New Assassination Film Footage Found
John McAdams
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
McAdams) wrote:
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
The video:
http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
Fidel
it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it focused on the
Texas School Book Depository and also to film it in such a way as to show
the 6th floor.
At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have
known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest? No
other building was filmed in this sequence.
Why not?
Matt
On Feb 19, 7:47 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>McAdams) wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
>
>The video:
>
>http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
>
Film shows quite a bunch in JFK's suit jacket.
PF
Andrew Mason
Fidel wrote:
What I do not understand is why the person who shot this footage thought it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it focused on the Texas School Book Depository and also to film it in such a way as to show the 6th floor. At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest? No other building was filmed in this sequence. Why not? Matt
Or, perhaps he couldn't run faster than the motorcade and took shots of the TSBD AFTER the assassination. But many on this board won't let facts or reason spoil a good conspiracy angle.
Andrew Mason
Gerry Simone (O)
You don't see the shirt collar, so that's about an inch.
It corroborates the bunching image we see in the Croft pic.
Did the shirt bunch too?
You DO see the shirt collar in Phil Willis' photo from behind just a
second or so before a shot hits JFK, meaning the jacket didn't cover the
shirt collar or IOW, no bunching.
Maybe he tucked his jacket or something on Houston.
Sad though to watch with the motorcade under a warm Texas sun and
everybody is smiling and happy.
It's a good film of Jackie and she is so lovely.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:ec8nt2t6sav6u60e8...@4ax.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
the 6th Floor Museum note)!
The first part was the motorcade on Main before it turns onto Houston but
that's all Mr. Jeffries was able to film.
Who knows what other snapshots or films might exist which could shed some
more light on this case.
"Fidel" <mdub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172020085.3...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
dyandell
"The film ends with some footage the next day outside the Texas School
Book Depository, the building from which assassin Lee Harvey Oswald
fired the fatal shots."
That should answer Matt's question, I hope.
The footage of Mrs. Kennedy smiling in the sun is very moving.
Gary Mack must be very pleased to have this in the collection and is
making good use of the chance to suggest to anyone who might have
unknown footage or photos to share them.
Best,
Dave
Glenn Sarlitto
Matt,
"Fidel" <mdub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172020085.3...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What I do not understand is why the person who shot this footage thought
> it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it focused on the
> Texas School Book Depository and also to film it in such a way as to show
> the 6th floor.
>
> At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have
> known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest? No
> other building was filmed in this sequence.
>
> Why not?
>
> Matt
The filming of the TSBD was taken days after the assassination and not on
the day of the assassination.
Glenn
Pablo Fanques Fair
car.
He Just happened to get off the car before it made it's turn into the lions
den? Yea he knew nothing right....
"
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
> I'd say about a 1" bunch...I paused and expanded the film at one point.
>
> You don't see the shirt collar, so that's about an inch.
>
> It corroborates the bunching image we see in the Croft pic.
>
> Did the shirt bunch too?
>
> You DO see the shirt collar in Phil Willis' photo from behind just a
> second or so before a shot hits JFK, meaning the jacket didn't cover the
> shirt collar or IOW, no bunching.
>
> Maybe he tucked his jacket or something on Houston.
>
> Sad though to watch with the motorcade under a warm Texas sun and
> everybody is smiling and happy.
>
> It's a good film of Jackie and she is so lovely.
>
>
> news:ec8nt2t6sav6u60e8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:47:51 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> > McAdams) wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> > >McAdams) wrote:
>
> > >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
>
> > >The video:
>
> > >http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
>
> > Film shows quite a bunch in JFK's suit jacket.
>
> > PF
>
> > >>--
> > >>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> - Show quoted text -
***The jacket was pushed up and the fabric was cupped, as it folded
over.
The Jeffries film is the clearest example of how bunching in the
jacket would have caused a bullet hole in the jacket to be so
vertically out of line with the bullet hole in the back.
As the limo turned onto Houston, Kennedy can be seen leaning forward
and to his left, probrably in responce to Mrs. Connally's comment,
"you can't say Dallas doesn't love you". He then sat back to his
right. In the Towner photo, taken at the corner of Houston and Elm, a
cupped fold can be seen in the jacket. It does not look to be as
prominent as the fold in the Jeffries film, possibly because of the
movement Kennedy made as the limo turned onto Houston.
