-rays in tha area.
Which should tell you that no bullet entered there [cowlick].
>Which, most assuredly does not mean that there are none there.
>Especially when one takes into consideration the complete lack of
>quality of the autopsy X-rays.
Sorry, the quality of the x-rays was good enough to reveal low density
opacities (bone fragments) close to the near-EOP entry!! But, I guess it's
a "the dog ate my homework" excuse for why none were seen near the alleged
high entry?
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>2. The brain damage was from low through the mid-brain to
>high...consistent with a bullet entering near the EOP and exiting forward
>of the coronal suture.
>
>Well! Since we are referring to bullet pathways through the brain and the
>cerebral damage created by each of these bullets, one can not state the
>someone is mixing "apples and oranges".
Huh? I was talking about the reported brain damage, not apples or or
oranges.
>However, one could easily state that one is mixing their two seperate and
>distinct types of apples.
Do you know how to spell obfuscation?
>That pathway across the upper lobes of the brain in which there is
>tremendous cerebral damage (tearing, etc;), represents that damage as
>created the the "graze/tangent" shot impact of the Cowlick entry at Z313
Just read the supplementry autopsy report please. The docs who examined
the brain would beg to differ with you....and on a lot of your ideas for
that matter.
>in which the bullet severely fragmented due primarily as a result of it's
>exit against the horizontal plane of the top of the skull.
>
>That pathway which begins at the "tip" of the occipital lobe, happens to
>thereafter run through the mid-brain. Where, the pathway thereafter
>"communicates" with the upper lobe damage in the frontal/frontal temporal
>area of the brain.
Just read the supplementry autopsy report please. The docs who examined
the brain would beg to differ with you....and on a lot of your ideas for
that matter.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>3. You know from your experience (and from the revelation that grid lines
>can be seen on the 6.5 mm opacity) that it [the 6.5 mm opacity] does not
>represent a bullet fragment.....so, if it miraculously appeared after the
>assassination in the cowlick, doesn't that send signals to you that some
>individuals possibly wanted to "move" the entry up so that it appeared to
>be consistent with a shot fired from six floors up? The Clark Panel
>created the cowlick entry.
>
>I would hope that you would take the time to "re-study" exactly what is
>being referenced when speaking of the 6.5mm opacity, which happens to be
>metallic residue embedded on the INNER TABLE of the skull of JFK,
Let's make an agreement--I won't respond to any more of your posts if you
don't respond to mine....OK?
Cripes, I just told you that the damn 6.5 mm opacity has grid lines on
it...meaning IT CAN'T REPRESENT A PIECE OF METAL!!!!!!!! And, while I hate
repeating myself, NONE of the autopsy docs recall either recovering such a
fragment or seeing such a fragment on 11-22-63!!! What does that tell you?
>and
>which also happens to be that point at which the Z313/Cowlick entry
>projectile began it's exit from the upper lobe of the skull of JFK.
?????
>And, actually, the Clark Panel attempt to hide their revelations as
>they knew the complete conflict with the autopsy surgeon's reported
>entry wound location.
They hid their silly conclusion that the autopsy docs made a 100 mm error?
Really?
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>4. Consistent with that conclusion, Mantik, who has examined the originals
>no less than six times, insists no hole in the cowlick can be seen on the
>x-rays. Why would he lie?---others who subsequently see the originals
>would look for this and his reputation would be trashed completely and
>forever if they caught him lying.
>
>Have absolutely no idea as to exactly what Mantik may or may not have
>looked at in that regards.
Ummm, it was the rear skull in the cowlick area as seen on the AP film.
>However, I do know that the entire Clark Panel
>as well as the entire HSCA Medical Panel, as well as virtually every
>qualified person of my knowledge to examine the anterior/posterior X-ray
>of JFK, continues to repeat that there exists a wound of entry located
>high and in the top rear of the head of JFK.
Yup, the Clark Panel created the cowlick entry myth and the subsequent
inquiries rubber stamped it. Four authors and/or researchers have
[INDEPENDENTLY] replicated F8 demonstrating that the semi-circular defect
in the rear skull (that the HSCA used stereoscopic visualization to
determine was the entry) was near the EOP...that scientifically proves
that HSCA was wrong.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>5. Only one entry to and exit from his head was noted during the autopsy.
>If you resolve the conflict between this finding and your theory you must
>prove that the autopsists were either in on a cover-up (which is
>incredibly unlikely, because there were more individuals in that morgue
>than you can shake a stick at)...***OR*** that they were bricklayers
>posing as pathologists---you can hardly prove either choice. To be sure,
>that's the theory killer that's in the way of Marsh's and Harris' theory
>and it's a gaping hole in yours as well.
>
>Nope!
Well, I refuse to debate someone who insists the autopsy docs counted
wrong when they stated that there was only ONE entry and ONE Exit wound in
his head.
Let's end this silly debate on that note.
John Canal
[...]
Brokedad
On Feb 7, 2:14�pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:43�pm, Brokedad <temptypock...@aol.com> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ========================================================
> > �You see? Your theory gets mucked up at too many points.
>
> > ========================================================
>
> > �Sorry, can't buy your idea that a bullet struck the street to
> > ricochet up> to hit JFK in the head while he was leaning over to the left.
>
> > ========================================================
>
> > There can be little doubt that someone is highly "mucked up"! �Or if
> > they so desire, delete the letter "M" and add in the 6th letter of the
> > alphabet.
>
> > Whoever, and however, you obtained such an asinine concept is totally
> > beyond me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> [Some of original post deleted for space]
>
> I can always tell I've struck a chord of rationale against an anti-
> Commission argument when the personal attacks begin. That's ok, I
> understand. I know I've ruffled your feathers somewhat.
>
> At least I have the decency to not call your theory asinine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still does not explain exactly how and from where you extracted the
"bullet hitting the street and reflecting up" scenario.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can always tell I've struck a chord of rationale
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In event that a "chord of rationale" has to do with dreaming up scenarios
and then stating as if said scenario has been stated previously, that one
defies any laws of rational thought of which I am aware.
Anthony Marsh
Not my theory, but Furhman's theory is that this is the bullet which hit
the chrome topping. Please tell us your theories about all the other
fragments.
Andrew Mason
> On Feb 5, 10:38 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the
>>zfilm alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head.
