What about the death bed confession from the Parkland doctor.
Nona and Kari
just before his dath from Cancer the doctor who was the one who was the
head doctor at Parkland Emergency Room in regards to the Kennedy case said
just before he died that he lied when he previously said the archive autopsy
pictures were correct with the wounds. he stated that he was intimidated by
the Government agencies and told his family and himself would lose
everything, even their lives if he didn't say what they wished. he was said
to have then stated that President Kennedy was shot in the front of the
head. the big hole was indeed in the back of the head and the so called
tracheotomy was actually a wound entrance. he said he had lost his family
and was now losing his life so he was able to finally tell the truth and
have no fears. Anyone explain this??
Kari
Fathom
Kari, source of information, please?
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
** Custom-designed reality is a labor-intensive process. **
Todd Wayne Vaughan
Kari,
Well, who was this doctor??? And to whom did he say this???
Todd
--
Todd Wayne Vaughan
Pearl Gladstone
jack white wrote:
> >
> > KariWas this Mc Clelland?
Nona and Kari
I believe so. Mcclelland. Was he a cardiologist, or die of a coronary.
It is late and my mind is a bit fuzzy right now. :):)
Pearl Gladstone wrote in message <3456F0...@erols.com>...
Bill Parker
You don't even know the name of this alleged doctor?
How are we to search for him? Or take you seriously?
Bill Parker
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:29:52 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
<nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> CNN news just after he died...It was a major story. I've watched and
>waited a long time waiting for someone else to mention this here, but no one
>did. It amazes me. Why wasn't it made more of. Unlike most news stories,
>it was stated once, and then disappeared. Any information that shows proof
>that the single bullet theory doesn't work, or a difference in wounds, like
>the refusal to remove bullet pieces from Connolly leg after he died, all
>these things get removed from recorded news reports. How can people ignore
>stuff liek this???
>I don't watch tabloid. tabloid is ridiculous. i watch lots of news so they
>report stuff in the afternoons when most are at work, then at night this
>stuff disappears. If I had a dollar each time major news from the afternoon
>disappears by night, I'd be rich and not have to rely on my company
>disability program anymore. Working people, 8-5ers miss some of the most
>important everyday news ever reported. Nightly news is carefully
>scrutinized for the regular work hour people.
> Believe me or not I don't really care. I am not the kind of person who
>lies nor will I lower myself to allow insults by others to cause me to
>return the compliment. I know, do a search for the name of the doctor who
>recently, in the last few years, passed away and was the Kennedy doctor at
>Parkland. Then find out what happened what he said. It amazes me how few
>people know about his last public remarks just befor ehe died, and I believe
>it was from cancer. I could be wrong about what killed him, but not what he
>said.
>
>
>Kari
>Fathom wrote in message ...
Have a Day,
Bill Parker
=======================================================================
In 1978 former CIA Director Richard Helms exited from his executive
session testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
He paused to talk with the press. Washington Post reporter George
Lardner, Jr. described the encounter in his paper's August 10 edition:
Helms told reporters during a break that no one would ever know
who or what Lee Harvey Oswald, named by the Warren Commission as
Kennedy's assassin, represented. Asked whether the CIA knew of
any ties Oswald had with either the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused
and with a laugh said, "I don't remember." Pressed on the point,
he told a reporter, "Your questions are almost as dumb as the
Committee's."
From "Spy Saga", by Philip Melanson, page vi
Jim Hargrove
Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
>I didn't expect hate
>filled garbage from people like you.
You folks haven't been around Usenet much if you seriously think Mr.
Parker's questions were "hate filled."
You keep making provocative posts about deathbed confessions and
"breakthroughs" reported by the _Modesto Bee_, but when it is time for a few
simple details, you have few to report.
If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm sure
that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
--Jim Hargrove
The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
Howpl
Kari -
PLEASE call CNN. This is a simple research call. They should be able to tell
you. Then you can tell us.
- Howard
Todd Wayne Vaughan
>>>I believe so. Mcclelland. Was he a cardiologist, or die of
a coronary. It is late and my mind is a bit fuzzy right now.<<<
You post such a detailed claim and then this is how you
support/source it????
Give us some facts please.
--
Todd Wayne Vaughan
Barb Junkkarinen
In
<EAA0B8E36D6C7288.B2460A64...@library-proxy.airne
s.net> wpa...@kendaco.telebyte.net (Bill Parker) writes:
>
>You don't even know the name of this alleged doctor?
>
>How are we to search for him? Or take you seriously?
>
>Bill Parker
Hi Bill,
I agree. Didn't Pepper Jenkins die of cancer sometime withing the last
year?? One would think that sort of death bed statement would have
gotten some play...and seems like one of us obsessed types would have
picked up on it if CNN broadcast it. But, ya never know.
Barb :-)
>
David Dix
Nona and Kari wrote:
> Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
> >Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
> >If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
> sure
> >that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
> >world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>
> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>
> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
> Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
> former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
> has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
> Madera County judge David Minier has asked the Assassination Records
> Review board to find out whether the CIA has documents pertaining to Claude
> Barnes Capehart, a former Chowchilla resident who died in Nevada in 1989.
> According to Minier, Capehart bragged about being a CIA hit man, told
> others he was with Lee Harvey Oswald when Kennedy was ginned down, and
> maintained that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
> The review board's deputy director, Tom Samoluk, said last week that
> Minier's request is 'relevant enough for us to at least pursue" in asking
> the Central intelligence Agency for any documentation concerning Capehart.
> He also said the board was not "passing judgment" on Minier's research,
> but is only looking into whether the CIA documents can be made public.
> Since February 1992, Minier has waged a fight against the CIA, which has
> denied his Freedom Of Information Act requests to learn whether Capehart was
> associated with the spy agency. He sued the CIA in federal courts in Fresno
> and San Francisco, but they, too, rejected his lawsuits to force the CIA to
> turn over any documents pertaining to Capehart.
> The courts in 1994 and 1995 sided with the CIA's policy to neither
> confirm nor deny information about it's employees.
> PRIVATE MISSION
> Minier, who was elected in November 1991 to the Chowchilla Municipal
> court bench, said in a recent telephone interview that he is "acting as a
> private citizen engaging in historical research."
> Established in 1992, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
> collection Act ordered federal agencies to make an assessment of documents
> relating to the assassination.
> The act created the review board and gave its members authority to
> obtain the agencies' documents and make public all records related to the
> assassination. Disclosure, however, can be postponed if the documents
> pertain to national security, intelligence gathering and privacy.
> President Kennedy was gunned down November 22, 1963 while riding
> through downtown Dallas. Texas Gov.. John Connally was wounded.
> The Warren commission later concluded that Oswald, arrested shortly
> after the killing, acted alone when he shot the President and Connally from
> the sixth floor of Texas School Book Depository.
> Oswald was fatally shot by bar owner Jack Ruby just two days after the
> assassination.
> Investigators agree that three shots were fired, but through the years
> conspiracy arguments have focused on whether the same bullet could have
> passed through Kennedy's upper back and then wounded Connally.
> Kennedy and Connally were struck at almost the same instant. if the same
> bullet could not have wounded both men, there had to have been a second
> gunman, according to those who believe in the conspiracy.
> RIGHT TO KNOW
> Connally said he didn't know if Capehart was a CIA hitman or involved in
> the assassination," But the public has a right to know one way or the
> other."
> San Francisco eye surgeon Gary L. Aguilar, who has worked with Minier on
> the project, believes the CIA and other agencies are fueling the conspiracy
> theories by concealing assassination documents.
> " We're supposed to live in an open society, but we really don't"
> he said, "the public has a mistrust of the CIA because it has so many
> secrets."
> The review board's counsel, T.Jeremy Gunn, has told Minier in a letter
> that he "Personally raised the issue of Capehart with the responsible
> officials at the Central intelligence agency and we have forwarded request
> to the agency for additional information.
> Dale Fore, a retired Madera County sheriff's detective said Thursday
> that Capehart had a well drilling business in Chowchilla
> and led a quiet life until "two men in dark suits came into town looking for
> him." in early 1977.
> Capehart went to the sheriff's substation in Chowchilla, where Fore was
> assigned and asked for police protection because he said two men from new
> York or Cleveland "were going to kill him," fore said.
> CAPEHART SCARED
> Scared. Capehart said he was "in trouble" because of a CIA assignment in
> New York, but he couldn't discuss his activities, Fore said.
> The retired detective said he initially didn't believe Capehart, but
> soon became convinced of a CIA connection after talking with Capehart's
> girlfriend. She had sought out Fore because she said Capehart had
> threatened her after the visit by the men in dark suits.
> Fore said the friend showed him a July 31, 1978 Fresno Bee article that
> said the House Assassinations Committee was investigating the Kennedy
> killing and needed the public's help
> in identifying the men in a series of photographs.