In looking at the blow-up of the Willis photo in TKOAP, page 24, I can
see there appears to be space between the jacket and the hair line,
but i do not see anything that appears to be white on the back of the
neck.
***Ron Judge
Martin Shackelford
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message news:12tnagp...@corp.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
You seem to be talking about the newly discovered film, which many of us
had known about for many years on the DCA film. You could just as well
cite the photo that Lattimer used, showing the jacket extremely bunched
up. Irrelevant. I seriously doubt that Kennedy was hit by a a bullet at
those moments when the jacket was so severely bunched up. The only
relevant moment is the EXACT moment when Kennedy was hit in the back
with a bullet. Prove conclusively at which frame Kennedy was hit and
show me the photo showing the back of his jacket during that frame so
that we can determine how bunched up his jacket was.
Bunch it up as much as you wish, but you are never going to get the hole
above the top of his shoulders as the WC, Lattimer and Zimmerman need it
to be for their various SBTs.
> As the limo turned onto Houston, Kennedy can be seen leaning forward
> and to his left, probrably in responce to Mrs. Connally's comment,
> "you can't say Dallas doesn't love you". He then sat back to his
> right. In the Towner photo, taken at the corner of Houston and Elm, a
> cupped fold can be seen in the jacket. It does not look to be as
> prominent as the fold in the Jeffries film, possibly because of the
> movement Kennedy made as the limo turned onto Houston.
>
> In looking at the blow-up of the Willis photo in TKOAP, page 24, I can
> see there appears to be space between the jacket and the hair line,
> but i do not see anything that appears to be white on the back of the
> neck.
>
Great. You are talking about differences of an inch or two. The WC,
Lattimer, Posner, Zimmerman et al need a difference of 4 inches, which
is too much to ask for.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> I fined it odd no one has mention that Clint Hill is standing on Kennedy's
> car.
He was not standing. He was crouched. Other agents have stood on the
rear bumper in other motorcades and Kennedy did not like it.
I have discussed this dozens of times.
> He Just happened to get off the car before it made it's turn into the lions
> den? Yea he knew nothing right....
>
> "
Not just before. Well before. You can see that on the DCA film.
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
a miscroscope and doesn't see any bunching.
Perhaps a good resolution blow-up will show the slight edge of a white shirt
collar.
I know I've seen it on a very good copy or after I zoomed in on it.
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1172075246.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
viewable.
Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
IMO, it's not debatable...in the slightest degree.
Here's the Posner article........
February 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
"Single Bullet, Single Gunman"
By: GERALD POSNER
"The ability to use advanced forensics and minuscule traces of DNA to
solve crimes, even cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans
into armchair sleuths seeking to "solve" the unexpected deaths of
people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith. But sometimes, old-
fashioned evidence is as useful in solving puzzles as anything under a
nuclear microscope.
Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing
President John F. Kennedy's motorcade just before his assassination.
An amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held
onto it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his
son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum
in Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most
people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of
Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.
But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves
one of the case's enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on
Kennedy's back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did
not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his
suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists
fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the
report fabricated.
This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is
critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy
photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous "single
bullet" theory - the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet
inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas.
However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where
the bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to
have inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second
assassin.
For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was
sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy's suit had bunched up
during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one
would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align
perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt
also had to have been raised.
Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed
Kennedy's jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that
the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to
measure minute distances between Kennedy's hairline and his shirt,
what they dubbed the "hair-to-in-shoot distance."
The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip,
as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady,
Kennedy's suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers
creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the
first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to
misrepresent the bullet's entry point.
While the film solves one mystery, it leaves another open: estimates
are that at least 150,000 people lined the Dallas motorcade route that
fateful day, so there must be many other films and photographs out
there that have never come to light. Those who have them should bear
in mind that even the most innocuous-seeming artifacts, like the
Jefferies tape, can sometimes put enduring controversies to rest. As
Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum said the other day,
'The bottom line is, don't throw anything away'." -- G. Posner
Jefferies Film:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
Croft Photo (on Elm St.):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
Anthony Marsh
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:47:51 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>> McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
>> The video:
>>
>> http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
>>
>
> Film shows quite a bunch in JFK's suit jacket.
