BOOK REVIEW: "A Simple Act Of Murder" By Mark Fuhrman
David VP
Of 1963 -- But He Didn't Do It This Way........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman, in his book "A Simple
Act Of Murder" (published in early May 2006), most definitely has the
bottom-line conclusion correct -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
killed President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
But Mr. Fuhrman's analysis pertaining to the precise manner in which
Oswald carried out the assassination of the President is something I
cannot put any faith in -- at all. The author thinks that Oswald fired
all of the shots at JFK that day in Dallas alright, but he doesn't
believe in the "Single-Bullet Theory".
In lieu of the SBT, Fuhrman has decided (pretty much on his own it
would seem, without much more than plain old guesswork being relied on
here) that a bullet hit JFK at approx. frame number 186 of the famous
Zapruder Film, with this bullet traversing the soft tissues of
Kennedy's back and then somehow was deflected radically upward after
having entered at a 24-degree downward angle from Oswald's sniper's
perch on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building
(even though we know, based on the autopsy report and the WC testimony
of Dr. James Humes, that this bullet did not strike any hard or bony
objects inside JFK's body).
Fuhrman then has this upward-deflected bullet exiting JFK's neck and
completely missing the person sitting almost directly in front of him
(Governor John Connally) and going on to cause the damage to the chrome
strip at the front of the Presidential limousine.
Common sense alone is telling me that Mr. Fuhrman has it all wrong
here. Why on Earth would that bullet, travelling downward at 24 degrees
(given Fuhrman's early Z186 timing for this JFK hit, which, of course,
is also just pretty much a wild guess) suddenly veer upward after
hitting nothing but soft tissue in JFK's neck?
Is that scenario at all possible? I suppose the answer to that is,
indeed, 'yes'. But given the physical evidence in the case (i.e., the
total lack of damage in JFK's neck region that could account for such a
major bullet deflection), is that scenario "probable"? I'd say the
answer to that question is an undeniable 'no'.
The following two comments from this book are two of the biggest
reasons to be more than a tad bit skeptical of Mr. Fuhrman's anti-SBT
opinion:
"There is no visible indication that Connally has been shot until frame
237 {of the Zapruder Film}." -- Page 119
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, their reactions
would have been nearly simultaneous, or at least close enough to be
indistinguishable from each other in time. Yet they were not even
close." -- Page 162
"No visible indication"?
"Not even close"?
These are absolutely absurd comments being made by a former
professional police detective. The above two quotes from Mr. Fuhrman,
in fact, simply dumbfound me, and truly make me wonder which Z-Film
Fuhrman was looking at! Because every copy of the film I've ever come
across shows something quite different than Fuhrman's assertion that
Connally shows "no visible indication" of being shot "until frame 237".
Copy and paste the following Z-Film clips (Mr. Connally's "reactions"
to a bullet striking him at precisely Z224 are vividly
noticeable)......
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3084.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/7731.gif
One thing that struck me as very strange concerning Mr. Fuhrman's
proposed shooting timeline (i.e., JFK being hit at Z186 and Connally
hit with a separate bullet fired from the same Oswald gun at approx.
Z231) is that Mr. Fuhrman COULD have still utilized a Z224 hit to
Connally AND still could have proposed his unique anti-SBT/pro-LN
stance at the same time.
He could have done so while relying on the HSCA's tests which concluded
that Oswald's rifle could have been fired more quickly than the 2.3
seconds between shots deemed necessary by the WC. But, it seems that
Fuhrman wanted to rely on the earlier tests conducted by the FBI for
the WC, which means that 42 Zapruder Film frames are required between
shots while using Oswald's C2766 Carcano weapon.
But, IMO, for anyone to simply ignore (or somehow not to be able to
see) the obvious reactions exhibited by Governor Connally at Z224-Z230
(a point in time when Fuhrman is claiming that Connally is showing "no
visible indication" of being hit by gunfire) demonstrates to me a
staggering willful ignorance on the part of any such researcher with
respect to what the Zapruder Film is really showing us in frames 224 to
230.
Mr. Fuhrman utilizes a few hand-drawn charts to illustrate what he
believes to be the true bullet path of the missile that struck
President Kennedy in the upper back. These not-very-impressive
illustrations are also not very persuasive by any means, in my opinion.