> A man in one of the photographs "was a dead ringer for Capehart" Fore
> said. shortly after the article was published, Capehart disappeared,
> according to Fore.
> Minier and Fore said they never interviewed Capehart before he died of a
> sudden heart failure Jan. 3 1989, in Pahrump, Nev.. West of Las Vegas.
> But they have spoken with Capehart's girlfriend several times and found
> her credible. They believe the girlfriend could be in danger if her name is
> released.
> According to Minier and Fore, the girlfriend said Capehart was with
> Oswald when Kennedy was shot and that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
>
> End of article. I am writing this because the Modesto Bee does not have
> back copies on the Net and since I have the paper, I wrote the entire
> article with not one word left out. I may not have capitalized or not
> capitalized where they did, or punctuated exactly as they did, but I did my
> best.
>
> Kari Smith
Good work. Thanks!
Dix
Nona and Kari
You are confused. The death bed confession has nothing to do with this
article. the death bed confession is over a year old, and I posted it with
the hope that someone on this NG had also seen the report on CNN, and might
give more information. To try to use one assertion to disprove another is
ridiculous. This article was to show that there was a man who claimed to be
with Lee harvey oswald at the time of the killing and that he also died with
an unexpected heart explosion. I didn't termit right, but this is what the
word used meant.
Bill Parker wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:30:58 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
><nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
>>>Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
>>>If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
>>sure
>>>that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
>>>world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
>> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>>
>> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>>
>> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
>>Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
>>former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
>>has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
>
>[snip...]
>
>> End of article. I am writing this because the Modesto Bee does not
have
>>back copies on the Net and since I have the paper, I wrote the entire
>>article with not one word left out. I may not have capitalized or not
>>capitalized where they did, or punctuated exactly as they did, but I did
my
>>best.
>>
>>Kari Smith
>
>Uhhh..., how does this support your story about the Parkland doctor's
deathbed
>convention?
>
>There is nary a mention of such a phenomena in the article you posted.
>
>
>
>
>Have a Day,
>
>Bill Parker
>
>=======================================================================
Steve Keating
Nona and Kari wrote:
>
> How many doctors worked on Kennedy at Parkland that died within the last
> few years. It doesn't matter ebcause it was nuried like everything else. I
> had hoped that others on this NG had also seen it. I don't write about
> something unless it is true. when I make mistakes, I say so. I was asking
> if anyone else was aware of this doctors confession about being forced to
> lie about the autopsy photos in the Archive because his confession
> corresponds with the information in The Men Who Killed Kennedy second video
> called The Truth Will Set You Free. I was hoping that perhaps someone else
> knew, had heard, and has a better memory than I have. I didn't expect hate
> filled garbage from people like you.
Calm down Nona or Kari, whichever. Bill did not say anything hatefull,
nor was his message garbage. He was telling you that you did not provide
enough info and since none of us have heard anything about what you are
suggesting, it probably is not a fact. Many buffs are hoping for
deathbed confessions, but they have not been forthcomming. If McCelland
or one of the other docs in the forefront of the case does do this it
will be at the top of the media for sure. But I would bet the farm on
it.
Steve K.
> Bill Parker wrote in message ...
Debra Conway
Thank you for printing this article. We printed two similar ones about
Judge Minier and his interest in Capehart in our magazine, Kennedy
Assassination Chronicles Vol.2, Issue 3 Fall 1996.
Judge Sues Over JFK Information
He wants CIA to answer questions on mystery man.
Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer
It was the kind of case any hard-boiled DA or cop might look at
skeptically — a Central Valley woman believes her mysterious boyfriend
was in a CIA conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, and
she fears for her life. The boyfriend tells her that Lee Harvey Oswald,
the reputed assassin, was just an innocent bystander and that others
fired the fatal shots. Top-secret government codes are found on papers
in his house. Evidence about the man’s possible complicity in the
assassination is given to congressional investigators and then
disappears during a burglary in Washington. The CIA refuses to talk
about it. And then, years later, the boyfriend dies of a heart attack
just hours before he is to be interviewed by the district attorney and a
sheriff’s detective.
Oliver Stone, where are you?
This may sound like the kind of farfetched tale concocted by wild- eyed
conspiracy theorists, but in fact it is the stuff of a lawsuit filed in
federal court in Fresno by a respected Madera County judge acting as a
private citizen, one who does not like it when the CIA tells him to get
off its case. The judge, who was the district attorney at the time, is
David Minier, 61 — and he now sits on the Municipal Court bench in
Chowchilla. He gained a certain fame in the 1970s for prosecuting three
young men who had kidnapped 26 Chowchilla schoolchildren and their bus
driver.
Two years ago, using the Freedom of Information Act, he sued the CIA
after the agency refused to tell Minier whether Claude Barnes Capehart
had ever been employed by the CIA and whether Capehart was in Dallas in
November 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated. A federal judge dismissed
Minier’s suit, but Minier, who is doing all the legal work himself, is
appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The judge may be tilting at windmills — thousands of books and articles
over the past 33 years have failed to come up with a definitive solution
to Kennedy’s death, the Warren Commission’s report notwithstanding.
But Minier says he is suing the CIA to release the Kennedy assassination
documents as a way to preserve this “historical research” on the public
record for generations to come. “I wanted to get it into some form of
permanent record,” he said earlier this week, “so that if there’s any
validity to this thing, then the information will be there as a
resource. Anything you file in court is there for all time. And someone
may come along who has a lot more ability in doing research than I do,
and the material will still be there.”
Minier’s odd quest about the Kennedy assassination started nearly 20
years ago, when Capehart moved to Chowchilla and opened a well-drilling
business. Soon Capehart came to the county sheriff’s office and said
some men had been sent from “back East” to kill him. Sergeant Dale Fore
said he would look into it. But after scouring the dusty Central Valley
town (population: 6,000), he could find no assassins. But Capehart
seemed like an interesting guy to Fore, and soon he was confiding to the
sergeant that he had done some work for the CIA. After a while, Fore
called a friend at the FBI and asked about Capehart. Both men concluded
that Capehart was a fake, but Minier and Fore were later told by a
retired FBI agent that Capehart had been employed by the CIA.
Capehart had told his female friend that he once worked on industrialist
Howard Hughes’ Glomar Explorer, a deep-sea research vessel that, under
CIA sponsorship, raised a Soviet submarine from the floor of the Pacific
Ocean in 1968. In 1978, Kennedy assassination theories were at such a
full boil in the United States that Congress formed the House Select
Committee on Assassinations and began digging into the tons of muck
raked up over the preceding 15 years by dozens of investigators.
Back in Chowchilla, Capehart’s female friend, who had seen newspaper
photographs of possible assassination conspirators being sought by the
committee’s investigators, came to Fore and said Capehart’s face was in
one of the pictures. The woman, who still fears retribution and declines
to be publicly identified even years after Capehart’s death, said
Capehart told her he was “in the (Texas School Book) Depository when the
president was shot, and Oswald wasn’t the only one involved at that
time,” Fore wrote in his police report, which ended up as part of
Minier’s lawsuit. She also reportedly said: “Oswald was not the person
who shot the president. Capehart showed (her) a handgun with a
silencer, automatic firearms, a cyanide pistol, and passports under an
assumed name.” Capehart, apparently disturbed by the publicity of the
congressional investigation, moved to Pahrump, Nev., to lie low. Then
the woman brought Fore a sheet filled with what appeared to be ciphers.
She said she had found it in Capehart’s papers. Fore added it to his
file.
In early 1979, while the House assassinations committee was in full-bore
operation, Fore traveled to Washington to attend an FBI training course,
a routine career assignment for many local law enforcement officers.
While there, he called up committee staffers and told them his tale.
They seemed interested and took his information, including the cipher
sheet.
When he finished his training course several weeks later, Fore stopped
by and asked to have his evidence back. The FBI agents who had
interviewed him at the time gave him some of it, but kept the code
sheet, saying the ciphers were “classified government codes.” When Fore
got back to Madera County, he heard that the committee office he had
visited had been burglarized, and the evidence he had given the
committee’s investigators had been stolen.
In July 1979, the assassinations committee concluded that conspiracies
were “likely” in Kennedy’s death. But 17 years later, no government
agency has confirmed or refuted that conclusion. In 1989, Fore and
Minier prepared to interview Capehart at his home in Nevada. A few hours
before they were to meet him, Capehart, 64, dropped dead of a heart
attack. “After he died,” Minier said, “things kind of dried up, in terms
of information, and so there was nothing else to do but ask the CIA
about it.” So far, the CIA is saying nothing about Claude Capehart.
Agency spared from having to disclose whether it employed man who had
claimed to be involved in JFK assassination.