>
>
Yes, and if you look at enough photos and films of President Kennedy you
can see even more bunching. Maybe even pulling his collar up above his
head. But he was not shot at those moments. That is the only time that
matters.
Anthony Marsh
> What I do not understand is why the person who shot this footage thought
> it was appropriate to have such an extensive portion of it focused on the
> Texas School Book Depository and also to film it in such a way as to show
> the 6th floor.
>
Which footage? The newly discovered footage does not show the TSBD at
all. Other films do.
> At the time of the assassination, or 90 seconds before who would have
> known that the School Book Depository would have historical interest? No
> other building was filmed in this sequence.
>
Perhaps all the commotion about the man who had the epileptic seizure
and the subsequent ambulance.
Anthony Marsh
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
>
> The video:
>
> http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
>
That video is Iran launches full-scale war games.
The JFK film played on MSNBC's Countdown and local news.
It is the full color clip which was used in the DCA film.
Notice Clint Hill riding on the back of the limousine.
Was he reacting to a shot? ;]>
Anthony Marsh
> If I recall correctly, Josiah Thompson examines the Phil Willis slide under
> a miscroscope and doesn't see any bunching.
>
Indeed, the Willis photo may be closest to and just before the moment
Kennedy was hit. What is peculiar is that the HSCA scenario has the
bullet hit at Z-190 before the Willis photo. And thus closer to the
Croft photo which shows more bunching.
Winston Smith
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> The video:
>
> http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
>
> >--
> >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That jacket sure looks bunched up behind the neck....
Winston
Peter Fokes
<outerparty...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ya, but isn't it the weirdest thing ... that bunch?
Bet you cannot create an identical bunch in your jacket.
PF
>
Mitch Todd
Must be a sad day in the Varnell household.
MST
Gerry Simone (O)
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:45da3f84....@news.alt.net...
Texextra
The new SBT -- the Simple Bunch Theory. Oh, brother. Posner should
debate Jim Marrs.
Martin Shackelford
was, in fact, the only agent who went out of his way to provide JFK with
extra protection. Your implication is unfounded.
Martin
"Pablo Fanques Fair" <pablo.fan...@pennylane.com> wrote in message
news:dgZCh.10$SX...@newsfe09.lga...
Anthony Marsh
> Hill was on and off the car on several occasions during the motorcade. He
> was, in fact, the only agent who went out of his way to provide JFK with
> extra protection. Your implication is unfounded.
>
Almost 100% correct. Except that he was assigned to Jackie and it was
primarily Jackie that he was protecting. That is why he was on the left
side.
Squinty Magoo
wrote:
> Hill was on and off the car on several occasions during the motorcade. He
> was, in fact, the only agent who went out of his way to provide JFK with
> extra protection. Your implication is unfounded.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> >I fined it odd no one has mention that Clint Hill is standing on Kennedy's
> >car.
> > He Just happened to get off the car before it made it's turn into the
> > lions den? Yea he knew nothing right....
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do we know when/where/how Hill left the car between this film and
Dealey Plaza? Did the car slow again? Isn't there a shot of the limo
turning and Hill seemingly hanging on for dear life?
Squinty Magoo
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:45ddce88$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Squinty Magoo" <magoos...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1172186119....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The Jeffries film shows a marked fold in the jacket. A fold of 2
inches equates to 4 inches of fabric as it folds up then down again,
back over itself.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***As far as i understand, Agent Hill was devastated by the death of
President Kennedy. Years after the assasination, he was interviewed
on 60 minutes, as to the effect the assassination and the personal
burden he felt in not being able to protect JFK, had on his life.
He indeed knew nothing in advance.
***Ron Judge
Cliff
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:50 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
> McAdams) wrote:
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252825,00.html
>
> The video:
>
> http://usatodaytv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM181115
We can't see JFK's shirt collar at the back
of his neck in the Jefferies film.
We can see JFK's shirt collar very well at
the back of his neck in the Towner film, the
motorcade footage ending about 4 seconds
before the shooting.
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
The jacket dropped in Dealey.
Game. Set. Match.
The SBT stands debunked.