Another thing that certainly does not enhance Mr. Fuhrman's general
beliefs re. the JFK case is his use of Dr. Cyril Wecht's
wildly-inaccurate trajectory chart that was originally used during the
HSCA's investigation in the late 1970s to show what Wecht thought the
true trajectory was from Oswald's gun in the Depository in relation to
the limo. (Although, to be fair, even Mr. Fuhrman doesn't fully endorse
Dr. Wecht's ridiculously-overstated right-to-left line of trajectory as
shown in that laughable diagram.)
Fuhrman also seems to contradict himself in a few places in the
book....at times stating that bullets will deflect and change
directions after hitting a human target; but on other occasions (when
it seems to suit a need to debunk the specifics of the SBT) the author
appears to shy away from this policy, which is an argument that pretty
much comprises his entire basis for disbelieving the SBT in the first
place -- i.e., a bullet can change directions after striking even soft
tissues inside a human body. (See pages 175 and 177 for examples of
these contradictions.)
----------------------
STUFF THAT MUST BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET IF FUHRMAN IS RIGHT .... AND
IS IT TRULY LOGICAL TO DISMISS ALL OF THESE ITEMS?:
In order for a person to buy into and endorse Mr. Fuhrman's unique
"Anti-SBT But Oswald Was Still The Lone Gunman" stance, there's a need
to "explain away" or just dismiss out of hand all of the following
pro-SBT items that fall neatly and perfectly in line with a
"Single-Bullet Conclusion":
1.) Governor Connally's "distressed" reactions on the Zapruder Film at
frames Z224 through approx. Z230 -- e.g., a look of pain or distress on
JBC's face; Connally opens his mouth at precisely Z225 (his mouth had
been closed at Z224); the abrupt and sudden elevation of Connally's
right arm/hand (the very arm which contains the wrist that was wounded
during the shooting); the "lapel flip/bulge" at Z224; Connally's right
shoulder is driven downward and forward at exactly Z224 (indicating,
without question IMO, the initial force of the bullet as it first
struck JBC's back); followed immediately by a distinct "rise" of both
of JBC's shoulders (an involuntary reaction to the bullet strike).
If Connally wasn't hit until circa Z231, how can all of the above be
accounted for in a "He Hasn't Been Shot Yet" manner?
2.) The seemingly-incredible coincidence of Connally being struck at
the exact spot (or darn-near the exact location) on his back by a
SEPARATE Oswald shot (as proposed by Mr. Fuhrman in his book) where JBC
would have also been struck if the bullet exiting JFK's throat had
continued on in a straight-line path in front of the President.
Remarkable "SBT-like" wound placement, indeed, if Connally had been
wounded by a distinctly-separate missile.
3.) The "oblong"/"keyhole-shaped" entry wound on Connally's back, even
though (per Fuhrman's theory) JBC was shot by a different, unimpeded
shot from the one which struck President Kennedy. "Tangential" entry?
Okay. But if that's the case, why doesn't the wound on JFK's back
exhibit this more-elongated "tangential" type of shape/appearance?
JFK's back wound is fairly round, indicative of a bullet entering
pretty much straight on, without striking anything first.
But in Connally's case, the same gun, fired from the same window just
seconds later, is causing a wholly-different-looking wound on a man's
back? Why? Why does this difference exist if both shots came from
Oswald's Sniper's Nest, just seconds apart? It would seem to me, using
basic common sense here, that the Connally wound should have been more
"rounded" in nature in this instance than Kennedy's, because the angle
from the gun to JBC's back had been LESSENED in those few seconds that
elapsed between JFK's "hit" and John Connally's "hit".
4.) Where did the Kennedy bullet go (after it exited his throat)? The
Discovery Channel did a remarkable "re-creation" of the SBT in 2004
(for the documentary program "Unsolved History: Beyond The Magic
Bullet"), firing an Oswald-like 6.5mm bullet into two "mock" torsos
(representing the wounded victims in the JFK assassination), with that
test bullet behaving in a very similar manner to the way the Warren
Commission in 1964 purported that Bullet CE399 had behaved as it tore
through both JFK and JBC on 11/22/63 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.