From LA Times Staff Reports
The CIA recently used a Freedom of Information Act exemption to avoid
revealing whether or not it had ever employed Claude Capehart, who
claimed to be a CIA agent involved in the Kennedy assassination.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied an appeal
by David Minier, a municipal court judge in California, to force the CIA
to reveal whether it had ever employed Capehart.
In a Freedom of Information Act request, Minier had asked the CIA for
all records of the “activities, assignments, actions and whereabouts of
(Capehart) during the month of November 1963,” Reuter Information
Service reported.
Capehart, who claimed to have been a CIA agent involved in Kennedy’s
assassination, died in of a heart attack in 1989 at age 64, just hours
before Minier, a former District Attorney, arrived to interview him at
his Nevada home. Capehart had once told a friend that he was in the
Texas School Book Depository at the time of the Kennedy assassination,
and that Oswald “wasn’t the only one involved at that time,” Reuter
reported.
The CIA denied Minier’s original FOIA request, claiming that disclosing
any relationship between the CIA and Capehart “would jeopardize national
security and compromise CIA sources and methods,” according to the
Court’s ruling. The Appeals Court acknowledged a FOIA loophole which
conveniently “authorized the CIA to refuse to confirm or deny the
existence of an alleged employment relationship between itself and an
individual.”
“We are very pleased with the court’s ruling,” said Assistant U.S.
Attorney Camil Skipper, who represented the CIA in the case.
We hadn't heard anything since.
Debra Conway
--
JFK Lancer Productions & Publications
"Serving the research community, educating a new generation."
Please visit our web site http://www.jfklancer.com
Updated regularly
Join us at the 1997 November In Dallas Conference
http://www.jfklancer.com/Dallas97.html
--------
James Earl Ray Updates by Joe Backes
http://www.jfklancer.com/JER.html
Visit our FTP site
ftp://snni.com/pub/users/jfklancr/
Daeron
Nona and Kari wrote:
>
> Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
> >Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
> >If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
> sure
> >that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
> >world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>
> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>
> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
> Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
> former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
> has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
> Review board to find out whether the CIA has documents pertaining to Claude
> Barnes Capehart, a former Chowchilla resident who died in Nevada in 1989.
> According to Minier, Capehart bragged about being a CIA hit man, told
> others he was with Lee Harvey Oswald when Kennedy was ginned down, and
> maintained that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
<snip>
Well, I for one feel that the article echoes a bell of plausibility. The
fact of Oswald's not shooting anyone comports completely with what Lt.
Col. Dan Marvin has already attested to - when he was at the CIA Special
Teams training camp at Ft. Bragg, NC. I have no reason to doubt Marvin's
veracity, nor any reason to doubt this.
The unadulterated fact is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot absolutely no one
that day. He was an innocent patsy, as he loudly proclaimed - and as Lt.
Col. Marvin (and now this article) have reiterated. It is time we got
over the disinformation spasm of 33+ years that has targeted poor
Oswald. The guy deserves better and so does his family. (And, btw,
anyone who dislikes my voicing this opinion can put their head where the
sun don't shine). For 33+ years the Oswald name has been villified by a
pack of disgusting liars who have backed the Warren 'Un-Report'. It is
time to get those remaining CIA files declassified and disseminated
openly - so we can see how many more bills of goods we've been sold.
That Exec. Order of 1995, as far as I kow, still applies. It is not some
'silly old law', as one or more pointy headed spooks have referred to
it. It is, IMHO, a litmus test for genuine liberty. Now, the ball is in
their court. By their action - or inaction as the case may be - they
will show whether there still exists a modicum of liberty (by which I
mean the people's right to *know* as well as express) or whether we have
gone even further down the road to a total security (er...insecurity)
state. We shall wait and see. And thanks for the article.
--
"The first truth is that liberty is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger
than that of their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is
Fascism." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Bill Parker
"Hate filled garbage"?
Nothing I wrote re: your spurious claim was hate-filled, and neither is the
following:
You are as screwed up as a soup sandwich.
Bill Parker
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800, "Nona and Kari"
<nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> How many doctors worked on Kennedy at Parkland that died within the last
>few years. It doesn't matter ebcause it was nuried like everything else. I
>had hoped that others on this NG had also seen it. I don't write about
>something unless it is true. when I make mistakes, I say so. I was asking
>if anyone else was aware of this doctors confession about being forced to
>lie about the autopsy photos in the Archive because his confession
>corresponds with the information in The Men Who Killed Kennedy second video
>called The Truth Will Set You Free. I was hoping that perhaps someone else
>knew, had heard, and has a better memory than I have. I didn't expect hate
>filled garbage from people like you.
>Bill Parker wrote in message ...
>>You don't even know the name of this alleged doctor?
>>
>>How are we to search for him? Or take you seriously?
>>
>>Bill Parker
>>
Bill Parker
>
>Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
>>Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
>>If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
>sure
>>that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
>>world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>
> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>
> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
>Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
>former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
>has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
[snip...]
> End of article. I am writing this because the Modesto Bee does not have
>back copies on the Net and since I have the paper, I wrote the entire
>article with not one word left out. I may not have capitalized or not
>capitalized where they did, or punctuated exactly as they did, but I did my
>best.
>
>Kari Smith
Uhhh..., how does this support your story about the Parkland doctor's deathbed
convention?
There is nary a mention of such a phenomena in the article you posted.
Fathom
> The unadulterated fact is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot absolutely no one
> that day. He was an innocent patsy, as he loudly proclaimed -
Shot no one, agreed (most likely).
Patsy, for sure.
Innocent, not so sure. He may have aided the assassins in some way, such
as access to the TSBD.
There are *tons* of leads linking him to people who *probably* had a
connection to the conspiracy (anti-Castro movement, military Intelligence,
even Ruby). If he was just an "innocent bystander" with no knowledge of
the plot, why would have to be killed? Why would he even have gone home to
get a gun afterward?
OTOH, I've recently been looking over the account of how he got the job at
TSBD. It looks completely innocent and straightforward; he couldn't have
"picked" this workplace as part of a master plan (or have I missed
something?) So the conspirators wouldn't have known they had access to LHO
for whatever purpose he was ultimately used for until relatively late in
the game‹ implying that he probably couldn't have been as deep in the plot
as some theories imply.
I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this--but not a lot of flak
from LN'ers.
Michael Beck
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:47:49 -0500, Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Nona and Kari wrote:
>>
>> Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
>> >Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
>> >If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
>> sure
>> >that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
>> >world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
>> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>>
>> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>>
>> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
>> Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
>> former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
>> has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
>> Madera County judge David Minier has asked the Assassination Records
>> Review board to find out whether the CIA has documents pertaining to Claude
>> Barnes Capehart, a former Chowchilla resident who died in Nevada in 1989.
>> According to Minier, Capehart bragged about being a CIA hit man, told
>> others he was with Lee Harvey Oswald when Kennedy was ginned down, and
>> maintained that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
>
><snip>
>
>
>
Was his name "hardhat"????
WCAKE
>Subject: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the Modesto)
>From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 21:42 EST
>Message-id: <no-spam-3010...@d231.pm14.sonic.net>
>
>
> If he was just an "innocent bystander" with no knowledge of
>the plot, why would have to be killed?
Answer: It was is knowledge and innocence that got him killed.
He had warned the FBI of a plot to kill JFK. He didn't know that he was
reporting it to the very organization who was planning it.
If he had stood trial this info who have came out, they could not allow him to
stand trial and prove his claim of " I'm just a Patsy"
Why would he even have gone home to get a gun afterward?
Answer:
Since he was an undercover agent,...... when JFK was murdered his handler told
him to that they didn't know what was going on, or how they might need
him,..... his handler told him that because assassins were on the loose, he
may need his gun for his next assignment, so he should go home get his gun,
and wait in the theater for further word.
Walt Cakebread
Barb Junkkarinen
In <345f4cee...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
Beck) writes:
[....]
>What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
>plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
Seems to be a position you enjoy. :-)
Barb :-)
Tracy Riddle
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
> plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
> >
Yeah, Walt, that's Beck's job.
Tracy
Michael Beck
On 31 Oct 1997 15:48:45 GMT, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>>Subject: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the Modesto)
>>From: no-...@sonic.net (Fathom)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 21:42 EST
>>Message-id: <no-spam-3010...@d231.pm14.sonic.net>
>>
>>
>
>> If he was just an "innocent bystander" with no knowledge of
>>the plot, why would have to be killed?
>
>Answer: It was is knowledge and innocence that got him killed.
What?? You're talking in "tongues" again.
>
>He had warned the FBI of a plot to kill JFK.
No way, ellie may! That's a load of bull that Dearon has been
shoveling by the bushel full.
> He didn't know that he was
> reporting it to the very organization who was planning it
Dreamland, dreamland.....
.
>If he had stood trial this info who have came out, they could not allow him to
> stand trial and prove his claim of " I'm just a Patsy"
Yeah. If the slings don't fit, you must acquit?