David Von Pein
Then what scenario replaces the SBT, Cliff? Got anything better (via
some theory that can be classified as "reasonable" or "doable" or
"evidence-based", without magically-disappearing bullets)?
Didn't think so....because no such reasonable SBT alternative exists.
Never did.
The SBT stands! And always will! Because it's so obviously the ONLY
way the shooting could have occurred.
~MARK VII~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1d9fb8a41b867da9
Anthony Marsh
Clint Hill had a nervous breakdown. He blamed himself for the
assassination, thinking that if only he had reacted a second faster he
would have saved the President.
Anthony Marsh
More nonsense.
Andrew Mason
>>>>"The SBT stands debunked." <<<
>
>
> Then what scenario replaces the SBT, Cliff? Got anything better (via
> some theory that can be classified as "reasonable" or "doable" or
> "evidence-based", without magically-disappearing bullets)?
>
> Didn't think so....because no such reasonable SBT alternative exists.
> Never did.
>
> The SBT stands! And always will! Because it's so obviously the ONLY
> way the shooting could have occurred.
The fact that it stands is a testament to the intransigence of its
supporters who believe it is necessary for the LN conclusion. If you
care to believe that it is the way the shooting happened, you must
ignore what everyone who was there said happened. The Connallys are just
the beginning. There is a reason that 3 of the 7 members of the WC would
not accept it but accepted the LN conclusion.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The SBT stands debunked." <<<
>
> Then what scenario replaces the SBT, Cliff? Got anything better (via
> some theory that can be classified as "reasonable" or "doable" or
> "evidence-based", without magically-disappearing bullets)?
>
> Didn't think so....because no such reasonable SBT alternative exists.
> Never did.
>
> The SBT stands! And always will! Because it's so obviously the ONLY
> way the shooting could have occurred.
>
Then explain how every investigation before the Warren Commission did
not need a SBT. Explain how the WC itself did not need a SBT until as
late as May 1964. Obvious?
Cliff
> >>> "The SBT stands debunked." <<<
>
> Then what scenario replaces the SBT, Cliff?
Can't refute the fact that the SBT stands debunked,
can you, David?
> Got anything better
Anything is better than impossible.
The SBT has been destroyed by its top defender,
Gerald Posner, who is on record as claiming that
the Jefferies film shows the jacket in the "precise"
location required by the Single Bullet Theory.
This claim is obviously trumped by the Dealey Plaza
films/photos showing the jacket dropping.
> (via
> some theory that can be classified as "reasonable" or "doable" or
> "evidence-based", without magically-disappearing bullets)?
When science is decried as "magic" -- Logic weeps.
In the early 60's Charles Senseney developed a
boold soluble paralytic the size of a .22 that immobilized
a target within two seconds and could not be detected
on x-ray.
His Senate testimony is here:
The use of such a weapon is consistent with
the films/photos of JFK acting paralyzed; this
is consistent with the x-ray showing an air pocket
overlaying C7 and T1; and consistent with the
throat entry-wound description by the people at
Parkland.
The SBT stands debunked, and the counter scenario
outlined here fits all the established evidence.
Cliff Varnell
>
> Didn't think so....because no such reasonable SBT alternative exists.
> Never did.
>
> The SBT stands! And always will! Because it's so obviously the ONLY
> way the shooting could have occurred.
>
> ~MARK VII~
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1d9fb8a41b86...
David Von Pein
>>> "The SBT stands debunked, and the counter scenario outlined here fits
all the established evidence." <<<
Bull. You've got ZERO bullets to back up any anti-SBT scenario. None.
Where did the bullets go? Where?
And where's the JFK neck/back damage from those two non-transiting
missiles? Where?
And where are the many fragments that SHOULD be present in JFK's neck/
back if TWO bullets just stopped? Where are the fragments? Those bullets
hit something to stop them, didn't they? So, what was it that stopped TWO
bullets inside Kennedy's body?
Plus: Where's the Connally bullet? (I.E., the "real" one, if you think 399
is a 'plant' -- you surely think it was planted, right? Virtually all
CTers do.)
Why aren't these simple questions EVER answered by the ant-SBT bunch?*
* = I'll answer that: They CAN'T be answered logically (or with a straight
face).