>>You can see it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>
>
>
> This is absolutely untrue. There is very definitive evidence of when JBC
> was hit. The two most telling signs are the sudden and swift bulging of
> his jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the sudden jerking motion of
> his right arm upward and then back down again. This very unnatural up and
> down motion of his right arm takes just 9 frames, about a half a second to
> complete. Immediately following this reflexive action, JBC twists sharply
> to his right, bending over as he does before falling backward toward
> Nellie.
You are confusing "unequivocal and conclusive" with "probative". The
evidence you point to is probative but it is not by any means conclusive.
If you have conclusive evidence of a particular fact, by definition you
cannot have evidence that is probative (ie. may persuade a reasonable
person) of the existance of a conflicting fact.
I can point to JBC's evidence that he was definitely hit by the second
shot and to Nellie's evidence that JFK was reacting to his neck wound
before the second shot, to Greer's evidence that he turned around
immediately after the second shot (he turns at z280 for the first time) as
probative of a very different conclusion. I could also point to the shot
pattern evidence, the first shot location evidence (after z186) and the
"first shot hit JFK" evidence to support the conclusion that it is not
possible for JBC to have been hit by z224.
You would say that this evidence is not conclusive. I would agree, but it
definitely is probative. Therefore, your interpretation of what you
believe is happening to JBC at z224 is probative but not conclusive
evidence.
>
> It is easy to look at individual frames post Z224 and argue that JBC is
> not showing any sign of being struck, but when the Z-film is run at normal
> speed and one focuses on JBC as soon as he re-emerges from behind the
> sign, one can see he is clearly reacting to being shot as both his upper
> body and right arm respond to the serious wounds suffered. Anyone who
> argues that JBC has not been hit by Z225 is engaging in an excercise in
> self delusion.
I am not sure what your definition of self-delusion is. Try this one:
Andrew Mason
> On 2/5/2009 10:38 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2009 11:46 AM, Brokedad wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 9:56�am, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brokedad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> " How could the head shots at z313 be the second shot? Before that
>>>> shot
>>>> both Connally and JFK had been wounded"
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> Says who?
>>>>
>>>> The WC and JBC? As well as those who are of the opinion that they can
>>>> look at a film and
>>>> factually determine if a person has been wounded?
>>>>
>>>
>>> SO, it is your opinion that no one can tell when the men have been hit
>>> by looking at films and photos?
>>
>>
>> No. I said you cannot tell when Connally is hit by looking at the zfilm
>> alone. Of course you can tell when JFK is hit in the head. You can see
>> it. You cannot see anything like that for Connally.
>>
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is amazing how blind some people can be with their eyes wide open.
How anyone can claim JBC has not been hit by Z230 is abolutely
amazing. Beginning at Z226 his shattered right arm flips up suddenly
and that motion is followed immediately by JBC twisting hard to his
right with his head down. He is not looking over his shoulder. He is
going through painful contortions. If JBC was not hit by the same
bullet that exited from JFK's throat, he was hit by a second gunman.
It is that cut and dried. You have become so invested in this 3
seperate hits scenario that you refuse to see the obvious.
Anthony Marsh
How come Connally could see it and you can't? Could it be that Connally
was looking at much better quality Zapruder frames than you have ever seen?
> Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
understand this simple point. See:
http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
I can tell that JBC is beginning to react by z230. I can also tell that
he is likely reacting to what JBC is reacting to, which is a rifle shot.
What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
(at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
second shot (JBC was not entirely sure when he said it). But none of
this is conclusive so I ignore it.
So what you have to do is look at the rest of the evidence. YOU CANNOT
TELL FROM THE ZFILM ALONE WHAT IS HAPPENING. I don't know why you think
you can. The FBI couldn't. The WC and the HSCA couldn't. No medical or
ballistic expert has ever said they could tell conclusively where JBC is
hit. If you want to go further than that, you are deluding yourself.
Set the zfilm aside and examine the rest of the evidence. If you do
that, one finds overwhelming consistent evidence that the first shot
occurred after z186, that the first shot hit JFK, that the first shot
did not hit JBC, that JBC turned around to see JFK after the first shot,
that William Greer turned around immediately after the second shot (not
3-4 seconds after), that JBC fell back immediately after the second shot
(Powers, Nellie, Greer, Gayle Newman etc.). ALL of this evidence is
entirely inconsistent with the possibility of JBC being hit in the back
by z230.
If you disagree don't come to me saying how the zfilm is obvious,
because it isn't. Read the evidence and tell us why the evidence is all
wrong and your opinion is right.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Connally was offering his opinion about what he thought he would have
looked like from Zapruder's position. Is there any reason to think that
he would be any better at that than anyone else? Perhaps. But he also
said that he turned to see JFK BEFORE he was hit. He never explained
where he made that turn. If someone had asked him, he might have
realized that his z230 opinion was quite wrong, which it is.
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
bigdog
>
> My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
> either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
> ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
> understand this simple point. See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
>
There is a difference between ignoring evidence and rejecting it. When
there is conflicting evidence which points to mutually exclusive
conclusions then one must attempt to resolve the conflicts by determing
which evidence is valid and which is not. One does this by determining
which pieces of evidence fit best with the entire body of evidence and
which do not. One should also judge evidence by what has provded to be
reliable in the past and what has not. One of the most UNreliable sources
of evidence is witness recollections. They have proven to be highly
dubious as a means of determining the truth. You are basing your
hypotheses on witness recollections on the shot pattern. I base by beliefs
primarily on what I see in the Z-film. No witness recollections should be
accepted unless they are verifiable. JBC said he turned to look over his
right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223. You on the
other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at about Z235, is
the one he was doing when shot. There are two major problems with this
scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation he never reverses back
to the left. He continues twisting so hard to his right that by Z274, he
is facing JFK. He would easily have been able to see him at this position
if he were not feeling the effects of a serious chest wound.
> I can tell that JBC is beginning to react by z230. I can also tell that
> he is likely reacting to what JBC is reacting to, which is a rifle shot.
> What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
> bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
> a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
> he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
> surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
> appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
> and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
> (at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
> second shot (JBC was not entirely sure when he said it). But none of
> this is conclusive so I ignore it.
