"Secrets of the Assassination"
rharris@rt66
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
> The only place for a shot that missed JFK and wounded Tague is the
> Dal-Tex.
>
> The FBI said that only at frame 410 do the TSBD snipers nest, JFK, and
> Tague line up.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> This is true. If you go stand in the spot where Tague was standing,
> as I did last week, you can easily see that Tague could not have
> been hit by the first shot (the one that missed, if you will),
> taking into account where the limo was when the first shot was fired.
>
> However, he could have been hit by a direct, straight-line shot
> from the Dal-Tex.
>
> Or, he could have been hit by a ricochet, or a deflection, or a
> fragment. If this was the case, then who knows where the shot
> might have originated.
Someone taking a potshot from behind the picket fence could also have
caused a near-miss winding up causing Tague's wound. I admit that he would
probably have been shooting at Jackie, though. I never calculated the
exact Z-frame - it would depend in part, on exactly where the shooter was
positioned, but that would also work.
Robert Harris
>
>
> ---
> Cecil N. Jones
> email: cnj...@amoco.com
> The opinions expressed are solely my own.
Deanie Richards
>>
>>Someone taking a potshot from behind the picket fence could also have
>>caused a near-miss winding up causing Tague's wound. I admit that he would
>>probably have been shooting at Jackie, though. I never calculated the
>>exact Z-frame - it would depend in part, on exactly where the shooter was
>>positioned, but that would also work.
Are you saying that if someone had stood behind the fence on the knoll, d
and aimed a weapon at Jackie in the limo, that a shot missing her (and not
deflecting off of something) could cause an injury to Tague?
I am only asking for clarification ... if I have understood you correctly,
then I would disagree that this would happen. I don't think at any time there
was tragectory line between Tague and anywhere behind the fence, which would
include the "near miss vicinity" of the limo.
If I have not understood you, would you please explain further, because I just
don't know how such a tragectory would be possible.
[altho of course, ANYthing is possible! :-) ]
Deanie
-------
Robert Harris
(Deanie Richards) wrote:
Deanie,
I'm not at all pushing this theory, but there definately is a line from
various points behind the fence to Tague's position, and the limo had to
pass through that line. Of course, it would have been in the later
Z-frames, well after the head shot.
I could certainly eyeball the Tague position from behind the fence when I
was in DP.
Robert Harris
Deanie Richards
>Deanie,
>
>I'm not at all pushing this theory, but there definately is a line from
>various points behind the fence to Tague's position, and the limo had to
>pass through that line. Of course, it would have been in the later
>Z-frames, well after the head shot.
>I could certainly eyeball the Tague position from behind the fence when I
>was in DP.
>Robert Harris
thinking you meant before that.
When in DP did you ever stand over on the other side of Commerce in the
pergola there, and wonder about any shots being fired from inside that
structure? Of course it is farther, and a more difficult shot. But I have
wondered sometimes if there might have been another shooter there, somewhere.
Deanie
John Locke
> It seems that Robert Harris has joined Lisa in calling those who see the
> case differently from him "paid disinformationists."
>
> You're in *good* company, Robert!
Go, Robert, go! I love to see converts to Peaeonology! I've got my
reasons, but they're a secret. <wink, wink>
john
> In article <rharris-1411...@rharris.rt66.com>
> rharris@rt66,com (Robert Harris) writes:
> >All:
> >
> >OK - I give up. There really, really are disinformationists out there
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >whose lies just couldn't be anything other than deliberate, paid
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >propaganda.
> >
> >"Secrets of a Homicide" by Dale Meyers describes his computer simulation
> >of the JFK assassination, which will be used in a TV special in the spring
> >of '95. It can be found in this month's issue of "Video Toaster User". It
> >was brought to my attention in a post by David Stager, who I'm sure would
> >like the article to be well read (at least by those who don't know much
> >about the assassination).
> >
--
"It used to be that being crazy meant something. Now everybody
is crazy." -- Charles Manson
Michael Kelly
: jmca...@netcom.com (John Mcadams) writes:
: > It seems that Robert Harris has joined Lisa in calling those who see the
: > case differently from him "paid disinformationists."
: >
: > You're in *good* company, Robert!
: Go, Robert, go! I love to see converts to Peaeonology! I've got my
: reasons, but they're a secret. <wink, wink>
Job security being foremost no doubt ;)
: john
: > In article <rharris-1411...@rharris.rt66.com>
: > rharris@rt66,com (Robert Harris) writes:
: > >All:
: > >
: > >OK - I give up. There really, really are disinformationists out there
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > >whose lies just couldn't be anything other than deliberate, paid
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > >propaganda.
: > >
: > >"Secrets of a Homicide" by Dale Meyers describes his computer simulation
: > >of the JFK assassination, which will be used in a TV special in the spring
: > >of '95. It can be found in this month's issue of "Video Toaster User". It
: > >was brought to my attention in a post by David Stager, who I'm sure would
: > >like the article to be well read (at least by those who don't know much
: > >about the assassination).
: > >
: --
: "It used to be that being crazy meant something. Now everybody
: is crazy." -- Charles Manson
--
Mike
"To commit the perfect crime, you don't have to be intelligent,
just in charge of the investigation that follows."
rharris@rt66
Locke) wrote:
> jmca...@netcom.com (John Mcadams) writes:
> > It seems that Robert Harris has joined Lisa in calling those who see the
> > case differently from him "paid disinformationists."
> >
> > You're in *good* company, Robert!
>
> Go, Robert, go! I love to see converts to Peaeonology! I've got my
> reasons, but they're a secret. <wink, wink>
>
> john
Thanks, John! Funny thing, but I thought the CIA openly admitted using
writers, TV, radio, etc. to promote "information".
Yesterday, I heard a rerun of a G. Gordon Liddy radio program with guess
who, on? Yup - good ol' Posner. You gotta admit, they make a great pair!
Guess anybody would have to be a raving "Conspiranoid" (there's a new
stereotype name for you guys) to think the CIA had anything to do with
that marriage, huh?
Robert Harris
John Locke
> <Czu2o...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John
> Locke) wrote:
>
> > jmca...@netcom.com (John Mcadams) writes:
> > > It seems that Robert Harris has joined Lisa in calling those who see the
> > > case differently from him "paid disinformationists."
> > >
> > > You're in *good* company, Robert!
> >
> > Go, Robert, go! I love to see converts to Peaeonology! I've got my
> > reasons, but they're a secret. <wink, wink>
>
> writers, TV, radio, etc. to promote "information".
Maybe they did and maybe they didn't! :-)
> Yesterday, I heard a rerun of a G. Gordon Liddy radio program with guess
> who, on? Yup - good ol' Posner. You gotta admit, they make a great pair!
Didn't hear the show, so can't say!
> Guess anybody would have to be a raving "Conspiranoid" (there's a new
> stereotype name for you guys) to think the CIA had anything to do with
> that marriage, huh?
It would help!
john