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
"The SBT stands debunked, and the counter scenario outlined here fitsall the established evidence." <<< Bull. You've got ZERO bullets to back up any anti-SBT scenario. None. Where did the bullets go? Where?
First bullet through JFK's neck (and planted butt-first in JBC's thigh): CE399.
Second bullet went through JBC's chest, wrist.
No question about the third where it went.
Do we have to know where the pieces ended up? The only evidence we have is Tague getting hit by a fragment which, he believed, was on the second shot, which fits a line through JBC's back, chest and wrist (deflecting up off the wrist). If the fragments went over the windshield (some didn't quite make it, obviously) the only way we are going to know where they ended up is to have some evidence. It is remarkable that one hit Tague and we know where it hit, but how many other fragments may not have hit anyone? You can't simply say it didn't happen because we don't know exactly where the fragments went.
And where's the JFK neck/back damage from those two non-transiting missiles? Where? And where are the many fragments that SHOULD be present in JFK's neck/ back if TWO bullets just stopped? Where are the fragments? Those bullets hit something to stop them, didn't they? So, what was it that stopped TWO bullets inside Kennedy's body? Plus: Where's the Connally bullet? (I.E., the "real" one, if you think 399 is a 'plant' -- you surely think it was planted, right? Virtually all CTers do.) Why aren't these simple questions EVER answered by the ant-SBT bunch?* * = I'll answer that: They CAN'T be answered logically (or with a straight face).
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The SBT stands debunked, and the counter scenario outlined here fits
> all the established evidence." <<<
>
> Bull. You've got ZERO bullets to back up any anti-SBT scenario. None.
> Where did the bullets go? Where?
>
One went over the windshield and was never found, just like your missed
shot was never found.
> And where's the JFK neck/back damage from those two non-transiting
> missiles? Where?
>
There the theory breaks down, but indeed there was damage in the back
and in the front.
> And where are the many fragments that SHOULD be present in JFK's neck/
> back if TWO bullets just stopped? Where are the fragments? Those bullets
False assumption. There should NOT be many fragments present when
bullets stop. In most cases the bullets remain intact.
> hit something to stop them, didn't they? So, what was it that stopped TWO
> bullets inside Kennedy's body?
>
Not in all cases. Maybe in one case it can hit a vertebra. In other
cases it just slows down and stops.
> Plus: Where's the Connally bullet? (I.E., the "real" one, if you think 399
> is a 'plant' -- you surely think it was planted, right? Virtually all
> CTers do.)
>
CE 399 could be one of the bullets which hit Connally. So also could be
the two large fragments found in the front seat area.
David Von Pein
Bull. The evidence supports no such nonsense.
Your first-bullet scenario is totally impossible, given the 1,775fps
velocity of the bullet coming out of JFK's neck. It would have
certainly shattered Connally's femur at that speed, plus done lots
more leg damage to boot (per Lattimer's tests and via WC testimony
from others with an opinion on the matter as well).
And your second bullet scenario is also impossible for another variety
of reasons -- The most obvious is: NO WAY THAT BULLET GETS TO CONNALLY
FIRST, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH MR. KENNEDY.
Plus, without going through JFK, his wrist would probably have been
pulverized beyond repair. Lattimer did tests on that too, with much
greater wrist damage sustained by mock JBCs if the bullet does not go
thru a simulated neck first.
Spit on Lattimer's tests if that's your wont -- but try to answer
this:
How likely is it that virtually EVERY test that Dr. John K. Lattimer
performed with a Carcano rifle and WCC/MC ammunition would end up
supporting and buttressing the general "LN" scenario if, in fact,
multiple shots from varying angles had actually struck the victims?
Were the plotters so incredibly fortunate that even SIMULATIONS and
exacting RE-CREATIONS of the shooting variables and evidence could be
duplicated with such sterling "Pro-LN" results (even when, per CTers,
the shooting was really achieved in a totally-different, multi-gun
fashion)?
Is there no END to the conspirators' good fortune?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Here is what the evidence indicates: First bullet through JFK's neck (and planted butt-first in JBC's thigh): CE399. ... Second bullet went through JBC's chest, wrist." <<<
>
> Bull. The evidence supports no such nonsense.
