Clarification of the bullet that entered the throat from the front
Gil Jesus
What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
and nicked his tie upon entering his throat. The piercing of the
windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
the President's throat.
If I gave anyone the impression that I had changed my mind on the
bullet being underpowdered, I apologize, that was not what I meant. I
have not changed my opinion on that. If I do, I will let you know and
the reason for it.
I believe that it was a combination of the bullet being underpowdered
and going through the windshield that was enough to slow it down so
that it enter the throat and would not exit.
There WAS a hole in the windshield:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oaxb00dIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stHp1AbPsUw
Walt
Gil, there may have been a bullet hole in the windshield, but it's not
reasonable to believe that the bullet hole was connected to JFK's
throat wound. When viewing photos of the Lincoln it's obvious that
the Lincoln was a Stretched version of a Lincoln Continental
convertible, and very long.( 21' 2" ) The distance from the
windshield to the rearseat back rest was about 7.5 feet. The top of
JFK's head was only a few inches lower than the top of the
windshield. If the bullet hole was near the rear view mirror then the
bullet would have been traveling at about a 5 or 6 degree down angle
( relative to the car's horizontal axis) as it passed through the
windshield. Since the car was aimed straight down Elm street and
right at the triple underpass RR crossing and had started on the
downgrade toward that RR underpass the car would have been at about a
3 degree angle from the horizontal .... which means the bullet would
have had to have been fired from almost directly in front of the Limo
and at about a 9 or 10 degree angle above it. Which means it "could
possibly" have been fired from the top of the RR bridge. But I don't
believe a gun was fired from that location, because there were about
eight or ten RR workers on that bridge at the time. Therefore I
don't believe the bullet hole in the windshield was connevted to JFK's
throat wound.
Walt
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>What I said was:
>
>What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
>obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
>lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>
>In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>
>The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
>and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the tie, as
opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of the hole in
the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
The eyewitness testimony is also against this theory. Carrico, for example.
One of the nurses, as I recall as well...
>The piercing of the
>windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
>the President's throat.
Glass would not have slowed a 7.6mm much at all. But I'm of the opinion that
the throat wound was caused by a smaller caliber - perhaps a .22
Walt
> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
> says...
>
>
>
> >What I said was:
>
> >What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
> >obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
> >lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>
> >In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>
> >The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
> >and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
>
The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the
tie, as
opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of
the hole in
the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
I would put no faith in the copper / no copper reports.... I believe
that's a lot of Hocus Pocus nonsense...intended to create a false
illusion.
Walt
> The eyewitness testimony is also against this theory. Carrico, for example.
> One of the nurses, as I recall as well...
>
> >The piercing of the
> >windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
> >the President's throat.
>
> Glass would not have slowed a 7.6mm much at all. But I'm of the opinion that
> the throat wound was caused by a smaller caliber - perhaps a .22
>
>
>
> >If I gave anyone the impression that I had changed my mind on the
> >bullet being underpowdered, I apologize, that was not what I meant. I
> >have not changed my opinion on that. If I do, I will let you know and
> >the reason for it.
>
> >I believe that it was a combination of the bullet being underpowdered
> >and going through the windshield that was enough to slow it down so
> >that it enter the throat and would not exit.
>
> >There WAS a hole in the windshield:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oaxb00dIE
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stHp1AbPsUw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
> says...
>
>
>
> >What I said was:
>
> >What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
> >obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
> >lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>
> >In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>
> >The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
> >and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
>
> The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the tie, as
> opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of the hole in
> the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
>
> The eyewitness testimony is also against this theory. Carrico, for example.
> One of the nurses, as I recall as well...
>
> >The piercing of the
> >windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
> >the President's throat.
>
> Glass would not have slowed a 7.6mm much at all. But I'm of the opinion that
> the throat wound was caused by a smaller caliber - perhaps a .22
for the record the M-16 (.223 caliber) was in service that day. One in
fact, was in the Secret Service vehicle behind JFK's limo
Gil Jesus
> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
> says...
>
>
>
> >What I said was:
>
> >What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
> >obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
> >lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>
> >In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>
> >The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
> >and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
>
> The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the tie, as
> opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of the hole in
> the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
>
> The eyewitness testimony is also against this theory. Carrico, for example.
> One of the nurses, as I recall as well...
>
> >The piercing of the
> >windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
> >the President's throat.
>
> Glass would not have slowed a 7.6mm much at all. But I'm of the opinion that
> the throat wound was caused by a smaller caliber - perhaps a .22
Ben: I may be wrong, but I don't recall saying that the bullet that
entered the throat was a jacketed bullet, quite the opposite. I don't
believe that it was jacketed, I believe that it was a lead bullet that
was a reload and underpowdered. I also don't believe that I ever took
a guess at what caliber it was. But if I have a failure of memory and
I did make such claims, I'd appreciate any of my friends (not trolls)
pointing it out to me.
Thanks, Gil Jesus.
Ben Holmes
>
>On 8 Apr, 12:05, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >What I said was:
>>
>> >What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
>> >obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
>> >lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>>
>> >In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>>
>> >The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
>> >and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
>>
> The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the
>tie, as
> opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of
>the hole in
> the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
>
>I would put no faith in the copper / no copper reports.... I believe
>that's a lot of Hocus Pocus nonsense...intended to create a false
>illusion.
>
>Walt
It's a 'fact' reported by the FBI that would *not* have been the sort of 'fact'
that they would have *preferred* to report. When officials (FBI, WC, SS, etc)
give evidence that is *NOT* in their favor - I tend to place a higher reliance
on it. Particularly, as in this case, when the eyewitnesses *corroborate* it.