>
> So what you have to do is look at the rest of the evidence. YOU CANNOT
> TELL FROM THE ZFILM ALONE WHAT IS HAPPENING. I don't know why you think
> you can. The FBI couldn't. The WC and the HSCA couldn't. No medical or
> ballistic expert has ever said they could tell conclusively where JBC is
> hit. If you want to go further than that, you are deluding yourself.
>
The WC could not pinpoint an exact frame when the bullet struck JBC but
instead gave us a window of Z210-Z224. They doesn't mean they couldn't
tell that JBC was clearly reacting to being shot immediately after that.
They missed several clues that would have allowed them to be more precise
for when the bullet hit. Fortunately an army of researchers over the
course of decades has picked up on clues that were missed by the small
band of investigators who had just months to review all the available
evidence available. The most telling of these is the bulge in JBC's coat
at Z224. This is immediately followed by the sudden flipping of his arm
which in turn is followed by JBC's obvious contortions as he twists hard
and dips to his right. This was something they didn't miss. It was obvious
to them even back in 1964. They could see that. Why can't you?
> Set the zfilm aside and examine the rest of the evidence. If you do
> that, one finds overwhelming consistent evidence that the first shot
> occurred after z186, that the first shot hit JFK, that the first shot
> did not hit JBC, that JBC turned around to see JFK after the first shot,
> that William Greer turned around immediately after the second shot (not
> 3-4 seconds after), that JBC fell back immediately after the second shot
> (Powers, Nellie, Greer, Gayle Newman etc.). ALL of this evidence is
> entirely inconsistent with the possibility of JBC being hit in the back
> by z230.
>
> If you disagree don't come to me saying how the zfilm is obvious,
> because it isn't. Read the evidence and tell us why the evidence is all
> wrong and your opinion is right.
>
20 years ago, a fellow named Jim Moore penned a pro LN book titled
Conspiracy of One. His belief was that JFK was not reacting to a bullet
strike at Z225 but was instead raising his arms in a defensive posture
after hearing the first missed shot. He believed the single bullet struck
sometime later, about the time you believe JBC only was hit. I read the
book with an open mind. Back then, you couldn't just google up a copy of
the Z-film online any time you wanted. If you didn't have a copy, you had
to wait for a documentary to come on TV or go to a library that had a copy
to view. My open mindedness about his theory ended the next time I saw the
Z-film. One could not look at it and believe JFK was not reacting to being
hit at Z225. It is just as obvious that JBC is reacting to being hit at
the same time. The worst way to judge the Z-film is to look at individual
frames. You can look at any one frame and it might not be obvious what you
are seeing. However when you look at the frames together and run them at
normal speed it is extremely obvious that both JFK and JBC are
simultaneously reacting to being hit by a bullet immediately after they
reappear from behind the Stemmons sign. You can deny this all you want. I
won't be able to disuade you nor will I even try. I never try to talk
someone out of their religous beliefs and you have adopted this 3 hit
scenario of yours with a religous fervor. It is safe to say you will find
few converts, from either the LN or CT side of the argument.
Anthony Marsh
Not sure what you mean. If you mean Connally reacting by Z-230 to the same
thing that Kennedy had reacted to, perhaps you mean Connally reacting by
hearing the first shot and Kennedy reacting with a reflex raising of his
hands after being hit by the first shot. Connally did not hear the shot
which hit him. But he heard the shot before that.
> What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
> bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
> a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
> he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
Connally said that he looked at the Zapruder film and found when he was
hit. Not when he heard the shot. He did not hear that shot. He may have
been the first researcher to analyze the Zapruder film and pinpoint a
specific frame when he was hit. Until then all the other frames mentioned
where possible ranges during which he might have been hit.
> surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
> appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
> and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
> (at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
There is no photographic evidence proving that Connally said, "Oh, no, no,
no." You are perpetuating myths to manipulate the evidence to fit your
wacky theories.
> second shot (JBC was not entirely sure when he said it). But none of
> this is conclusive so I ignore it.
>
> So what you have to do is look at the rest of the evidence. YOU CANNOT
> TELL FROM THE ZFILM ALONE WHAT IS HAPPENING. I don't know why you think
> you can. The FBI couldn't. The WC and the HSCA couldn't. No medical or
> ballistic expert has ever said they could tell conclusively where JBC is
> hit. If you want to go further than that, you are deluding yourself.
>
So what if early investigators could not. Perhaps more refined analysis can.
Andrew Mason
> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>>My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>>either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>>ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>>understand this simple point. See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
>>
>
>
> There is a difference between ignoring evidence and rejecting it. When
> there is conflicting evidence which points to mutually exclusive
> conclusions then one must attempt to resolve the conflicts by determing
> which evidence is valid and which is not. One does this by determining
> which pieces of evidence fit best with the entire body of evidence and
> which do not.
I agree completely. You just happen to think that the entire body of
evidence should always exclude the body of witness evidence.
> One should also judge evidence by what has provded to be
> reliable in the past and what has not. One of the most UNreliable sources
> of evidence is witness recollections.
Witness recollections may or may not be reliable. If they fit with the
rest of the evidence there is no reason to reject them just because they
are witnesses. A witness may not be reliable individually but this does
not mean they are reliably wrong. The recollection is quite reliable if
hordes of witnesses happen to independently agree.
> They have proven to be highly
> dubious as a means of determining the truth.
Says who? Studies show that they are quite reliable:
> You are basing your
> hypotheses on witness recollections on the shot pattern.
Not exactly. I am basing my conclusion (it hardly a hypothesis to suggest
that what occured was what the witnesses said occurred) that these
witnesses were accurate because so many independently recalled the same
shot pattern. It really has nothing to do with witness reliability. If
they were unreliable, their recollections would be distributed more or
less evenly across the range of possible answers. Here they are
concentrated on one particular pattern.
> I base by beliefs
> primarily on what I see in the Z-film.
What about the rest of the evidence. where is the evidence for a first
shot not hitting JFK; for a first shot before z186?
> No witness recollections should be
> accepted unless they are verifiable.
Why do you reject verification by other witnesses? If I recall that
Jackie was wearing pink, and 90% of the other witnesses agree with me
(with the rest distributed over a range of colours or unable to recall)
why do you need a photograph? You will never in a million years get 90%
convergence on the wrong colour (unless there was something wrong with the
lighting).
> JBC said he turned to look over his
> right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
> and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
> felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223.
Where does he ever look over his shoulder to try to see JFK before z223?