>
> Your first-bullet scenario is totally impossible, given the 1,775fps
> velocity of the bullet coming out of JFK's neck. It would have
> certainly shattered Connally's femur at that speed, plus done lots
> more leg damage to boot (per Lattimer's tests and via WC testimony
> from others with an opinion on the matter as well).
>
I agree with your first objection. Too fast, too intact.
> And your second bullet scenario is also impossible for another variety
> of reasons -- The most obvious is: NO WAY THAT BULLET GETS TO CONNALLY
> FIRST, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH MR. KENNEDY.
Here I disagree. Dale Myers's own diagrams show plenty of room above
Kennedy's right shoulder for a bullet to strike Connally in the back.
>
> Plus, without going through JFK, his wrist would probably have been
> pulverized beyond repair. Lattimer did tests on that too, with much
> greater wrist damage sustained by mock JBCs if the bullet does not go
> thru a simulated neck first.
>
But such tests assumed a perpendicular hit. It would be much different
if struck at an angle.
> Spit on Lattimer's tests if that's your wont -- but try to answer
> this:
>
> How likely is it that virtually EVERY test that Dr. John K. Lattimer
> performed with a Carcano rifle and WCC/MC ammunition would end up
> supporting and buttressing the general "LN" scenario if, in fact,
> multiple shots from varying angles had actually struck the victims?
>
Because he designed the tests to confirm his preconceived WC conclusions.
> Were the plotters so incredibly fortunate that even SIMULATIONS and
> exacting RE-CREATIONS of the shooting variables and evidence could be
> duplicated with such sterling "Pro-LN" results (even when, per CTers,
> the shooting was really achieved in a totally-different, multi-gun
> fashion)?
>
Any simulations and recreations can be fudged to show what you want them
to show.
> Is there no END to the conspirators' good fortune?
>
>
They made little errors which revealed the conspiracy.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
"Here is what the evidence indicates: First bullet through JFK's neck (and planted butt-first in JBC's thigh): CE399. ... Second bullet went through JBC's chest, wrist." <<<Bull. The evidence supports no such nonsense.
Your first-bullet scenario is totally impossible, given the 1,775fps velocity of the bullet coming out of JFK's neck. It would have certainly shattered Connally's femur at that speed, plus done lots more leg damage to boot (per Lattimer's tests and via WC testimony from others with an opinion on the matter as well).
You say that CE399 did all the damage to JFK and JBC, including striking the radius with its butt end. You say that it is possible. I say the thigh wound from JFK's neck bullet is possible. The only difference is that there is evidence that it did not happen the way you think it happened : JFK was hit by the first shot. JBC wasn't hit in the back by the first shot.
And your second bullet scenario is also impossible for another variety of reasons -- The most obvious is: NO WAY THAT BULLET GETS TO CONNALLY FIRST, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH MR. KENNEDY.
Plus, without going through JFK, his wrist would probably have been pulverized beyond repair. Lattimer did tests on that too, with much greater wrist damage sustained by mock JBCs if the bullet does not go thru a simulated neck first.
Spit on Lattimer's tests if that's your wont -- but try to answer this: How likely is it that virtually EVERY test that Dr. John K. Lattimer performed with a Carcano rifle and WCC/MC ammunition would end up supporting and buttressing the general "LN" scenario if, in fact, multiple shots from varying angles had actually struck the victims? Were the plotters so incredibly fortunate that even SIMULATIONS and exacting RE-CREATIONS of the shooting variables and evidence could be duplicated with such sterling "Pro-LN" results (even when, per CTers, the shooting was really achieved in a totally-different, multi-gun fashion)? Is there no END to the conspirators' good fortune?
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
Then you have no choice (via common sense and the sum total of all the
evidence) to accept the SBT as true, doable, and accurate (which it
is).
Sorry, no way around it if you're an LNer. .....
>>> "I just disagree with the SBT because the evidence does not support it." <<<
Nonsense. The evidence fully supports it. And the LACK of evidence
that WOULD be present if the SBT is untrue also supports the SBT.
Why you say otherwise is the bigger mystery.
>>> "My position is the same as 3 of the 7 members (Boggs, Russell, Cooper) of the Warren Commission." <<<
Senator Russell, for one, comes across as a total goofball (IMO). But,
then again, the 7 WC heads did virtually none of the hard work in
their investigation...Belin, Specter, Ball, and Liebeler (and a few
others) did the legwork. The WC merely observed from a distance most
of the time. Belin fully admits that in his forthright '73 book.