>
>
>Why would he even have gone home to get a gun afterward?
>
>Answer:
>Since he was an undercover agent,...... when JFK was murdered his handler told
> him to that they didn't know what was going on, or how they might need
> him,..... his handler told him that because assassins were on the loose, he
> may need his gun for his next assignment, so he should go home get his gun,
> and wait in the theater for further word.
What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
>
>Walt Cakebread
John McAdams
Nona and Kari <nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
: Dale Fore, a retired Madera County sheriff's detective said Thursday
: that Capehart had a well drilling business in Chowchilla
: and led a quiet life until "two men in dark suits came into town looking for
: him." in early 1977.
Yep. I was wondering when those guys would stop covering up evidence of
aliens and start working on the JFK case.
: The retired detective said he initially didn't believe Capehart, but
: soon became convinced of a CIA connection after talking with Capehart's
: girlfriend. She had sought out Fore because she said Capehart had
: threatened her after the visit by the men in dark suits.
Pretty intimidating, I'm sure.
.John
Bill Cleere
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct 1997 23:58:18 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
> wrote:
>
> >In <345f4cee...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
> >Beck) writes:
> >
> >[....]
> >
> >>plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
> >
> >
> >
> >Barb :-)
>
>
> I really don't think that it's appropriate for me to discuss what
> *position* I enjoy.
As I have observed before, there is *nothing* as excruciating
as Lone Nut "humor".
Barb Junkkarinen
In <345c8dbf...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
Beck) writes:
>
>On 31 Oct 1997 23:58:18 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>wrote:
>
>>In <345f4cee...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
>>Beck) writes:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>>What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
>>>plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
>>
>>
>>Seems to be a position you enjoy. :-)
>>
>>Barb :-)
>
>Barb,
>
>I really don't think that it's appropriate for me to discuss what
>*position* I enjoy.
HAHA! Good one.<g>
>
>However, my opinion on the JFK assassination case *is* backed up by
>the evidence, by the facts, and by *reality*.
It's "backed up" alright.:-)
>
>By the way, have you done the trig yet and figured out how a rising
>bullet missed the trunk and the windshield? I'm still waiting.
Try not to get too antsy, Mike. You haven't been waiting as long as Jim
has been waiting for me to reply about the frames he analyzes Jackie's
movements in...or as long as the 18 other "to do" posts on my list.
I've been trying not to get further behind....but haven't made much
headway in the catchup dept the last couple of days. Sigh.
Say, while you're waiting, why not get into a favorite reading position
and scan Best Evidence for a presentation-of-fact error???? :-)
Barb :-)
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the
>Modesto)
>From: Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com>
>Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 19:42 EST
>Message-id: <345A7B...@lucent.com>
>
>
> this sounds like good buff book fodder. Are you writing a book?
>
>Steve K.
Yes I think I will Parrot, but for you it will be all illustrations... no text.
I want to make it so even the Lners can understand it.
It's going to be a manual on extracting your head.
Walt Cakebread
Michael Beck
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:51:51 -0800, Bill Cleere <rcl...@best.com>
wrote:
>Michael Beck wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Oct 1997 23:58:18 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In <345f4cee...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
>> >Beck) writes:
>> >
>> >[....]
>> >
>> >>What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
>> >>plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
>> >
>> >
>> >Seems to be a position you enjoy. :-)
>> >
>> >Barb :-)
>>
>> Barb,
>>
>> I really don't think that it's appropriate for me to discuss what
>> *position* I enjoy.
>
>As I have observed before, there is *nothing* as excruciating
>as Lone Nut "humor".
Q: How many buffs does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny!
Bill Hamley
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 02:03:53 GMT, Michae...@att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>On 31 Oct 1997 23:58:18 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>wrote:
>
>>In <345f4cee...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
>>Beck) writes:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>>What a position to be in! Post *NO* evidence, no facts, nothing
>>>plausible except a fairy tale! What a life gramps!
>>
>>
>>Seems to be a position you enjoy. :-)
>>
>>Barb :-)
>
>Barb,
>
>I really don't think that it's appropriate for me to discuss what
>*position* I enjoy.
>
>However, my opinion on the JFK assassination case *is* backed up by
>the evidence, by the facts, and by *reality*.
>
>By the way, have you done the trig yet and figured out how a rising
>bullet missed the trunk and the windshield? I'm still waiting.
Hmmm, you told me that you arrived at the 21 degree angle without the
aid of a protactor and you want Barb to use trig? Sounds like a bit of a
double standard to me Mike.
Bill
Larry Hancock
Well you may be right, it is refreshingly straight forward
to see a lawyer who just digs in and writes a book on a
one time shot, takes the money & publicity and runs...
It does sort of put folks like Meagher, Jones and
Scott...who obviously made so much money for all their time
invested...in a totally different category doesn't it?
Not to mention all those other "wealthy" buff writters...
-- Larry
Mike Sheppard
Kari, thanks for posting this article. Many on here have been following
the Capehart story and you are right the"Bee" is hard to get ahold of.
In article <639gm4$2...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, "Nona and Kari"
<nonakar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Jim Hargrove wrote in message <3457a04...@news.wwa.com>...
> >Nona and Kari wrote on Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:05:04 -0800:
> >If you still have the _Bee_ article, why don't you retype it here? I'm
> sure
> >that little newspaper will forgive the copyright violation for the
> >world-wide fame its revelations will bring.
> Forgive the typos as I am a poor typist.
>
> October 20, 1997 Front page The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California
>
> By Pablo Lopez Washington bureau
> Washington--A California judge's 5 1/2 year quest to find out whether a
> former Chowchilla resident is linked to the John F. Kennedy assassination
> has attention of a federal agency charged with releasing the documents.
> Madera County judge David Minier has asked the Assassination Records
> Review board to find out whether the CIA has documents pertaining to Claude
> Barnes Capehart, a former Chowchilla resident who died in Nevada in 1989.
> According to Minier, Capehart bragged about being a CIA hit man, told
> others he was with Lee Harvey Oswald when Kennedy was ginned down, and
> maintained that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
> Dale Fore, a retired Madera County sheriff's detective said Thursday
> that Capehart had a well drilling business in Chowchilla
> and led a quiet life until "two men in dark suits came into town looking for
> him." in early 1977.
> Capehart went to the sheriff's substation in Chowchilla, where Fore was
> assigned and asked for police protection because he said two men from new
> York or Cleveland "were going to kill him," fore said.
> CAPEHART SCARED
> Scared. Capehart said he was "in trouble" because of a CIA assignment in
> New York, but he couldn't discuss his activities, Fore said.
> The retired detective said he initially didn't believe Capehart, but
> soon became convinced of a CIA connection after talking with Capehart's
> girlfriend. She had sought out Fore because she said Capehart had
> threatened her after the visit by the men in dark suits.
> Fore said the friend showed him a July 31, 1978 Fresno Bee article that
> said the House Assassinations Committee was investigating the Kennedy
> killing and needed the public's help
> in identifying the men in a series of photographs.
> A man in one of the photographs "was a dead ringer for Capehart" Fore
> said. shortly after the article was published, Capehart disappeared,
> according to Fore.
> Minier and Fore said they never interviewed Capehart before he died of a
> sudden heart failure Jan. 3 1989, in Pahrump, Nev.. West of Las Vegas.
> But they have spoken with Capehart's girlfriend several times and found
> her credible. They believe the girlfriend could be in danger if her name is
> released.
> According to Minier and Fore, the girlfriend said Capehart was with
> Oswald when Kennedy was shot and that Oswald didn't shoot the President.
Jim Hargrove
Megathanks to Nona and Kari for posting the _Modesto Bee_ article, and
thanks to Debra Conway for the informative followup.
This is obviously a legitimate story, although whether it leads anywhere is
still an unanswered question. We can surely add the name "Claude Barnes
Capehart" to the ever-lengthening list of people who may have had
assassination knowledge but who died just before they were scheduled to be
interviewed.
It's too bad that the _Bee_ chose not to post the story on its Website--no
doubt the editors have seen how people like Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, Gary
Webb and so many others brave enough to buck our Orwellian news
establishment have been treated for their courage. Who can blame them for
being a little gun shy?
Now that we know that "Nona and Kari" are legitimate writers, it's time for
everyone to look around for that "deathbed confession" they seem to recall.
On the current issue, a search of the ARRB Website produces five documents
referenced by the name Claude Capehart. Note that three are still
"Postponed in full," one is released with redactions, one released in full.