The Discovery Channel test bullet continued on a forward and DOWNWARD
trajectory after exiting the simulated Kennedy body, and then continued
into Connally's simulated back, just about at the very spot on the back
where the real John Connally was hit by a bullet in '63.
So the big question re. this "test" version of the shooting would be --
Why didn't that test bullet change directions dramatically and turn
upwards to miss JBC's body entirely (as Mr. Fuhrman is theorizing
occurred in Dallas)?
Obviously, I fully realize that any such "simulation" using surrogate
torsos cannot be relied on 100% to mimic the precise way a bullet will
behave after travelling through REAL human bodies. And these
limitations must always be taken into account when evaluating such
"re-creations" of a real-life event.
But, in a very real sense as well, Mr. Fuhrman is just taking wild
guesses regarding the bullet paths. And the idea that a separate bullet
transiting JFK's back and neck would have suddenly changed course from
a 24-degree downward angle from Oswald's gun in the TSBD to a
convenient anti-SBT-theory-confirming UPWARD angle upon leaving
Kennedy's neck (after striking nothing hard at all in JFK's body, per
the autopsists) is a theory I just cannot wrap my arms around in the
slightest, especially in light of my #1 and #2 points I just made
above.
5.) Why are JFK's hands where they are at Zapruder Frame #225 if he had
been hit by a bullet some 2.13 seconds earlier (or 39 Z-Frames earlier,
at Z186)?......
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/z225%204.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
IMO, if Kennedy had been hit at Z186 (as Fuhrman contends), there's no
way we're going to be seeing his hands and arms as LOW as they are as
late as Z225 -- especially when you factor in how rapidly JFK's arms
rise up toward the "pain point" near his neck/throat in just a matter
of 3 or 4 Z-Frames following Z225. Would his reaction of jerking his
arms up toward his throat REALLY have been delayed by more than two
full seconds if he'd been hit at Z186? I'm doubting it.
6.) Explain how Kennedy suddenly GETS OUT OF OSWALD'S WAY, to allow Lee
Harvey to shoot a separate bullet into the back of John Connally at
circa Z231. In my view, this could not have occurred at that given time
in the shooting timeline. Kennedy has not shifted his lateral position
in his seat considerably (or at all) between Zapruder frames 224 and
231 (with Z224 the frame where I, and many others as well, believe the
"Single-Bullet Theory" shot is striking the two men).
At circa Z224, this is what Lee Harvey Oswald would be looking at
through the four-power rifle scope of his Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
The above image is a still frame from Dale K. Myers'
10-years-in-the-making computer animation project ("Secrets Of A
Homicide: JFK Assassination"), and it is an image that is based in
large part on the Zapruder Film itself. Via computer technology, Dale
Myers' project has enabled us to leave Abraham Zapruder's pedestal so
that we can therefore view the assassination from any number of
locations within Dealey Plaza, including that of the Sniper's Nest in
the Texas School Book Depository Building (from where Oswald fired his
three shots that struck down President Kennedy and Governor Connally).
I have not seen Z-Frame #231 specifically via the same "Sniper's Nest
Vantage Point", but given the Z-Film itself, and based on the circa
Z224 image from Myers' animation above, I cannot envision Connally's
back being exposed to Oswald's gun just seven Z-Frames later in order
to accept a separate shot by Z231. Can anybody envision such a thing --
except perhaps Mark Fuhrman?
At best, Mr. Fuhrman is just guessing here. He has managed to magically
move President Kennedy out of Oswald's way, in order for LHO to hit
Connally with that second (separate) gunshot. Based on my observations
of the Zapruder Film, I do not think that could have possibly occurred.
Plus -- At Z231, Mr. Connally does not appear to be in the proper place
to accept a gunshot where he ultimately did accept it (far right part
of his back, exiting beneath his right nipple). Watch the Z-Film a few
times and compare Connally's position at Z224 to his posture at Z231.
IMO, Connally is not turned far enough to his right at Z231 for Oswald
to do the damage to Connally's body that was done to it.
7.) An explanation is needed to counter that of the FBI's Robert
Frazier (who performed a great deal of work for the WC in 1964), which
has Mr. Frazier telling the WC that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat
could not have possibly struck the chrome strip at the front of the
limousine (as Fuhrman speculates did happen), given the downward angle
at which this bullet would have been exiting the throat.