> You on the
> other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at about Z235, is
> the one he was doing when shot. There are two major problems with this
> scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation he never reverses back
> to the left.
Why is that a problem. It is apparent that he never reverses back to his
left. In his mind he was starting to go back to the left but he never
made it when he was shot.
> He continues twisting so hard to his right that by Z274, he
> is facing JFK. He would easily have been able to see him at this position
> if he were not feeling the effects of a serious chest wound.
By z274 his is sailing forward relative to JFK. (What causes that?). He
is not turning further right after about z267 - you can see this by the
profile of his face and the shadows on his face. He is beginning to turn
left by z271.
>
>
>>I can tell that JBC is beginning to react by z230. I can also tell that
>>he is likely reacting to what JBC is reacting to, which is a rifle shot.
>>What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
>>bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
>>a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
>>he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
>>surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
>>appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
>>and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
>>(at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
>>second shot (JBC was not entirely sure when he said it). But none of
>>this is conclusive so I ignore it.
>>
>>So what you have to do is look at the rest of the evidence. YOU CANNOT
>>TELL FROM THE ZFILM ALONE WHAT IS HAPPENING. I don't know why you think
>>you can. The FBI couldn't. The WC and the HSCA couldn't. No medical or
>>ballistic expert has ever said they could tell conclusively where JBC is
>>hit. If you want to go further than that, you are deluding yourself.
>>
>
>
> The WC could not pinpoint an exact frame when the bullet struck JBC but
> instead gave us a window of Z210-Z224. They doesn't mean they couldn't
> tell that JBC was clearly reacting to being shot immediately after that.
The FBI thought he was hit at about z275 until Frazier came up with his
theory that JBC could not have been hit after z240. That was what
convinced the WC that he was hit by z230.
> They missed several clues that would have allowed them to be more precise
> for when the bullet hit. Fortunately an army of researchers over the
> course of decades has picked up on clues that were missed by the small
> band of investigators who had just months to review all the available
> evidence available. The most telling of these is the bulge in JBC's coat
> at Z224.
And what evidence do you have that a bullet that makes a hole in a shirt
and coat (in the pocket, not the lapel) will cause the coat to bulge.
This is not scientific. Bullets go through clothes. You don't see them
bulge at all.
> This is immediately followed by the sudden flipping of his arm
> which in turn is followed by JBC's obvious contortions as he twists hard
> and dips to his right. This was something they didn't miss. It was obvious
> to them even back in 1964. They could see that. Why can't you?
I can see it. I just don't see why it has to be a bullet. Why can it not
just be JBC begining to turn in reaction to hearing the first shot, which
is what he says he did.
The reason I disagree with you is not because I am stupid. I just happen
to also see the rest of the evidence and see that it fits perfectly with
JBC being hit at z271.
BTW, how do you explain Kinney and Hickey seeing JFK's hair flip at the
time of the second shot? Do you see that anywhere other than z273-276?
>
>
>>Set the zfilm aside and examine the rest of the evidence. If you do
>>that, one finds overwhelming consistent evidence that the first shot
>>occurred after z186, that the first shot hit JFK, that the first shot
>>did not hit JBC, that JBC turned around to see JFK after the first shot,
>>that William Greer turned around immediately after the second shot (not
>>3-4 seconds after), that JBC fell back immediately after the second shot
>>(Powers, Nellie, Greer, Gayle Newman etc.). ALL of this evidence is
>>entirely inconsistent with the possibility of JBC being hit in the back
>>by z230.
>>
>>If you disagree don't come to me saying how the zfilm is obvious,
>>because it isn't. Read the evidence and tell us why the evidence is all
>>wrong and your opinion is right.
>>
>
>
> 20 years ago, a fellow named Jim Moore penned a pro LN book titled
> Conspiracy of One. His belief was that JFK was not reacting to a bullet
> strike at Z225 but was instead raising his arms in a defensive posture
> after hearing the first missed shot. He believed the single bullet struck
> sometime later, about the time you believe JBC only was hit. I read the
> book with an open mind. Back then, you couldn't just google up a copy of
> the Z-film online any time you wanted. If you didn't have a copy, you had
> to wait for a documentary to come on TV or go to a library that had a copy
> to view. My open mindedness about his theory ended the next time I saw the
> Z-film. One could not look at it and believe JFK was not reacting to being
> hit at Z225.
I agree with you completely. But I can also understand why he thinks that
JFK is reacting to the first shot and JBC has not been hit in the back yet
(before z271). I agree with him on that point. But it is not possible that
JFK is reacting as he does and not be hit yet in the neck.
> It is just as obvious that JBC is reacting to being hit at
> the same time. The worst way to judge the Z-film is to look at individual
> frames. You can look at any one frame and it might not be obvious what you
> are seeing. However when you look at the frames together and run them at
> normal speed it is extremely obvious that both JFK and JBC are
> simultaneously reacting to being hit by a bullet immediately after they
> reappear from behind the Stemmons sign.
The best that you can say is that it is obvious that JFK is hit. You may
find it persuasive that JBC is hit there too, but there is way too much
evidence against you on that point for you to say that it is "obvious". It
isn't. You can argue that all the witness evidence must be wrong, and
theoretically you could be right. But because that evidence exists, you
have dozens of witnesses who are, in effect, saying that JBC could not be
hit by the second shot at that point (because the second shot has not
occurred). So it is not obvious to them. And it is, therefore, not
obvious.
> You can deny this all you want.
It is not a matter of denying anything. It is a matter of being prepared
to reject the recollections of literally dozens of witnesses as to many
different facts (first shot hit JFK - 16 witnesses : 0 against; first shot
locaton - 22 witnesses after z186: 0 before; shot pattern: last two closer
together 47:6:9;) in favour of your interpretation which has almost no
witness support. You seem to have no difficulty doing that (and thinking
that anyone who has difficulty is crazy). I disagree.
I
> won't be able to disuade you nor will I even try. I never try to talk
> someone out of their religous beliefs and you have adopted this 3 hit
> scenario of yours with a religous fervor. It is safe to say you will find
> few converts, from either the LN or CT side of the argument.
We'll see.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>>My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>>either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>>ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>>understand this simple point. See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
> You on the
> other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at about Z235, is
> the one he was doing when shot. There are two major problems with this
> scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation he never reverses back
> to the left. He continues twisting so hard to his right that by Z274, he
> is facing JFK.