=================================================================
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : DOJ
RECORD NUMBER : 179-20004-10045
RECORDS SERIES : CLASSIFIED SUBJECT FILE 129-11, OFFICIAL MAIL SECT. 41
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : FBI
FROM : WASHINGTON, DC
DATE : 02/27/80
PAGES : 3
DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT
SUBJECTS : CAPEHART, CLAUDE; CODE LISTINGS; FORE, GARLAND;
BILLINGS, RICHARD
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : / /
COMMENTS : BOX 61
Hit 2 of 5
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : HSCA
RECORD NUMBER : 180-10102-10445
RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 013652
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : HSCA
FROM : CIA
DATE : 12/13/78
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : OUTSIDE CONTACT REPORT
SUBJECTS : CIA; FILES; CAPEHART, CLAUDE B.
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/05/93
COMMENTS : Box 239.
Hit 3 of 5
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : HSCA
RECORD NUMBER : 180-10102-10454
RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 013661
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : HSCA
FROM : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT
TO : BRECKINRIDGE, SCOTT
DATE : 12/13/78
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : LETTER
SUBJECTS : CIA; FILES; CAPEHART, CLAUDE BARNES
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED
CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/05/93
COMMENTS : Box 239.
Hit 4 of 5
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : HSCA
RECORD NUMBER : 180-10109-10150
RECORDS SERIES : NUMBERED FILES
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 013836
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : HSCA
FROM : FORE, DALE
DATE : 12/18/78
PAGES : 3
DOCUMENT TYPE : OUTSIDE CONTACT REPORT
SUBJECTS : CAPEHART, CLAUDE; CIA; KENNEDY, JOHN; ASSASSINATION;
CONSPIRACY THEORIES; CIA; CHILE
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/10/93
COMMENTS : Box 242.
Hit 5 of 5
AGENCY INFORMATION
AGENCY : HSCA
RECORD NUMBER : 180-10145-10103
RECORDS SERIES : CIA SEGREGATED COLLECTION
AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 50-28-01
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR : HSCA
FROM : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT
TO : BRECKINRIDGE, SCOTT
DATE : 12/13/78
PAGES : 1
DOCUMENT TYPE : LETTER
SUBJECTS : CIA, FILES; CAPEHART, CLAUDE BARNES
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : 3
CURRENT STATUS : RELEASED WITH DELETIONS
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/25/95
COMMENTS : Box 27
============================================================
This is an interesting story that deserves watching. And thanks again to
Nona and Kari.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Here is the article published in the Modesto Bee October 20,
>1997
>From: "Nona and Kari" <nonakar...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 14:08 EST
>Message-id: <63am17$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
NONA OR KARI ...... I'd like to talk to you....Please, E mail a phone number
where you can be reached.
Thanks ...... Walt Cakebread
Michael Beck
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:43:54 GMT, bha...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Hamley)
wrote:
>
>Hmmm, you told me that you arrived at the 21 degree angle without the
>aid of a protactor and you want Barb to use trig? Sounds like a bit of a
>double standard to me Mike.
>
>Bill
Sometimes the answer is so simple that it just stares you in the face
Bill.
I got the 21 degree angle figure from the McAdams web page. The
photo's of the autopsy show that the throat wound was lower than the
upper back wound.
Regarding the "upward flight" of Barb's bullet. Just take a side view
of the limo (any photo or drawing will do), and take a straight edge
and run it from the top of the windshield to JFK's neck. That's the
trajectory that the bullet would have to follow if it missed the
windshield.
Try it and post back.
Michael Beck
On 1 Nov 1997 15:54:34 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
>I
>Ooooo, dancing again. Any author is entitled to their own
>interpretations, conclusions and theories...even Posner. Once cannot
>"fact find" those....regardless of how far out another may think it is.
>Readers read and discern...and decide, *based on the facts an author
>presents to support his thesis*, whether he may be right or wrong. It
>is those facts presented that we can check. Facts presented *as* facts
>by an author to the readers. That is what is important.....and it is
>what we have been talking about.
>
>If you weasel out, I reckon most of us will realize it's because you
>realize Posner doesn't have a leg to stand on and not for some high and
>mighty reason. It'll be a weasel pure and simple.
>
>Don't forget to bring Best Evidence home with you next month. You're
>gonna need it. :-)
>
>Barb :-)
Please remind me to bring that book back on November 18.
Best Evidence, in it's totality, *is* presented as *fact* in it's
totality by the author. If the premise, conclusions, or evidence is
wrong, it's all wrong.
It'll take a while to read through all the 7mm holes that will be in
the copy however.
Barb Junkkarinen
In <346f8ebe...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
Beck) writes:
>
>On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:43:30 GMT, bha...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Hamley)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Are you saying that people are not entitled to their own opinions?
>>Drawing the wrong conclusions froma set of facts isn't bad but
>>mistating the facts to aid your conclusion is not a good thing to do.
>>Not surprised you won't by Barb's rules, you want it your way or not
>>at all. What is wrong with the rules Barb has offered?
>>
>>Bill
>
>I'm the one that made the original statement that Posner's book
>contained fewer errors than any buff book that I could name. Barb
>redefined the meaning of "errors" to an interpretation that she thinks
>that she can refute me on.
Ohhh, no ya don't. Barb had been presenting defined errors from
Posner's book for quite some time before you rode up without your
protractor. I clearly defined the errors I was talking about before you
opened your yap about how you'd wager Posner made less such errors than
any conspiracy book of my choosing. Don't be trying to do any loop the
loops with it now that you've got your protractor in the wringer. :-)
> However, based on earlier discussions like
>the Frazier bag, what she calls errors are not often errors, they are
>comparing the context of one work with another.
Say what?? Do you even know what you are talking about???? I think not.
Are you saying Posner did not err when he described what Linnie Mae
Randle said she saw that morning when she looked out her window and saw
Oswald carrying a package...and Posner described how he says Randle
described what she saw?? You do know, don't you that he combined two
people's statements into one there, right..and got it verrry wrong?
Some "context" problem. Oh yeah.
Barb :-)
Michael Beck
On 10 Nov 1997 05:45:38 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
>In <346e8e41...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
>Beck) writes:
>>
>>On 1 Nov 1997 15:54:34 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>>wrote:
>>
>Here's your reminder, bring it back on the 18th...and leave Bambi alive
>and well in the woods. :-)
That's usually the way it goes. I'll have to leave them to starve to
death during the winter.
>
>Don't give me the totality crap. Cripes, you're starting to weasel
>before you even get the book home. The types of errors have been
>defined...let's just stick to that, Mike. That's all I've gone after re
>Posner afterall. :-)
>
>Barb :-)
Uh weasel??
What about the angle of the shot required to clear the windshield
Barb? I'm still waiting.
Michael Beck
On 10 Nov 1997 16:05:50 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
>
>>
>>By the way, your hypothesis of a "rising bullet" and a "tangential
>>strike" on JC isn't even passing a simple and elementary examination.
>>When are you going to present any evidence to the contrary?
>
>The analysis you asked for (pre-weasel) is not possible without the
>specs I asked you for.....if you want it ...get me the specs I asked
>for...and I'll do it. There are a couple of people working on the angle
>probs/possibilities......takes needed info and time as well as the
>knowledge to do it right. More knowledge than I have about it, so I
>will wait for them. You can do whatever you'd like...why not just stick
>to that straightedge you now tell me is good enough. :-)
>
>Barb :-)
Why don't you use any existing photo in your collection that shows the
side view of the limo with JFK sitting in it. The still photo's from
the Muchmore or Nix films will also suffice. A straight edge is all
you need to render your theory unworkable.
Now quit dancing yourself and address the question (or are you afraid
what you may find??).
Barb Junkkarinen
In <346e8e41...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
Beck) writes:
>
>On 1 Nov 1997 15:54:34 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>wrote:
>
Here's your reminder, bring it back on the 18th...and leave Bambi alive
and well in the woods. :-)
Don't give me the totality crap. Cripes, you're starting to weasel
Michael Beck
>
>
>Are you saying that people are not entitled to their own opinions?
>Drawing the wrong conclusions froma set of facts isn't bad but
>mistating the facts to aid your conclusion is not a good thing to do.
>Not surprised you won't by Barb's rules, you want it your way or not
>at all. What is wrong with the rules Barb has offered?
>
>Bill
I'm the one that made the original statement that Posner's book
contained fewer errors than any buff book that I could name. Barb
redefined the meaning of "errors" to an interpretation that she thinks
that she can refute me on. However, based on earlier discussions like
Michael Beck
On 10 Nov 1997 05:52:42 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
>In <346f8ebe...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
>Beck) writes:
>>
>>On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:43:30 GMT, bha...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Hamley)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> However, based on earlier discussions like
>>the Frazier bag, what she calls errors are not often errors, they are
>>comparing the context of one work with another.
>
>Say what?? Do you even know what you are talking about???? I think not.
>Are you saying Posner did not err when he described what Linnie Mae
>Randle said she saw that morning when she looked out her window and saw
>Oswald carrying a package...and Posner described how he says Randle
>described what she saw?? You do know, don't you that he combined two
>people's statements into one there, right..and got it verrry wrong?