Frazier also testified to the Commission that if a bullet exiting
Kennedy's throat (at an estimated speed of around 1,775 feet per
second) had, in fact, somehow managed to strike the chrome strip that
was damaged at the front part of the automobile, this damage would have
been much more extensive, with the probable result of such a bullet
strike being that the missile would have penetrated the chrome
completely.
But the chrome was merely dented, not penetrated -- indicating, given
the recovered bullet fragments in the front of the car -- that one of
the two large fragments (which both came from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other guns) found in the front part of the limo had
probably caused the chrome damage to the car's interior; with the other
fragment likely causing the cracked windshield.
Fuhrman, however, chooses not to believe Robert Frazier re. his
professional opinion that a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck could NOT
have caused that chrome damage. I guess Mr. Fuhrman feels it's much
better in this instance to simply ignore the expert who actually
examined the limousine and who testified under oath in front of the WC,
and believe, instead, his own "Deflecting Bullet Theory" (DBT). To each
his own, I suppose.
8.) An explanation is also needed to counter the medical experts who
testified with respect to Governor Connally's wrist injury, which (per
the WC) would have been much more extensive in nature if that bullet
had not first been slowed down considerably by having struck another
object (such as JFK's body) prior to striking Connally.
----------------------
Mr. Fuhrman's explanations with respect to all eight of my points above
are quite weak, in my opinion. And some of these important points are
ignored altogether -- particularly #1 above, with Fuhrman not once
attempting to explain the obvious signs of SOMETHING occurring to John
B. Connally at Z-Frame #224 and the frames that immediately follow.
These critical frames of the Zapruder Film are completely ignored by
Mr. Fuhrman. And, IMO, that's just plain silly....and irresponsible
(esp. for a former detective).
There is also this point to consider when evaluating the theory put
forth in this book:
Given Mr. Fuhrman's "One Killer Named Oswald" scenario, WHY on Earth
would the Warren Commission feel there was any NEED to start
"inventing" theories (like the SBT) in the first place? Was that done
to supposedly paint the already-guilty assassin as MORE guilty than he
already was? That makes no sense. And Mr. Fuhrman doesn't really clear
up this logical question in his book.
If Oswald was GUILTY (even without a "Single-Bullet Theory"), and all
of the ballistics evidence plus other critical physical and
circumstantial evidence is proving him guilty (and it is, even via
Fuhrman's theories put forth in this publication) -- then there's no
reason in the world for the WC (or anyone) to start making up theories
out of thin air. That's just silly.
If the WC really thought the "3-shot & 3-hit" theory was the accurate
one -- why wouldn't they just say so, instead of inventing the "SBT"?
IOW -- Why would the WC think that the public would accept the
Single-Bullet Theory MORE than the 3-hit scenario, if such a 3-hit
theory IS really the way things occurred? Such a mindset just doesn't
make sense to me.*
* = And the oft-used excuse proposed by conspiracy theorists, which has
the WC coming up with the SBT out of sheer necessity in order to
reconcile the wounding of James Tague, is not a valid enough reason for
inventing the SBT out of whole cloth. Why? Because the WC explicitly
states (on Page 117 of the Warren Report) that Tague's slight cheek
wound could have been caused by a bullet fragment that exited JFK's
head. In other words, the Commission wasn't determined to have a
"missed" shot as the ONLY conceivable source of Tague's injury. The WC
recognized the possibility that a head-shot fragment could have
accounted for Tague's injury (just as Mr. Fuhrman believes). Therefore,
via such a shooting scenario, the SBT would still not be mandatory even
if a person chooses to believe that the Commission was strictly on a
"We Must Condemn Oswald As The Lone Assassin" mission.
The evidence of Oswald's guilt, if it's there to begin with (and it
certainly is), is going to speak for itself. And it does. And it's
telling any reasonable person looking at the totality of evidence in
the JFK case that the SBT is absolutely the most sound and logical
conclusion to explain the wounding of JFK & JBC.