Let me ask you why you believe that JBC is facing JFK. JBC's chest is
squarely facing Zapruder. At z271, Zapruder is 60 degrees from the
direction of the limo. No one's neck turns more than 90 degrees, so JBC at
the most is facing 150 degrees behind him, not 180. Everyone said that JFK
moved far to the left. So much so, that Jackie's face is directly in front
of his and he is leaning forward. JBC's head is to the right side of the
centre of the jump seat and leaning back over the seat back. JFK's head is
near the left side of the jump seat and is leaning toward the back of the
jump seat. So I would put JFK's head at an angle of at least 45 degrees
from JBC or 225 degrees from forward (it could well be more). That means
that JBC has to have clear peripheral vision of 225-150 = 75 degrees to
see him. 45 degrees is considered normal. Few people can make out any
detail at 75 degrees.
So it is not at all obvious to me that JBC can see JFK. He said he
couldn't. Why not believe him?
Andrew Mason
Brokedad
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Witness recollections may or may not be reliable. If they fit with the
> rest of the evidence there is no reason to reject them just because they
> are witnesses. A witness may not be reliable individually but this does
> not mean they are reliably wrong. The recollection is quite reliable if
> hordes of witnesses happen to independently agree.
Which is entirely correct! Fortunately, in the case of the shot
sequence, as well as the TWO seperate head impacts, the witness
testimony is in virtual full concurrence. As well as the forensic;
ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > JBC said he turned to look over his
> > right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
> > and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
> > felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223.
Might want to check out what he stated while in the hospital. Would
appear that during his WC testimony as well as thereafter, he just
ain't stating the same thing which he stated immediately after the
event.
Now! Why would some make up seperate tales as to what transpired?
Unless of course they wanted to "hide" something.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > He continues twisting so hard to his right that by Z274, he
> > is facing JFK. He would easily have been able to see him at this position
> > if he were not feeling the effects of a serious chest wound.
Love those "mulltiple choice"/either "A" or "B" questions.
Either:
A. He saw JFK!
B. He was wounded and did not see JFK!
C. He had his eyes closed?
Now, Exactly why would one be turning around with his eyes closed???
P.S. And the correct answer is: Just as JBC stated during his
Parkland Hospital interview, he saw JFK!
Now, the primary question being: Why did JBC later lie?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The FBI thought he was hit at about z275 until Frazier came up with his
> theory that JBC could not have been hit after z240. That was what
> convinced the WC that he was hit by z230.
Actually! The FBI, on 2/7/64, during their assassination re-
enactment, knew virtually exactly where the three shot impact
locations occurred as they had their possession that information
generated by the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey which the
SS had completed in early December 1963.
Shot#1: Left in exact same place as was the SS assassination
reenactment determination.
==========
Shot#2/aka Z313 impact. The FBI attempted to move the impact location
for this shot some 24.5 feet farther back up Elm St. from the Z313
impact, with the intention of making it appear as if this was the JBC
hit.
They in turn completely deleted the Z313 impact.
==========
Shot#3/aka the Altgens location impact/aka survey stationing 4+95:
The FBI left this impact location in it's exact position as determined
during the previous works of the SS in December 1963.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I can see it. I just don't see why it has to be a bullet. Why can it not
> just be JBC begining to turn in reaction to hearing the first shot, which
> is what he says he did.
Logic? Most likely a complete waste of time when speaking with those
who are of the opinion that their crystal ball allows them to
interpret each and every move of persons and/or clothing as observed
in the wonderfully clear Z-film.
And, that hoardes of researchers with such fantastic talents are
better qualifed than were the auspices of the SS and the FBI to
determine exactly how the assassination shot sequence transpired.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>I can tell that JBC is beginning to react by z230. I can also tell that
> >>he is likely reacting to what JBC is reacting to, which is a rifle shot.
> >>What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
> >>bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
> >>a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
> >>he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
> >>surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
> >>appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
> >>and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
> >>(at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
> >>second shot (JBC was not entirely sure when he said it). But none of
> >>this is conclusive so I ignore it.
Well! One should not ignore it.
However, placed into perspective, any person who has received a chest
wound in which some 4-inches of the rib is thereafter blown into the
lung, ripping the lung, would clearly demonstrate that they had been
hit.
Bullet striking bone creates an immediate and usually quite clearly
defined and definite reaction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And the correct answer is:
> >>Set the zfilm aside and examine the rest of the evidence. If you do
> >>that, one finds overwhelming consistent evidence that the first shot
> >>occurred after z186, that the first shot hit JFK, that the first shot
> >>did not hit JBC, that JBC turned around to see JFK after the first shot,
> >>that William Greer turned around immediately after the second shot (not
> >>3-4 seconds after), that JBC fell back immediately after the second shot
> >>(Powers, Nellie, Greer, Gayle Newman etc.). ALL of this evidence is
> >>entirely inconsistent with the possibility of JBC being hit in the back
> >>by z230.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JBC First Wound: Fragment wound to the wrist as a result of
fragmentation of the bullet impact at Z313.
Andrew Mason
I am saying that Connally is reacting to the first shot by z230. I am
saying that JBC was not hit in the back by it. He was reacting to
hearing the first shot and from z223 to z270 he is doing what he said he
did after the first shot and before he was hit in the back.
>
>> What I can't tell from that is whether JBC is reacting to being hit by a
>> bullet or whether he is reacting to hearing the shot. I don't know what
>> a person looks like when they are shot and feel no pain (which is what
>> he said - he felt no pain until arriving at Parkland). I would be
>
>
> Connally said that he looked at the Zapruder film and found when he was
> hit.
And I am saying that his opinion is not determinative of that issue. He
is not recalling a fact. He is looking at a film and offering an opinion
as to what he thinks he might have looked like at the time he was
wounded. He can be as wrong on that issue as anyone else.
> Not when he heard the shot. He did not hear that shot. He may have
> been the first researcher to analyze the Zapruder film and pinpoint a
> specific frame when he was hit. Until then all the other frames
> mentioned where possible ranges during which he might have been hit.
Do you not think he could be wrong on that? I think he would have
admitted that he could be wrong.