Or, to quote VB yet again......
"The Warren Commission might not have done much work, but its staff
was prodigious." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1992
Vince then goes on to correctly point out......
"He {Oliver Stone} deliberately twisted and warped the record. There
was nothing mysterious about Oswald's shots. The first was from only
57 yards, the second from only 83 yards; all were fired at a stagnant
target with a favorable angle. My firearms guy says he was a sitting
duck." -- VB
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>"I agree that Oswald did all the shooting." <<<
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Then you have no choice (via common sense and the sum total of all the
>evidence) to accept the SBT as true, doable, and accurate (which it
>is).
>
>Sorry, no way around it if you're an LNer. .....
>
>
The only thing you have to accept is that Connally was not hit on the
first shot (as both Connallys said) and the shot pattern was
1........2...3. That makes three shots, three hits, all separated by at
least 40 frames. In fact the only way you can still accept the SBT and
the 1.......2...3 shot pattern is to believe that Connally was wrong on
being hit on the second shot. That seems to be what the WC majority
believed.
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0060721545&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R3BEKTGVKJGI72&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
>
>>>>"I just disagree with the SBT because the evidence does not support it." <<<
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Nonsense. The evidence fully supports it. And the LACK of evidence
>that WOULD be present if the SBT is untrue also supports the SBT.
>
>Why you say otherwise is the bigger mystery.
>
>
Not a mystery at all. You really should read my posts. You may disagree
with me, but you should at least try to understand my very simple points.
There are two of them: A. shot pattern 1........2...3. B. JBC not hit by
#1. Those two facts eliminate the SBT as a possibility. You can argue
with my contention that A. is right. But don't argue with me about the
conclusion if A. is right.
Andrew Mason
cdddraftsman
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>"I agree that Oswald did all the shooting." <<<
>
> >Then you have no choice (via common sense and the sum total of all the
> >evidence) to accept the SBT as true, doable, and accurate (which it
> >is).
>
> >Sorry, no way around it if you're an LNer. .....
>
> The only thing you have to accept is that Connally was not hit on the
> first shot (as both Connallys said) and the shot pattern was
> 1........2...3. That makes three shots, three hits, all separated by at
> least 40 frames. In fact the only way you can still accept the SBT and
> the 1.......2...3 shot pattern is to believe that Connally was wrong on
> being hit on the second shot. That seems to be what the WC majority
> believed.
>
>
> >>>>"I just disagree with the SBT because the evidence does not support it." <<<
>
> >Nonsense. The evidence fully supports it. And the LACK of evidence
> >that WOULD be present if the SBT is untrue also supports the SBT.
>
> >Why you say otherwise is the bigger mystery.
>
> Not a mystery at all. You really should read my posts. You may disagree
> with me, but you should at least try to understand my very simple points.
> There are two of them: A. shot pattern 1........2...3. B. JBC not hit by
> #1. Those two facts eliminate the SBT as a possibility. You can argue
> with my contention that A. is right. But don't argue with me about the
> conclusion if A. is right.
>
> Andrew Mason
Absolutely Wacky Andrew ! I love it .....!
AM = A. shot pattern 1........2...3.
TL = A. shot pattern 1.............2.........3 Your Wrong , This
shot pattern is reported by the closest 3 men to the actual
rifle firing that day . If you dispute this your simply in denial .
AM = B. JBC not hit by #1.
TL = B. JBC not hit by #1. Your Correct , missed car completely .
" = C. JFK & JBC hit by #2
" = D. JFK hit by #3
AM = Those two facts eliminate the SBT as a possibility.
TL = Those two facts go hand in hand with two more in
proving the SBF beyond any reasonable doubt . If you
dispute this your simply in denial .
AM = You can argue with my contention that A. is right.
But don't argue with me about the conclusion if A. is right.
TL = The two don't follow . Your contention is a tenative
Hypothisis that is not supportable , by all he evidence . The
Single Bullet Fact remains intact and the best qualified to
meet the needs of all the evidence and not just your
selective snippits that raise more questions then they
answer . Face the facts Andrew , your scenario is
deader than JFK ........If you dispute this your
simply in denial .