What I would classify as a basic fundamental error in judgment crops up
on page 5 of this book, when Mr. Fuhrman claims "The Warren Commission
had been established in order to squelch rumors about a possible
conspiracy". That passage written by Fuhrman is completely
opinion-based and, IMO, is not true at all. The Commission was
established to investigate the circumstances surrounding JFK's murder;
and to attempt to ascertain the truth to the best of the Commission's
ability. Period. No more. No less.
Most Americans, of course, don't believe that however. Well, so be it.
I do happen to believe it.
But if the Commission's main goal and desire had, indeed, been to
"squelch rumors about a possible conspiracy" -- then why wouldn't the
WC have simply signed-off on and rubber-stamped as "true and factual"
the initial 5-volume FBI report re. the assassination that came out on
December 9, 1963? (An FBI report which did, btw, endorse a "3 Shots
With 3 Hits" shooting scenario.)
But the WC did not rubber-stamp that report, deciding instead to
conduct its own investigation in the nine-plus months that followed.
That type of activity doesn't sound to me like the actions of a
Presidential Commission which was composed of members who only had it
in their minds to squelch conspiracy notions.
Despite the obvious weaknesses in Fuhrman's "Pro-LN But Anti-SBT"
theory, there are some very good passages in the book, too, that
deserve highlighting. Such as:
"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof
against him {Oswald}." -- Page 89
-- And: --
"A cloud hangs over {JFK's} murder and our nation because we refuse to
accept what is so clearly the truth -- that his assassination was a
simple act of murder, committed by a man {Lee Harvey Oswald} who left
evidence proving his guilt. .... The case is solved." -- Page 217
Those two excerpts above are sentiments I firmly agree with....100%.
----------------------
Some "Simple Act" Closing Thoughts.......
"A Simple Act Of Murder" contains no endnotes at all, and very few
footnotes denoting sources of key pieces of information. And the index
is remarkably tiny for a JFK assassination volume (only 3-plus pages in
length).
Mark Fuhrman is right about a lot of stuff in this short 232-page
publication; but without a decent-sized list of sources, the novice
assassination researcher reading "A Simple Act Of Murder" is left to
his own devices and research tools in order to verify these printed
words.
The Single-Bullet Theory fits every last scrap of evidence that
surrounds it....without a single question mark left over to merely
"guess" about. Every bullet (numbering 1) is accounted for (CE399) via
the SBT conclusion; every wound is accounted for; the tumbling bullet
into Connally is accounted for; the lack of CE399 damage is accounted
for by way of the slowing/tumbling bullet through 2 bodies; the
slightly-downward angle through both bodies is accounted for; the
"alignment" of the wounds on both bodies is also perfectly consistent
with the SBT scenario; and every single nuance seen in the Zapruder
Film is accounted for in a pro-SBT manner. Every one.
The same can hardly be said for ANY anti-SBT scenario that has been
theorized since 1964.
Dale Myers has it right....and the Warren Commission had it right too
in 1964....beyond all reasonable doubt, IMO.
Because if Mr. Fuhrman's scenario is correct, and Mr. Myers and the WC
are both wrong....then such an anti-SBT theory would definitely win the
award for -- "The Most Incredible Two-Bullet Shooting Scenario That
Looks In Many, Many Ways As If It Could Be Just A ONE-Bullet Shooting
Scenario The World Has Ever Encountered".
However, a big point in Mr. Fuhrman's favor, IMO, is the fact that he
doesn't endorse some crazy multi-gun "Patsy" plot (which is the type of
kooky theory that so many conspiracy people have placed their faith in
since 1963).
But, overall, my feelings about the contents of "A Simple Act Of
Murder" are more negative than positive. Because, to put it bluntly --
anyone who believes in Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the JFK
murder, but who also disbelieves the Single-Bullet Theory, is akin to a
person who believes he could walk outside in a heavy thunderstorm
without an umbrella....and not get wet.
David Von Pein
May 2006
David VP
talking about his new JFK book, in an interview lasting 5:13. A video
containing that interview can be accessed here:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
Some interesting tidbits/quotes coming from that 05/12/2006 Harry
Smith/Mark Fuhrman CBS interview.....