>
>> surprised if he looked anything at all like JBC at z230-270 because he
>> appears to have enough energy to turn around to see JFK, which both he
>> and Nellie said did before he was shot. He also said "oh, no, no, no"
>> (at z240-4 or so) whioh Nellie clearly recalled he said BEFORE the
>
>
> There is no photographic evidence proving that Connally said, "Oh, no,
> no, no." You are perpetuating myths to manipulate the evidence to fit
> your wacky theories.
Well, according to Martin Shacelford's lip readers, he appears to be
saying "oh, no, no, no" from z242-250. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm
This is perfectly consistent with the evidence of Nellie and Jackie who
said that JBC turned after the first "noise" and screamed "oh, no, no,
no". JBC wasn't quite sure when he said it. In an interview in 1966 he
maintained that he said it after hearing the first shot and before he
was hit.
"Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the
other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and
said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw
that my whole chest was covered with blood."
See: http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_comment_SBT_p48_nov2566.pdf
And that evidence fits perfectly with all the other bodies of evidence
as to the shot pattern, time of the first shot, and JFK being hit by the
first shot and JBC not being hit by the first shot.
He does appear to be saying something from z242-250 and we know he said
"oh, no, no, no" at some point. I don't see his lips moving at any other
time, do you?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>>> either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>>> ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>>> understand this simple point.
>>> See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
> ....
>
>> You on the other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at
>> about Z235, is the one he was doing when shot. There are two major
>> problems with this scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation
>> he never reverses back to the left. He continues twisting so hard to
>> his right that by Z274, he is facing JFK.
>
> Let me ask you why you believe that JBC is facing JFK. JBC's chest is
> squarely facing Zapruder. At z271, Zapruder is 60 degrees from the
> direction of the limo. No one's neck turns more than 90 degrees, so JBC
> at the most is facing 150 degrees behind him, not 180. Everyone said
> that JFK moved far to the left. So much so, that Jackie's face is
No, no one said "far" and the films and photos show that JFK did not move
over much at all, especially as he was nearly paralyzed by the first shot.
He LEANED to his left and forward. His hips did not move at all to the
left.
> directly in front of his and he is leaning forward. JBC's head is to the
> right side of the centre of the jump seat and leaning back over the seat
> back. JFK's head is near the left side of the jump seat and is leaning
Connally's head was never behind the back of the jump seat.
> toward the back of the jump seat. So I would put JFK's head at an angle
> of at least 45 degrees from JBC or 225 degrees from forward (it could
> well be more). That means that JBC has to have clear peripheral vision
> of 225-150 = 75 degrees to see him. 45 degrees is considered normal. Few
> people can make out any detail at 75 degrees.
>
What is considered normal? You have no idea. You are making up crap again.
Part of the eye test is peripheral vision and normal is 70 degrees. Stop
guessing at things.
> So it is not at all obvious to me that JBC can see JFK. He said he
> couldn't. Why not believe him?
>
He didn't have to see his face. All he knew is that he saw that JFK HAD
slumped.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>>> either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>>> ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>>> understand this simple point.
>>> See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a difference between ignoring evidence and rejecting it. When
>> there is conflicting evidence which points to mutually exclusive
>> conclusions then one must attempt to resolve the conflicts by
>> determing which evidence is valid and which is not. One does this by
>> determining which pieces of evidence fit best with the entire body of
>> evidence and which do not.
>
> I agree completely. You just happen to think that the entire body of
> evidence should always exclude the body of witness evidence.
>
Nope.
>> One should also judge evidence by what has provded to be reliable in
>> the past and what has not. One of the most UNreliable sources of
>> evidence is witness recollections.
>
> Witness recollections may or may not be reliable. If they fit with the
> rest of the evidence there is no reason to reject them just because they
> are witnesses. A witness may not be reliable individually but this does
> not mean they are reliably wrong. The recollection is quite reliable if
> hordes of witnesses happen to independently agree.
>
>
But then you use bias to determine what is true about the other evidence.
>> They have proven to be highly dubious as a means of determining the
>> truth.
>
> Says who? Studies show that they are quite reliable:
>
Says all the top experts in criminology around the world.
There are no studies that show that witnesses are quite reliable.
>
>> You are basing your hypotheses on witness recollections on the shot
>> pattern.
>
> Not exactly. I am basing my conclusion (it hardly a hypothesis to
> suggest that what occured was what the witnesses said occurred) that
> these witnesses were accurate because so many independently recalled the
> same shot pattern. It really has nothing to do with witness reliability.
> If they were unreliable, their recollections would be distributed more
> or less evenly across the range of possible answers. Here they are
> concentrated on one particular pattern.
>
That is not how statistics and false perception work.
There are only three possible types of grouping for the three shots.
Even random chance would not divide perfectly into thirds.
>> I base by beliefs primarily on what I see in the Z-film.
>
> What about the rest of the evidence. where is the evidence for a first
> shot not hitting JFK; for a first shot before z186?
>
>> No witness recollections should be accepted unless they are verifiable.
>
> Why do you reject verification by other witnesses? If I recall that
> Jackie was wearing pink, and 90% of the other witnesses agree with me
> (with the rest distributed over a range of colours or unable to recall)
> why do you need a photograph? You will never in a million years get 90%
> convergence on the wrong colour (unless there was something wrong with
> the lighting).
>
>> JBC said he turned to look over his right shoulder upon hearing the
>> first shot. He said he could not see JFK and was turning back to his
>> left and was facing almost forward when he felt the bullet hit. This
>> is consistent with a shot a Z223.
>
> Where does he ever look over his shoulder to try to see JFK before z223?
>
>> You on the other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at
>> about Z235, is the one he was doing when shot. There are two major
>> problems with this scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation
>> he never reverses back to the left.
>
> Why is that a problem. It is apparent that he never reverses back to his
> left. In his mind he was starting to go back to the left but he never
> made it when he was shot.
>
He never said that he actually turned back to his left. He said that he
started to do so and was facing forward when he was hit.
The WC did not say that. They said that Connally told them that he was
hit at Z-230.
>> They missed several clues that would have allowed them to be more
>> precise for when the bullet hit. Fortunately an army of researchers
>> over the course of decades has picked up on clues that were missed by
>> the small band of investigators who had just months to review all the
>> available evidence available. The most telling of these is the bulge
>> in JBC's coat at Z224.
>
> And what evidence do you have that a bullet that makes a hole in a shirt
> and coat (in the pocket, not the lapel) will cause the coat to bulge.