>
>Some "context" problem. Oh yeah.
>
>Barb :-)
Your problem seems to be related to a TV show where Frazier stated
that he "hardly looked at the bag". You used the WC testimony of
Frazier, not the actual quote to "dispute" Posner. This has already
been covered at length in another thread. We're still waiting for the
transcript to end the discussion on that matter.
Barb Junkkarinen
In <346b0dc6...@snews.zippo.com> Michae...@att.net (Michael
Nope. You are dead wrong. You have confused two totally separate Posner
errors....I know there's so many involving Frazier that it can be hard
to keep them all straight if you don't know the evidence well. :-)
>
>By the way, your hypothesis of a "rising bullet" and a "tangential
>strike" on JC isn't even passing a simple and elementary examination.
>When are you going to present any evidence to the contrary?
The analysis you asked for (pre-weasel) is not possible without the
Michael Beck
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:22:18 -0600, reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
wrote:
>> Now quit dancing yourself and address the question (or are you afraid
>> what you may find??).
>
>This bullet would have to risen by nearly 15 degrees.
>
>The notion that a bullet entered the back at an 18 degree downward angle,
>descended into the chest, and then bounced back upward at a steep rising
>angle is absolutely ridiculous. What bone in that part of the body could
>it have possibly hit that the bullet would not have shattered and
>continued on it's downward path? And then to have exited, leaving such a
>tiny exit wound, it's attitude would have had to have remained perfectly
>linear, with no tumbling at all.
>
>This softball was clocked, approaching the plate at 11 mph :-)
>
>
>Robert Harris
I think it's pretty obvious. But I want Barb to go through the
thought process with us.
Robert Harris
In article <64a047$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb
Junkkarinen) wrote:
> In <reharris-111...@albasc1-57.flash.net> reha...@flash.net
> (Robert Harris) writes:
> >
> >In article <346e4d38...@snews.zippo.com>, Michae...@att.net
> >(Michael Beck) wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 Nov 1997 16:05:50 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>By the way, your hypothesis of a "rising bullet" and a "tangential
> >> >>strike" on JC isn't even passing a simple and elementary
> examination.
> >> >>When are you going to present any evidence to the contrary?
> >> >
> >> >The analysis you asked for (pre-weasel) is not possible without the
> >> >specs I asked you for.....if you want it ...get me the specs I
> asked
> >> >for...and I'll do it. There are a couple of people working on the
> angle
> >> >probs/possibilities......takes needed info and time as well as the
> >> >knowledge to do it right. More knowledge than I have about it, so I
> >> >will wait for them. You can do whatever you'd like...why not just
> stick
> >> >to that straightedge you now tell me is good enough. :-)
> >> >
> >> >Barb :-)
> >>
> >> Why don't you use any existing photo in your collection that shows
> the
> >> side view of the limo with JFK sitting in it. The still photo's
> from
> >> the Muchmore or Nix films will also suffice. A straight edge is all
> >> you need to render your theory unworkable.
> >>
> >> Now quit dancing yourself and address the question (or are you
> afraid
> >> what you may find??).
> >
> >This bullet would have to risen by nearly 15 degrees.
> >
> >The notion that a bullet entered the back at an 18 degree downward
> angle,
> >descended into the chest, and then bounced back upward at a steep
> rising
> >angle is absolutely ridiculous. What bone in that part of the body
> could
> >it have possibly hit that the bullet would not have shattered and
> >continued on it's downward path? And then to have exited, leaving such
> a
> >tiny exit wound, it's attitude would have had to have remained
> perfectly
> >linear, with no tumbling at all.
> >
> >This softball was clocked, approaching the plate at 11 mph :-)
>
> I doubt your softball was thrown from, or traveling at, an 18 degree
> downward angle...I don't believe the bullet that entered JFK's back was
> either.
OK, you've got my attention, although I still cannot see a bullet skimming
out and over the windshield - didn't happen.
Did you notice that the JFK back wound was roughly twice as tall as it was
wide? Do you also recall Artwohl's rantings about a small "hump" on JFK's
back? Try a few drawings of a bullet approaching at 18 degrees and then at
a much flatter angle - say 7-9 degrees. Do you see why this wound was
shaped that way?
So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
And is it really out of the question that instead of flying out of the
limo, it continued on to hit JBC?
Robert Harris
>
> Barb :-)
> >
> >
> >Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Barb Junkkarinen
I doubt your softball was thrown from, or traveling at, an 18 degree
downward angle...I don't believe the bullet that entered JFK's back was
either.
Barb :-)
>
>
>Robert Harris
Bill Hamley
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:36:36 -0600, reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>In article <64a047$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb
>Junkkarinen) wrote:
>
>OK, you've got my attention, although I still cannot see a bullet skimming
>out and over the windshield - didn't happen.
>
>Did you notice that the JFK back wound was roughly twice as tall as it was
>wide? Do you also recall Artwohl's rantings about a small "hump" on JFK's
>back? Try a few drawings of a bullet approaching at 18 degrees and then at
>a much flatter angle - say 7-9 degrees. Do you see why this wound was
>shaped that way?
Does that explain the abrasion collar and the slightly upward trajectory?
How tall was the wound, wasn't it just slightly larger than the bullet?
How was the other dimensions smaller than the bullet?
>
>So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
That's the $64 question.
>And is it really out of the question that instead of flying out of the
>limo, it continued on to hit JBC?
No, the question is where would it hit him, if it did in fact hit him?
Bill
Robert Harris
> >
> >OK, you've got my attention, although I still cannot see a bullet skimming
> >out and over the windshield - didn't happen.
> >
> >Did you notice that the JFK back wound was roughly twice as tall as it was
> >wide? Do you also recall Artwohl's rantings about a small "hump" on JFK's
> >back? Try a few drawings of a bullet approaching at 18 degrees and then at
> >a much flatter angle - say 7-9 degrees. Do you see why this wound was
> >shaped that way?
>
> Does that explain the abrasion collar and the slightly upward trajectory?
The doctors who examined the throat wound testified that it could have
been of entrance or of exit. None claimed there was an abrasion collar
that excluded the possibility of a bullet exiting at that point.
There was no "upward trajectory". If a bullet had entered at C7/T1, the
angle to the throat wound would have been nearly 20 degrees downward. Even
in the T2-T3 region, the angle would have been downward.
> How tall was the wound, wasn't it just slightly larger than the bullet?
The wound in JFK's back was 7mm tall by 4mm wide.
> How was the other dimensions smaller than the bullet?
Skin can stretch and snap back. It is not uncommon for a wound to be
smaller than the bullet. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility
that JFK was hit by a smaller bullet.
>
> >
> >So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
>
> That's the $64 question.
Try the Daltex building.
If JFK and JBC were not leaning to their left or right, the angle from the
throat wound to JBC's back wound was about 3 degrees. If you follow that
line back, it aligns perfectly with the long suspected 2nd floor window in
the Daltex.
To get a better idea of how these angles work, check out the following
illustration:
ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/sbt-dal.gif
The photo is not perfect, but it should illustrate the principle of how
the vertical angle works. Notice that the Daltex trajectory strikes a
somewhat lower position on JFK's back than C7. IMO, that also makes a lot
of sense.
Bob Harris
Bill Hamley
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:29:11 -0600, reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >OK, you've got my attention, although I still cannot see a bullet skimming
>> >out and over the windshield - didn't happen.
>> >
>> >Did you notice that the JFK back wound was roughly twice as tall as it was
>> >wide? Do you also recall Artwohl's rantings about a small "hump" on JFK's
>> >back? Try a few drawings of a bullet approaching at 18 degrees and then at
>> >a much flatter angle - say 7-9 degrees. Do you see why this wound was
>> >shaped that way?
>>
>> Does that explain the abrasion collar and the slightly upward trajectory?
>
>The doctors who examined the throat wound testified that it could have
>been of entrance or of exit. None claimed there was an abrasion collar
>that excluded the possibility of a bullet exiting at that point.
Are you saying th throat wound was a wound of entry?
>There was no "upward trajectory". If a bullet had entered at C7/T1, the
>angle to the throat wound would have been nearly 20 degrees downward. Even
>in the T2-T3 region, the angle would have been downward.
And exit between the third and fourth tach ring? That's downward?
>> How tall was the wound, wasn't it just slightly larger than the bullet?
>
>The wound in JFK's back was 7mm tall by 4mm wide.
>
>
>> How was the other dimensions smaller than the bullet?
>
>Skin can stretch and snap back. It is not uncommon for a wound to be
>smaller than the bullet. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility
>that JFK was hit by a smaller bullet.
Will it stretch equally in all directions or could that account for some of the
oblong hole?