Mr. Fuhrman said to interviewer Smith that he has viewed the Zapruder
Film "a thousand times". But, evidently, in each of those 1,000
viewings he failed to take note of the several things that indicate a
bullet hitting John Connally prior to Z231. That is simply....amazing
(and, IMO, incredibly short-sighted).
Also.......
Mr. Fuhrman says in that TV interview that his book is the "first" book
to show the autopsy photographs of JFK. That statement is obviously
inaccurate. Robert Groden's "TKOAP" in 1993 features many of the
graphic autopsy pictures. And several other JFK books also offer
selected autopsy photos as well....which makes Mr. Fuhrman's "my book
is the first to have these pics" comment very odd indeed.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald Murdered President John F. Kennedy In November
> Of 1963 -- But He Didn't Do It This Way........
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Former Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman, in his book "A Simple
> Act Of Murder" (published in early May 2006), most definitely has the
> bottom-line conclusion correct -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
> killed President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
>
> But Mr. Fuhrman's analysis pertaining to the precise manner in which
> Oswald carried out the assassination of the President is something I
> cannot put any faith in -- at all. The author thinks that Oswald fired
> all of the shots at JFK that day in Dallas alright, but he doesn't
> believe in the "Single-Bullet Theory".
>
> to a bullet striking him at precisely Z224 are vividly
> noticeable)......
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3084.gif
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/7731.gif
He has not yet been shot. He is reacting to the first shot, just as he
said he did.
>
> But, IMO, for anyone to simply ignore (or somehow not to be able to
> see) the obvious reactions exhibited by Governor Connally at Z224-Z230
> (a point in time when Fuhrman is claiming that Connally is showing "no
> visible indication" of being hit by gunfire) demonstrates to me a
> staggering willful ignorance on the part of any such researcher with
> respect to what the Zapruder Film is really showing us in frames 224 to
> 230.
Really? So what happens between Z231 and Z236? Connally seems
strangely unaffected for someone who has just been struck in several
places by a bullet.
Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at Z237/Z238, when
Connally's cheek's puff out and when his right shoulder comes sharply
down.
David VP
WTF???
Come again.
Are you therefore saying that JFK has NOT been hit prior to Z237??
That's nutty.
Or are you in the "shards of concrete from a missed shot magically find
JFK's face even though the supposed missed shot hit the street BEHIND
Kennedy" camp?
And, of course, you still need to explain away all items in my "#1" in
the top post. Good luck.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >> "Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at Z237/Z238, when Connally's cheeks puff out and when his right shoulder comes sharply down."
>
> WTF???
>
> Come again.
>
> Are you therefore saying that JFK has NOT been hit prior to Z237??
That is not at all what I'm saying.
> That's nutty.
If I were to say that, it WOULD be nutty. But since I haven't said
that...
> Or are you in the "shards of concrete
Shards of fragment from a broken bullet...maybe concrete as well
> from a missed shot magically find
the outside table of Kennedy's skull. At Z230, Kennedy's hands are
ABOVE his neck. He has not been struck there. Roy Kellerman has heard
him say, "My God, I'm hit".
> even though the supposed missed shot hit the street BEHIND
> Kennedy" camp?
Phbbbt!
> And, of course, you still need to explain away all items in my "#1" in
> the top post. Good luck.
I don't need to do anything. For the time being, I'm only taking issue
with your claim of double-hit at Z223-224 when it really took place at
Z237-238.
I notice that YOU have not explained the LACK of reaction from Connally
after Z230 and before Z237, nor have you explained the extreme force of
his reaction at Z237-238. Kennedy's movements also change somewhat
drastically at this juncture, as among other things, he drops his hands
toward his throat.
David VP
perfectly consistent with him being hit at Z224.
What you're doing, Grizzlie, is attempting to "isolate" Connally's
movements by freeze-framing JBC in every frame from Z230 to Z236. If
you perform that isolation "trick", then, yes, it appears he hasn't
been hit via some of those individual Z-Frames.
But to ignore the obvious JBC hit at Z224 in order to promote a Z238
"Cheeks Puffed" "hit" is just plain silly. Why did JBC jerk that right
arm up then down in the space of three Z-Frames starting @ Z226? Just
for a little exercise? Why the sudden open mouth @ Z225? Why does his
shoulder pivot forward at exactly Z224? What is JBC doing with his
shoulders just after Z225 (if not hunching them up in an involuntary
manner as he reacts to the bullet that just hit him in the back)?