> This is not scientific. Bullets go through clothes. You don't see them
> bulge at all.
>
That was NOT the theory. It is supposed to be the body debris exiting
the chest which can cause a bulge. Stop misrepresenting other people's
theories to create straw men to knock down.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>> My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>> either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>> ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>> understand this simple point. See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
>>
>
> There is a difference between ignoring evidence and rejecting it. When
> there is conflicting evidence which points to mutually exclusive
> conclusions then one must attempt to resolve the conflicts by determing
> which evidence is valid and which is not. One does this by determining
> which pieces of evidence fit best with the entire body of evidence and
> which do not. One should also judge evidence by what has provded to be
> reliable in the past and what has not. One of the most UNreliable sources
> of evidence is witness recollections. They have proven to be highly
> dubious as a means of determining the truth. You are basing your
> hypotheses on witness recollections on the shot pattern. I base by beliefs
> primarily on what I see in the Z-film. No witness recollections should be
> accepted unless they are verifiable. JBC said he turned to look over his
> right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
Close, but you left out his statement that he saw the President slumped.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
> and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
> felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223. You on the
This is consistent with a shot at Z-230 which is when he thought he was hit.
You can't look at the Z-film and not realize that JFK had already been
hit before Z-225.
Andrew Mason
> On 2/11/2009 12:08 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that it is not obvious. You only think it is because you
>>>> either do not understand the rest of the evidence or you choose to
>>>> ignore it. If you choose not to read this evidence, I can't help you
>>>> understand this simple point.
>>>> See:http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
>>
>> ....
>>
>>> You on the other hand believe the later rotation, which he begins at
>>> about Z235, is the one he was doing when shot. There are two major
>>> problems with this scenario. One is that once he begins this rotation
>>> he never reverses back to the left. He continues twisting so hard to
>>> his right that by Z274, he is facing JFK.
>>
>>
>> Let me ask you why you believe that JBC is facing JFK. JBC's chest is
>> squarely facing Zapruder. At z271, Zapruder is 60 degrees from the
>> direction of the limo. No one's neck turns more than 90 degrees, so JBC
>> at the most is facing 150 degrees behind him, not 180. Everyone said
>> that JFK moved far to the left. So much so, that Jackie's face is
>
>
> No, no one said "far" and the films and photos show that JFK did not
> move over much at all, especially as he was nearly paralyzed by the
> first shot. He LEANED to his left and forward. His hips did not move at
> all to the left.
David Powers certainly said "far". (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the
President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme
right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and
Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot
which took off the top of the President’s head"). Powers was directly
behind JFK in the right jump seat of the Queen Mary. The only way he
could see JBC at all was when JFK move out of the way after the first shot.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On 2/11/2009 12:08 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> bigdog wrote:
>>
.....
>
>
>> directly in front of his and he is leaning forward. JBC's head is to the
>> right side of the centre of the jump seat and leaning back over the seat
>> back. JFK's head is near the left side of the jump seat and is leaning
>
>
> Connally's head was never behind the back of the jump seat.
I disagree. If he was sitting normally, leaning back, his head would be
to the rear of the jump seat back since the seat back leaned back. It
was also low. In z268 he is leaning back about as far as he could
against that seat back so I don't see how his head could not be to the
rear of the top of the jump seat back.
>
>> toward the back of the jump seat. So I would put JFK's head at an angle
>> of at least 45 degrees from JBC or 225 degrees from forward (it could
>> well be more). That means that JBC has to have clear peripheral vision
>> of 225-150 = 75 degrees to see him. 45 degrees is considered normal. Few
>> people can make out any detail at 75 degrees.
>>
>
> What is considered normal? You have no idea. You are making up crap
> again. Part of the eye test is peripheral vision and normal is 70
> degrees. Stop guessing at things.
Under 45 is considered poor peripheral vision. 45 and more is considered
normal. We don't know what kind of peripheral vision JBC had.
>
>> So it is not at all obvious to me that JBC can see JFK. He said he
>> couldn't. Why not believe him?
>>
>
> He didn't have to see his face. All he knew is that he saw that JFK HAD
> slumped.
Agreed.
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
Andrew Mason
Elizabeth Loftus refers to many studies that show that witnesses have
well over 80% accuracy when recalling details of an event. For the most
salient details (ones which more than half of the witnesses recalled)
the accuracy rating was 98 and completeness was 98. Loftus, Eliz. F.,
Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at
p. 25 ff. You can view this here:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.pdf
>
>>
>>> You are basing your hypotheses on witness recollections on the shot
>>> pattern.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly. I am basing my conclusion (it hardly a hypothesis to
>> suggest that what occured was what the witnesses said occurred) that
>> these witnesses were accurate because so many independently recalled the
>> same shot pattern. It really has nothing to do with witness reliability.
>> If they were unreliable, their recollections would be distributed more
>> or less evenly across the range of possible answers. Here they are
>> concentrated on one particular pattern.
>>
>
>
> That is not how statistics and false perception work.
> There are only three possible types of grouping for the three shots.
> Even random chance would not divide perfectly into thirds.
Nor would they demonstrate a preference of 10:1 for any particular pattern.
That is not how David Belin, WC counsel, put it: see Belin, Final
Disclosure (New York: Scribners, 1988), chapter 7. He says that everyone
thought it was 3 shots 3 hits until Belin produces an expert to say JBC
could not have been hit after z240 (I think this must be a reference to
Frazier).
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
No, the lip readers did not confirm Connally saying that.
> "Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the
> other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and
> said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw
> that my whole chest was covered with blood."
> See: http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_comment_SBT_p48_nov2566.pdf
>
But most WC defenders think Connally was hit by Z-224 and just before
that he was hidden behind the sign, so lip readers can not see him
saying anything before Z-224.
> And that evidence fits perfectly with all the other bodies of evidence
> as to the shot pattern, time of the first shot, and JFK being hit by the
> first shot and JBC not being hit by the first shot.
>
> He does appear to be saying something from z242-250 and we know he said
> "oh, no, no, no" at some point. I don't see his lips moving at any other
> time, do you?
>
No, and we don't even know that is what he said.
> Andrew Mason
bigdog
>> ...JBC said he turned to look over his
> > right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
>
> Close, but you left out his statement that he saw the President slumped.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
>
> We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
>
> I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
>
> Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
>
> and I knew I'd been hit badly.