>> >So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
>>
>> That's the $64 question.
>
>Try the Daltex building.
>
>If JFK and JBC were not leaning to their left or right, the angle from the
>throat wound to JBC's back wound was about 3 degrees. If you follow that
>line back, it aligns perfectly with the long suspected 2nd floor window in
>the Daltex.
How much higher than JFK do you think JBC was sitting?
Bill
Barb Junkkarinen
In <reharris-121...@albns5-143.flash.net> reha...@flash.net
(Robert Harris) writes:
>
>
>> >
>> >OK, you've got my attention, although I still cannot see a bullet
skimming
>> >out and over the windshield - didn't happen.
>> >
>> >Did you notice that the JFK back wound was roughly twice as tall as
it was
>> >wide? Do you also recall Artwohl's rantings about a small "hump"
on JFK's
>> >back? Try a few drawings of a bullet approaching at 18 degrees and
then at
>> >a much flatter angle - say 7-9 degrees. Do you see why this wound
was
>> >shaped that way?
>>
>> Does that explain the abrasion collar and the slightly upward
trajectory?
>
>The doctors who examined the throat wound testified that it could have
>been of entrance or of exit. None claimed there was an abrasion collar
>that excluded the possibility of a bullet exiting at that point.
He's not talking about the throat wound, Bob...he's talking about the
back wound and the HSCA findings.
>
>There was no "upward trajectory". If a bullet had entered at C7/T1,
the
>angle to the throat wound would have been nearly 20 degrees downward.
Even
>in the T2-T3 region, the angle would have been downward.
You are incorrect as can be easily seen by looking at a sagittal
skeleton.
>
>
>
>> How tall was the wound, wasn't it just slightly larger than the
bullet?
>
>The wound in JFK's back was 7mm tall by 4mm wide.
>
>
>> How was the other dimensions smaller than the bullet?
>
>Skin can stretch and snap back. It is not uncommon for a wound to be
>smaller than the bullet. Of course, this does not rule out the
possibility
>that JFK was hit by a smaller bullet.
I believe Bill's point is that the largest dimension of the wound was
barely over the size of the diameter of the bullet.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
>>
>> That's the $64 question.
>
>Try the Daltex building.
>
>If JFK and JBC were not leaning to their left or right, the angle from
the
>throat wound to JBC's back wound was about 3 degrees. If you follow
that
>line back, it aligns perfectly with the long suspected 2nd floor
window in
>the Daltex.
>
>To get a better idea of how these angles work, check out the following
>illustration:
>
>ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/sbt-dal.gif
>
>
>The photo is not perfect, but it should illustrate the principle of
how
>the vertical angle works. Notice that the Daltex trajectory strikes a
>somewhat lower position on JFK's back than C7. IMO, that also makes a
lot
>of sense.
I pretty much agree with what you say in the paragraphs just above, but
how does that go along with what you said about a 20degree downward
angle earlier? And, I disagree that a shot entering JFK lower, fired
from lower...like 2nd floor of the Daltex.....could have then entered
Connnally at the downward angle required to produce his wounds. How do
you figure that? (Setting aside evidence and my belief that JFK was hit
a couple of seconds earlier than JBC anyway)
Barb :-)
Robert Harris
In article <64cm4b$q...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen) wrote:
> In <reharris-121...@albns5-143.flash.net> reha...@flash.net
> (Robert Harris) writes:
> >
<snip>
> >> >So, where on Earth could such a shot have come from???
> >>
> >> That's the $64 question.
> >
> >Try the Daltex building.
> >
> >If JFK and JBC were not leaning to their left or right, the angle from
> the
> >throat wound to JBC's back wound was about 3 degrees. If you follow
> that
> >line back, it aligns perfectly with the long suspected 2nd floor
> window in
> >the Daltex.
> >
> >To get a better idea of how these angles work, check out the following
> >illustration:
> >
> >ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/sbt-dal.gif
> >
> >
> >The photo is not perfect, but it should illustrate the principle of
> how
> >the vertical angle works. Notice that the Daltex trajectory strikes a
> >somewhat lower position on JFK's back than C7. IMO, that also makes a
> lot
> >of sense.
>
> I pretty much agree with what you say in the paragraphs just above, but
> how does that go along with what you said about a 20degree downward
> angle earlier?
It fits perfectly, Barbara.
Look - I fought with Artwohl about this years ago on CIS. Grey's Anatomy
shows the throat wound location to be roughly flat with the C7/T1 area.
But, JFK is just not built like a medical skeleton. Take *any* JFK profile
and try drawing a straight line passing through the base of the throat,
across his back. It passes *WAY* below the C7 area. One example, which
includes part of Artwohl's drawing is at my FTP site. Check out:
ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/sbtangle.gif
Yes, the photo was taken at a bit of a downward angle, but try any other
photo you can find. The results are always the same. This 0 degree or
negative angle, is just one more myth, Barbara.
> And, I disagree that a shot entering JFK lower, fired
> from lower...like 2nd floor of the Daltex.....could have then entered
> Connnally at the downward angle required to produce his wounds. How do
> you figure that?
You didn't look at the other illustration I posted. Please do so. The
address is:
ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/sbt-dal.gif
I know the frame is a bit distorted, but remember, that JFK could have
easily dropped his head further than we see in that picture. Since he has
just been shot at, and JFK was bright enough to realize they weren't
aiming at Jackie, this wouldn't be too surprising. Also, notice where the
9 degree line intersects Nellie, since JBC is leaning far forward in that
pic.
Finally, notice where that line intersects JFK's back. Do you see how a
Daltex shot works for a SB at Z224?
> (Setting aside evidence and my belief that JFK was hit
> a couple of seconds earlier than JBC anyway)
Look very closely at both JFK and JBC between Z187 and 193. 193, is IMO,
the clincher, but he couldn't get to that point instantly. I also used to
believe he was hit in the back then. But, IMO that is just not the kind of
reactions we see at that point.
Please look closely at the film and consider the following possibility:
1. A bullet strikes the pavement to the right of the limo, at Z177 (or
very slightly after). JFK is spattered by debris, then turns rightward,
shielding his face. This is the point at which he may have said, "My God
I've been hit".
2. A silenced, subsonic shot from the Daltex strikes kennedy at Z223-224.
It continues on to hit JBC.
IMO, JFK's reaction was indeed, involuntary, and every medical person I've
talked to, which includes a neurologist and a psycho-neurologist say the
arms would begin to rise within "milliseconds". If so, then he must have
been hit at or very close to 224.
But almost everyone in DP that day, including every surviving person in
that limo, testified in one way or another, that there was only a single
audible shot fired before the flurry at the end of the attack.
And if that's not enough to confirm that this shot was silenced, consider
that a 2000+ fps bullet would have generated a 135db (to Jackie's ear)
shock wave that should have seriously startled her and the others in the
limousine. Look at the film again. Do you see anyone reacting that way,
prior to the 290's? In fact, Jackie who would have heard the shock wave as
louder than anyone else, said the first sound was not all that different
than other sounds she heard prior to that attack that day. She in fact,
described the "terrible noises" as coming *after* she heard JBC shouting,
and she turned toward him, which we see her do at about Z257.
BTW, if you haven't seen it already, I have posted an animated GIF, which
shows JFK and JBC's apparent reactions to the first shot. The address is:
http://users.southeast.net/~bgoldman/react.gif
Bob Harris
>
> Barb :-)
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the
>Modesto)
>From: reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
>Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997 13:02 EST
>Message-id: <reharris-121...@albns6-159.flash.net>
Sorry Harris, A silenced subsonic shot would not have the velocity, or the
penatrating power, to make your scenario viable.
Try something a little more realistic
Walt Cakebread
Robert Harris
In article <19971112233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
(WCAKE) wrote:
The firearms people I talked to disagree with you, Walt. Of course,
penetrating power is based not only on velocity, but on the weight of the
bullet and it's shape. But I would welcome the opinions of some of the gun
buffs out there on this.
Remember, the problem of no-one reacting to or recalling more than one
early shot, is there for everyone, including you guys and the government
boys. If you think there were a series of shots then that hit Connally
twice, the grass, manhole covers, etc. then why didn't the witnesses hear
them?
And why did JBC testify that he never heard the shot that hit him in the back?
Either there was only one shot prior to the flurry at the end, or there
was at least one other that was silenced and created no audible shock
wave.
Robert Harris
Michael Beck
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:08:35 -0600, reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
wrote:
>snip
>> Sorry Harris, A silenced subsonic shot would not have the velocity, or the
>> penatrating power, to make your scenario viable.
>
>
>The firearms people I talked to disagree with you, Walt. Of course,
>penetrating power is based not only on velocity, but on the weight of the
>bullet and it's shape. But I would welcome the opinions of some of the gun
>buffs out there on this.