And you're not serious about the Kellerman thing are you? I.E.: The
idea that JFK said ANYTHING after being hit. That's an absolute crock.
Not a single other person (Nellie, Jackie, Greer, nor JBC) can back up
Kellerman's scenario of JFK talking after being hit. And three of those
4 individuals were closer to JFK than was Kellerman...with Jackie's ear
practically right next to JFK's mouth at the time. And yet she heard
him say NOT A WORD. Kellerman obviously was hearing CONNALLY'S "My God"
statement.
You have taken bits 'n pieces of the Z-Film puzzle and attempted to
weave a SBT at Z237-Z238...and frankly...that is just plain crazy IMO.
Also.....
It's amazing, isn't it (via a "shard of concrete hits the President
theory), that ONLY KENNEDY is being showered with debris by a broken
bullet/concrete at just the time to match a Z224 SBT timeline? And
nobody else gets hit by a single granule of said
concrete/fragments...ONLY the intended victim of the assassination
reacts to this...right?
Absolutely incredible. And improbable to boot.
But stick to it...somebody'll believe it. After all, Bonar Menninger &
Co. got you to buy the Hickey nonsense. (It is The Griz who buys that
crap, isn't it? Occasionally I forget who it is who believes in each of
these different crackpot and never-could-have-happened nonsensical
theories.)
Ben Holmes
Just a note to point out that Davy-boy isn't willing to respond to rebuttals of
his posts. Particularly his book-length posts.
Davy-boy makes many statements below that he can't defend, and he knows it.
In article <1147925307....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Grizzlie Antagonist
TJ-BF wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147936250....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > David VP wrote:
> >> >> "Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at Z237/Z238,
> >> >> when Connally's cheeks puff out and when his right shoulder comes
> >> >> sharply down."
> >>
> >> WTF???
> >>
> >> Come again.
> >>
> >> Are you therefore saying that JFK has NOT been hit prior to Z237??
> >
> >
> > That is not at all what I'm saying.
> >
> >
> >> That's nutty.
> >
> >
> > If I were to say that, it WOULD be nutty. But since I haven't said
> > that...
> >
> >
> >> Or are you in the "shards of concrete
> >
> >
> > Shards of fragment from a broken bullet...maybe concrete as well
> >
> >
> >> from a missed shot magically find
> >
> >
> > the outside table of Kennedy's skull. At Z230, Kennedy's hands are
> > ABOVE his neck. He has not been struck there. Roy Kellerman has heard
> > him say, "My God, I'm hit".
>
> Nobody else in the limo heard JFK say *anything* after the first shots
> were fired.
And THAT makes RK a LIAR?
> If anybody heard anything he might have said, it's Jackie, since she was
> the closest to him.
> And she never said he said anything in all the time of the shot
> sequence.
> Besides, the first hit on him that went through his throat (from the
> front) would have disabled him from saying anything but make wheezing
> noises.
Which is why the first hit on him did not go through his throat.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> John B. Connally's movements (in real-time via the Z-Film) are
> perfectly consistent with him being hit at Z224.
I'm afraid that they aren't.
> What you're doing, Grizzlie, is attempting to "isolate" Connally's
> movements by freeze-framing JBC in every frame from Z230 to Z236. If
> you perform that isolation "trick", then, yes, it appears he hasn't
> been hit via some of those individual Z-Frames.
I'll concede your point that still photographs of a moving object can
be misleading. But you're choosing the least likely of the two
alternatives.
> But to ignore the obvious JBC hit at Z224 in order to promote a Z238
> "Cheeks Puffed" "hit" is just plain silly. Why did JBC jerk that right
> arm up then down in the space of three Z-Frames starting @ Z226? Just
> for a little exercise? Why the sudden open mouth @ Z225? Why does his
> shoulder pivot forward at exactly Z224? What is JBC doing with his
> shoulders just after Z225 (if not hunching them up in an involuntary
> manner as he reacts to the bullet that just hit him in the back)?