>
This contradicts other statements he made on numerous occasions in which
he said he couldn't see JFK when he first turned. Also JFK was not slumped
until much later in the sequence. JBC was turned far enough to see a
slumping JFK at Z265 and later. Can you point to any earlier frame in
which JFK was reacting to being shot and JBC was in position to see that?
> > and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
> > felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223. You on the
>
> This is consistent with a shot at Z-230 which is when he thought he was hit.
>
That doesn't explain the arm flip which is evident at Z226.
>
> You can't look at the Z-film and not realize that JFK had already been
> hit before Z-225.
>
You mean like Z223.
Anthony Marsh
Selection bias. You are pointing out the exceptions and Loftus is on
record saying that eyewitness statements are unreliable.
What you said has nothing to do with what I said. Connally told the WC
that he thought he was hit at about Z-230. That said nothing about three
shots, three hits.
> Andrew Mason
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>> On 2/11/2009 12:08 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>
>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>
> .....
>>
>>
>>> directly in front of his and he is leaning forward. JBC's head is to the
>>> right side of the centre of the jump seat and leaning back over the seat
>>> back. JFK's head is near the left side of the jump seat and is leaning
>>
>>
>> Connally's head was never behind the back of the jump seat.
>
> I disagree. If he was sitting normally, leaning back, his head would be
> to the rear of the jump seat back since the seat back leaned back. It
> was also low. In z268 he is leaning back about as far as he could
> against that seat back so I don't see how his head could not be to the
> rear of the top of the jump seat back.
>
>>
>>> toward the back of the jump seat. So I would put JFK's head at an angle
>>> of at least 45 degrees from JBC or 225 degrees from forward (it could
>>> well be more). That means that JBC has to have clear peripheral vision
>>> of 225-150 = 75 degrees to see him. 45 degrees is considered normal. Few
>>> people can make out any detail at 75 degrees.
>>>
>>
>> What is considered normal? You have no idea. You are making up crap
>> again. Part of the eye test is peripheral vision and normal is 70
>> degrees. Stop guessing at things.
>
> Under 45 is considered poor peripheral vision. 45 and more is considered
> normal. We don't know what kind of peripheral vision JBC had.
>
More guessing. Normal is 70 degrees, not 45.
Andrew Mason
She says no such thing. She says that eyewitness identification is
often unreliable, which it is and so it requires independent
corroboration on the issue of identity. Witness fact recollection is
altogether different. The reliability of such evidence is greatly
increased where it is independently corroborated.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 12, 8:26 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> ...JBC said he turned to look over his
>>> right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
>> Close, but you left out his statement that he saw the President slumped.
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
>>
>> We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
>>
>> I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
>>
>> Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
>>
>> and I knew I'd been hit badly.
>>
>
> This contradicts other statements he made on numerous occasions in which
> he said he couldn't see JFK when he first turned. Also JFK was not slumped
WOW, you figured that out all by yourself with no help? The fact that
one witness may make several slightly different statements? Brilliant.
BFD.
> until much later in the sequence. JBC was turned far enough to see a
> slumping JFK at Z265 and later. Can you point to any earlier frame in
> which JFK was reacting to being shot and JBC was in position to see that?
>
Connally did not say that he watched JFK react. He said that he saw that
JFK had slumped. I believe it could only have been when both men are
hidden behind the sign.
>>> and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
>>> felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223. You on the
>> This is consistent with a shot at Z-230 which is when he thought he was hit.
>>
>
> That doesn't explain the arm flip which is evident at Z226.
>
So you claim. Maybe you are seeing things again.
>> You can't look at the Z-film and not realize that JFK had already been
>> hit before Z-225.
>>
>
> You mean like Z223.
>
So now you have Kennedy hit by Z-223? Dr. McCarthy pointed out that his
reaction in Z-225 means he had to be hit at least 4 frames earlier. So,
keep moving around your SBT frame until you find one which works. Good luck.
>
bigdog
> On 2/12/2009 8:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 8:26 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> ...JBC said he turned to look over his
> >>> right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. He said he could not see JFK
> >> Close, but you left out his statement that he saw the President slumped.
>
> >>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
>
> >> We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
>
> >> I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
>
> >> Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
>
> >> and I knew I'd been hit badly.
>
> > This contradicts other statements he made on numerous occasions in which
> > he said he couldn't see JFK when he first turned. Also JFK was not slumped
>
> WOW, you figured that out all by yourself with no help? The fact that
> one witness may make several slightly different statements? Brilliant.
> BFD.
>
> > until much later in the sequence. JBC was turned far enough to see a
> > slumping JFK at Z265 and later. Can you point to any earlier frame in
> > which JFK was reacting to being shot and JBC was in position to see that?
>
> Connally did not say that he watched JFK react. He said that he saw that
> JFK had slumped. I believe it could only have been when both men are
> hidden behind the sign.
>
You're joking right. We can see JBC's forehead as late as Z207 and he is
facing front right. When he reappears in Z222, he is still facing front
right. Are you really going to claim that in less than one second, he
snapped his head around, saw JFK slump and then snapped his head back to
the front. Besides, JFK was not slumped when he was behind the sign. When
we first see him at Z225 he is still bringing his arms up. How do you
slump while simultaneously raise your arms up in front of your face. Did
you really think this through or did it just pop into your head and then
onto your keyboard?
> >>> and was turning back to his left and was facing almost forward when he
> >>> felt the bullet hit. This is consistent with a shot a Z223. You on the
> >> This is consistent with a shot at Z-230 which is when he thought he was hit.
>
> > That doesn't explain the arm flip which is evident at Z226.
>
> So you claim. Maybe you are seeing things again.
>
So you can't see his arm flip upward? His Stetson just jumped out of his
lap by itself?
> >> You can't look at the Z-film and not realize that JFK had already been
> >> hit before Z-225.
>
> > You mean like Z223.
>
> So now you have Kennedy hit by Z-223? Dr. McCarthy pointed out that his
> reaction in Z-225 means he had to be hit at least 4 frames earlier. So,
> keep moving around your SBT frame until you find one which works. Good luck.
>
I've never tried to pinpoint the exact frame because the Z-film does not
provide sufficient information to do so. I have seen others hypothesize a
shot at Z221. The difference between Z221 and Z223 is about .11 seconds.
That's a real big discrepancy.