>
Yes. Penetrating power is based on velocity, weight, and most
importantly, sectional density. A subsonic round, with a heavy weight
bullet for penetration has a bigger obstacle to contend with ;
trajectory. The bullet that you claim was fired from the Daltex
building would have a rainbow like trajectory compared to the bullet
actually fired by Oswald. By the way, the 6.5mm 160 FMJ has one of
the most favorable sectional densities of any bullet known. It has
"awsome" penetrating power for it's size, velocity, and caliber. It
could easily punch through two men, as happened, to both JFK and JC.
>Remember, the problem of no-one reacting to or recalling more than one
>early shot, is there for everyone, including you guys and the government
>boys. If you think there were a series of shots then that hit Connally
>twice, the grass, manhole covers, etc. then why didn't the witnesses hear
>them?
>
>And why did JBC testify that he never heard the shot that hit him in the back?
Because the second shot hit him.
>
>Either there was only one shot prior to the flurry at the end, or there
>was at least one other that was silenced and created no audible shock
>wave.
No flurry ever occurred. We had this argument long ago. The evidence
you presented regarding the "blurrs in the Z film" were disputed
quantitatively by me before. You have it almost right Harris. Let go
of the nonsense and you'll have the truth!
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the
>Modesto)
>From: reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
>Message-id: <reharris-121...@albasc3-134.flash.net>
>> >2. A silenced, subsonic shot from the Daltex strikes kennedy at Z223-224.
>> >It continues on to hit JBC.
>>
>> Sorry Harris, A silenced subsonic shot would not have the velocity, or the
>> penatrating power, to make your scenario viable.
>
>
>The firearms people I talked to disagree with you, Walt. Of course,
>penetrating power is based not only on velocity, but on the weight of the
>bullet and it's shape. But I would welcome the opinions of some of the gun
>buffs out there on this.
>
>Remember, the problem of no-one reacting to or recalling more than one
>early shot, is there for everyone, including you guys and the government
>boys. If you think there were a series of shots then that hit Connally
>twice, the grass, manhole covers, etc. then why didn't the witnesses hear
>them?
>
>And why did JBC testify that he never heard the shot that hit him in the
>back?
>
>Either there was only one shot prior to the flurry at the end, or there
>was at least one other that was silenced and created no audible shock
>wave.
>
>
>Robert Harris
>
>
Robert I didn't say that there wasn't a silencer equipped weapon used that day
by one of the shooters.
What I said was a silencer equipped subsonic velocity weapon would not have the
penetrating power to travel through two men.
Your counter argument, ( if it's true ) that you've "talked to the firearms
people" (experts) and they disagree, merely re-enforces my contention that the
"experts" have caused us more problems than they have solved.
Personally I doubt that you talked to any knowledgable person about the
penetrating power of a silencer equipped weapon, because NO person with
knowledge of these weapons would tell you that they have the penetrating
power that you claim.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Innocent Patsy? (Re: Here is the article published in the
>Modesto)
>From: reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
>Message-id: <reharris-131...@albns7-177.flash.net>
>
>In article <19971113161...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
phone number of the gunsmith I deal with here in Albuquerque. But, you will
hear the same story from any knowledgeable firearms people anywhere.
>Yes, a subsonic round can easily pass through two victims. Hell, even Beck,
the last person on the planet to agree with my theory, acknowledges that.
>
I DON"T THINK SO ROBERT,.........
HERE'S MIKEY'S STATEMENT :
Penetrating power is based on velocity, weight, and most
importantly, sectional density. A subsonic round, with a heavy weight bullet
for penetration has a bigger obstacle to contend with
trajectory. The bullet that you claim was fired from the Daltex
building would have a rainbow like trajectory compared to the bullet actually
fired by Oswald.
This isn't the first time I've ever agreed with Mikey, but it is the first time
I 'll voiced agreement ..... I mean right is right, or correct is correct,
or whatever .....He's right. ( my tongue's burning )
A big slow moving ( subsonic ) bullet has a very limited penetrating power.
Compare shoving the eraser end of a pencil through a piece of paper as opposed
to the sharpened end. The sharpened end penetrates easily while the eraser
end requires more ENERGY.
A big bullet is necessary for a silenced weapon because a 220 grain 45 caliber
bullet will have enough ENERGY to be lethal at subsonic velocities where as a
55 grain 22 caliber bullet traveling at subsonic velocity may not have the
ENERGY to penetrate the skin. ( depends on range to target)
Common sense dictates that a bowling ball packs more energy than a billard ball
traveling at the same speed, but if the bowling ball is going to PENETRATE to
the same depth as the billard ball the bowling ball must to be traveling
faster.
The billard ball must travel faster to impact a target with the same ENERGY as
the bowling ball.
Based on this fact a large caliber bullet needs to be traveling faster to
penetrate the same distance as a smaller caliber bullet
The primary concern in the silencing of a weapon is firing a projectile at
subsonic velocity and still maintain it's killing power, (ie; imparting
lethal energy to the victim ) penetrating power is not a major consideration.
this can only be accomplished with a large heavy bullet.
Mikey continues:
By the way, the 6.5mm 160 FMJ has one of
the most favorable sectional densities of any bullet known. It has
"awsome" penetrating power for it's size, velocity, and caliber. It
could easily punch through two men, as happened, to both JFK and JC.
Now what Mikey is saying here is the long skinny bullet of the M-C has great
penetrating power at 1800 ft/sec but if you slow it down to subsonic velocity
the penetrating power and killing power is greatly reduced. He's correct
that a 6.5mm 160 grain bullet could pass through both JFK and Connally at
normal velocity BUT ...... from a silencer equipped weapon the bullet would
not even penetrate ONE man.
Walt Cakebread
Robert Harris
In article <34778027...@snews.zippo.com>,
Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:08:35 -0600, reha...@flash.net (Robert Harris)
> wrote:
>
> >snip
> >> Sorry Harris, A silenced subsonic shot would not have the velocity, or the
> >> penatrating power, to make your scenario viable.
> >
> >
> >The firearms people I talked to disagree with you, Walt. Of course,
> >penetrating power is based not only on velocity, but on the weight of the
> >bullet and it's shape. But I would welcome the opinions of some of the gun
> >buffs out there on this.
> >
> Yes. Penetrating power is based on velocity, weight, and most
> importantly, sectional density. A subsonic round, with a heavy weight
> bullet for penetration has a bigger obstacle to contend with ;
> trajectory. The bullet that you claim was fired from the Daltex
> building would have a rainbow like trajectory compared to the bullet
> actually fired by Oswald. By the way, the 6.5mm 160 FMJ has one of
> the most favorable sectional densities of any bullet known. It has
> "awsome" penetrating power for it's size, velocity, and caliber. It
> could easily punch through two men, as happened, to both JFK and JC.
>
> >Remember, the problem of no-one reacting to or recalling more than one
> >early shot, is there for everyone, including you guys and the government
> >boys. If you think there were a series of shots then that hit Connally
> >twice, the grass, manhole covers, etc. then why didn't the witnesses hear
> >them?
> >
> >And why did JBC testify that he never heard the shot that hit him in
the back?
> Because the second shot hit him.
> >
> >Either there was only one shot prior to the flurry at the end, or there
> >was at least one other that was silenced and created no audible shock
> >wave.
> No flurry ever occurred.
But isn't it odd Michael, that the people who actually heard the shots,
including police officers, Secret Service agents, and Sheriffs deputies,
overwhelmingly disagree with you. Even the Warren Commission admitted that
"most" of the witnesses said the final shots were bunched closely
together.
The limousine occupants not only testified to the same thing, but every
one of them who were not wounded, either ducked or spun around, beginning
within a half second of Z285, the same frame where Dr. Luis Alvarez said a
"loud noise" occurred, and the HSCA experts said a gunshot "could" have
occurred.
There is no doubt about this at all, Michael.
> We had this argument long ago. The evidence
> you presented regarding the "blurrs in the Z film" were disputed
> quantitatively by me before.
Pass out the shovels, Michael:-)
Your "quantitative dispute" consisted of your incredible claim that Dr.
Luis Alvarez, one of the greatest physicists of this century, and
consultant for the Bell & Howell Co. which made Zapruder's camera, the
HSCA experts, and Dr. Michael Stroscio, who has co-chaired Presidential
science commissions and written extensively about the blurring patterns in
the Zfilm, were all full of it.
You declared your own theory, which just happened to mimic Posner's (how
surprising) and required more than a dozen minutes of deep analysis, not
only refuted the experts, but Alvarez's 1976 paper as well. This was an
especially impressive achievement, since you never saw that paper, at
least at that time.
Michael, I can't believe that you still want to dispute the well
established fact, that there was a flurry of shots at the end of the
attack. Perhaps you missed some of my previous posts on this. I will try
to repost a few of them for you.
Robert Harris