Your scenario is just plain silly. Let's leave out the fact that
you're ignoring Connally's repeated insistence that he was struck by
the second shot. Let's leave out the fact that you're ignoring the
opinion of his doctors that he was struck at about Z236.
You're looking at Connally at Z224 and Connally at Z237 and saying that
the EARLIER picture more closely resembles a man whose chest has been
punctured by a bullet than does the LATER picture. You don't like the
fact that his cheeks are puffed in the later picture, but do you think
that it actually took him almost a full second to react to air escaping
from his body?
Do you think that the slope of his shoulder could decline as rapidly as
it did in the instant between Z237 and Z238 without some outside force
driving it down?
YOU'RE the one that's crazy!
What was he doing before Z237? Exactly what he said he was doing. He
recognized the first shot as a gunshot and was displaying the
nervousness and apprehension that one would expect him to display under
the circumstances.
> And you're not serious about the Kellerman thing are you? I.E.: The
> idea that JFK said ANYTHING after being hit. That's an absolute crock.
> Not a single other person (Nellie, Jackie, Greer, nor JBC) can back up
> Kellerman's scenario of JFK talking after being hit.
I guess that they weren't very good witnesses on that point then.
Standing on its own, Kellerman's testimony might not mean much. But
it's consistent with the rest of the evidence.
> And three of those
> 4 individuals were closer to JFK than was Kellerman...with Jackie's ear
> practically right next to JFK's mouth at the time. And yet she heard
> him say NOT A WORD. Kellerman obviously was hearing CONNALLY'S "My God"
> statement.
Yeah, and he confused Connally's Texas twang with Kennedy's Boston
accent.
-------------------------------------------------
Mr. Specter.
With relationship to that first noise that you have described, when did
you hear the voice?
Mr. Kellerman.
His voice?
Mr. Specter.
We will start with his voice.
Mr. Kellerman.
OK. From the noise of which I was in the process of turning to
determine where it was or what it was, it carried on right then. Why I
am so positive, gentlemen, that it was his voice there is only one man
in that back seat that was from Boston, and the accents carried very
clearly.
Mr. Specter.
Well, had you become familiar with the President's voice prior to that
day?
Mr. Kellerman.
Yes; very much so.
Mr. Specter.
And what was the basis for your becoming familiar with his voice prior
to that day?
Mr. Kellerman.
I had been with him for 3 years.
Mr. Specter.
And had you talked with him on a very frequent basis during the course
of that association?
Mr. Kellerman.
He was a very free man to talk to; yes. He. knew most all the men, most
everybody who worked in the White House as well as everywhere, and he
would call you.
Mr. Specter.
And from your experience would you say that you could recognize the
voice?
Mr. Kellerman.
Very much, sir; I would.
-------------------------------------------------
> You have taken bits 'n pieces of the Z-Film puzzle and attempted to
> weave a SBT at Z237-Z238...and frankly...that is just plain crazy IMO.
>
> Also.....
>
> It's amazing, isn't it (via a "shard of concrete hits the President
> theory), that ONLY KENNEDY is being showered with debris by a broken
> bullet/concrete
Kennedy and James Tague.
>at just the time to match a Z224 SBT timeline?
There IS no Z224 SBT timeline.
> And
> nobody else gets hit by a single granule of said
> concrete/fragments...ONLY the intended victim of the assassination
> reacts to this...right?
James Tague.
>
> Absolutely incredible. And improbable to boot.
> But stick to it...somebody'll believe it. After all, Bonar Menninger &
> Co. got you to buy the Hickey nonsense. (It is The Griz who buys that
> crap, isn't it? Occasionally I forget who it is who believes in each of
> these different crackpot and never-could-have-happened nonsensical
> theories.)
Bonar Menninger simply reported on Howard Donahue's solution to the
incident, and Howard Donahue, when he was alive, forgot more about the
JFK homicide than you ever learned or than you ever will learn.
You read the Fuhrman book and, by your own admission, you didn't even
READ the Menninger book. Even before anyone considers the weakness of
your argument, you're still in no position to wax professorial.
lazu...@webtv.net
foolishness, let me simplify the review. Fuhrman does not believe the
SBT, though in Murder In Dealey Plaza & In The Eye of History have far
better and more extensive reasons why. The rest is a pure piece of shit.