........tl
Andrew Mason
Are you saying that the contention that the shot pattern was
1.........2...3 is wacky? If so, then the witnesses who confidently
recalled that pattern were wacky, not me.
> AM = A. shot pattern 1........2...3.
> TL = A. shot pattern 1.............2.........3 Your Wrong , This
> shot pattern is reported by the closest 3 men to the actual
> rifle firing that day . If you dispute this your simply in denial .
You will have to give me some cites. Do you mean Bonnie Ray Williams
about 10 feet below the SN, who said this:
The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second
and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the
second shot, as I remember.(3 H 175)
??
Or perhaps you mean James Jarman, who was right beside Williams? who
said this: WC 3 H 204. “and then the third shot was fired right behind
the second one.”
Or perhaps you mean Harold Norman, who was right beside the other two?
who said this to the FBI on Nov. 26/63:
He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding
turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot
had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at
that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the
roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling
from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had
puled his head back in from the window.
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif
or his recollection of JFK reacting on the first shot (3 H 191):?
I believe it was his right arm, and I can’t remember what the exact time
was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it
seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something,....
>
> AM = B. JBC not hit by #1.
> TL = B. JBC not hit by #1. Your Correct , missed car completely .
> " = C. JFK & JBC hit by #2
> " = D. JFK hit by #3
And your evidence is? How is it that 16 witnesses confidently recalled
JFK reacting the same way and none confidently recalled that he didn't
react but kept on waving and smiling? See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>
> AM = Those two facts eliminate the SBT as a possibility.
> TL = Those two facts go hand in hand with two more in
> proving the SBF beyond any reasonable doubt . If you
> dispute this your simply in denial .
I don't follow. If you are saying the second shot SBT is consistent with
the shot pattern 1..........2...3 you will have to explain how JFK could
have been first hit by a shot that close to 3. Was he play acting from
z225 to 270?
>
> AM = You can argue with my contention that A. is right.
> But don't argue with me about the conclusion if A. is right.
> TL = The two don't follow . Your contention is a tenative
> Hypothisis that is not supportable , by all he evidence . The
> Single Bullet Fact remains intact and the best qualified to
> meet the needs of all the evidence and not just your
> selective snippits that raise more questions then they
> answer . Face the facts Andrew , your scenario is
> deader than JFK ........If you dispute this your
> simply in denial .
> ........tl
>
I don't want to be unkind to you, but you don't seem to understand the
basic point here. The conclusion simply follows if the A and B premises
are correct. So if you want to attack my conclusion then do it by
showing why the shot pattern witnesses and the "first shot hit"
witnesses were all wrong. If you want to do that you should cite some
evidence. If you cite evidence, you should read it first.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
If you really think Oswald caused both hits with separate bullets, list
the frame numbers for each hit and indicate how many seconds between
shots.
> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
For the umpteenth time:
#1: z198-202 or so
#2: z270-2
#3: z313
Spacing: 4.0 seconds (72 frames) and 2.3 seconds (40 frames)
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
OK, so we have to assume that you think this is when Kennedy was hit by
the first bullet, in the back. And you think Willis was psychic and
reacted to the shot before he heard it?
> #2: z270-2
This must be your Connally shot. Plenty of time for one man to reload.
Look at the Altgens photo. It was taken at about z-255, just before this
shot. Obviously Kennedy had already been hit. But you claim to be able to
look at the Altgens photo and see that Connally was not hit yet? And you
think Connally is just nuts when he said he looked at the Zapruder frames
and could SEE that he was hit at about Z-230. You can look at those frames
and see no reaction to being shot?
> #3: z313
>
> Spacing: 4.0 seconds (72 frames) and 2.3 seconds (40 frames)
>
How much spacing is too close for you?
> Andrew Mason
Winston Smith
> On 21 Feb 2007 23:08:32 -0500, "Winston Smith"
>
> Ya, but isn't it the weirdest thing ... that bunch?
>
> Bet you cannot create an identical bunch in your jacket.
>
> PF
Sitting with my back up against a car seat, and turning from side-to-
side waving at everybody? All kinds of "real interesting" jacket-
bunching scenarios are possible, doncha think?