But, of course, we're getting away from evidence and into speculation...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Apr 8, 1:05 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >What I said was:
>>
>> >What I see in Zapruder frames 225-237, is JFK responding to an airway
>> >obstruction. It is my opinion that that obstruction was caused by a
>> >lead bullet that was underpowdered and did not penetrate very far.
>>
>> >In regards to the nick in the tie knot I said :
>>
>> >The nick was made from a bullet that travelled through the windshield
>> >and nicked his tie upon entering his throat.
>>
>> The evidence is against this. There was *no* copper found in the tie, as
>>opposed to the back wound where copper was found in the margins of the hole in
>> the jacket. (and shirt? - don't recall)
>>
>> The eyewitness testimony is also against this theory. Carrico, for example.
>> One of the nurses, as I recall as well...
>>
>> >The piercing of the
>> >windshield slowed the bullet down enough so that it became lodged in
>> >the President's throat.
>>
>> Glass would not have slowed a 7.6mm much at all. But I'm of the opinion that
>> the throat wound was caused by a smaller caliber - perhaps a .22
>
>
>Ben: I may be wrong, but I don't recall saying that the bullet that
>entered the throat was a jacketed bullet, quite the opposite. I don't
>believe that it was jacketed, I believe that it was a lead bullet that
>was a reload and underpowdered.
That *exacerbates* the problem, it doesn't solve it. The copper that forms the
jacketing material is *harder* than lead, and when you assert that it might have
been an unjacketed bullet, you merely *increase* the chances that it would have
left material that could have been detected spectrographically or with a NAA
test.
Since copper *was* found on the back of the jacket - I find it virtually an
impossibility that a *lead* bullet would have left no indication of it's path
through the tie or shirt. This was *NOT* what the FBI or WC would have
preferred to present as evidence - and I do tend to view such evidence as having
a higher probability of truthfulness than evidence that *supports* their
position.
>I also don't believe that I ever took
>a guess at what caliber it was.
No... *I* did...
>But if I have a failure of memory and
>I did make such claims, I'd appreciate any of my friends (not trolls)
>pointing it out to me.
Not to my recall... you made no comments on this... This is *my* assertion...
It's in the realm of speculation anyway... but the description of the wound, and
the fact that *I* don't believe it exited, lead to the probability that it was a
smaller caliber round than the MC's.
>Thanks, Gil Jesus.
David Von Pein
This is a lovely TRIPLE-BILL (or more!) of unsupportable, make-believe
CTer speculation/kookshit.
1.) Gil has to totally misrepresent the evidence re. the "hole in the
windshield". There was definitely NOT a hole in the windshield of the
limousine.
2.) Gil has to pretend that a make-believe frontal gunman (who was
never seen by anyone) fired a make-believe "underpowdered" bullet/
projectile into JFK's throat from the front.
BTW, Gil, where was this gunman located? Where could he POSSIBLY have
been firing from to have caused this windshield damage....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485b.htm
....and then have that bullet go into JFK's throat after going through
the windshield?
Gil practically needs Jim Altgens to be a gunman to line this shot up
properly. Who else would have been in nearly the approx. position to
have done it the kooky way Gil is theorizing?
3.) And then Gil has to pretend the "underpowdered" neck bullet
somehow just disappears after NOT EXITING John Kennedy's
throat....never to be seen by a living soul after 12:30 PM on Nov. 22,
1963.
It sure was convenient for the plotters (and for CTers too) for so
many things to happen in a nicely-formed "SBT-like" manner, when it
was really THREE bullets that caused all of this "SBT" stuff, huh?
So, I guess I could add a 4th item, re. what I just said about the SBT
similarities, to this list of outright CTer desperation/kookshit/
speculation.
>>> "There WAS a hole in the windshield." <<<
No, there wasn't. It was merely a small crack in the glass, not a thru-
&-thru hole....with the evidence also showing beyond all doubt that
the bullet which struck the windshield struck it on the INSIDE of the
glass, not on the OUTSIDE. .....
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The inside layer of the glass was not broken,
but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue
had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute
particle of glass missing from the outside surface."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What do those characteristics indicate as to which
side of the windshield was struck?"
FRAZIER -- "It indicates that it could only have been struck on the
inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface
because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of
the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer
layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of
impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where
these small radial or wagon wheel-spoke-type cracks appear on the
outer surface."
ALLEN DULLES -- "So the pressure must have come from the inside and
not from the outside against the glass?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; that is correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
So, in order for Gil's theory to be correct, Mr. Robert A. Frazier has
to be a lying WC shill (or cover-up FBI agent).
So that's another extraordinary hunk of kookshit we can add to my list
of things above, too.
Think a jury will buy your version of events, Gil?
cdddraftsman
of only one possible explanation for his created , convoluted and
uncontroversial 35 reasons list that drew such howling laughter . I
suggest in the future that he consume less baked beans , this might
clear up his confusion .............................ml
> BH : But, of course, we're getting away from evidence and into speculation...
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176070450....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
Who would you believe ? McAdam's or... hahaha ... Rossley ?
Would you believe the number one website on the JFK
Assassination in the world , because it has integrity , doesn't
jump to conclusions , isn't selective in what it presents as
evidence ,
doesn't have a agenda ! , doesn't make a ' Tempest in a Teapot ' upon
a ' Mountain of Unfounded Speculation ' , doesn't mis-use and mis-
handle data , hasn't hi-jacked this assassination for purposes of
self
aggrandizement and personal profit ......
Or
Hahahahah ! Tom Rossley's illiterate boneheaded web site , that
defies the laws of logic , as well as forensics , ballistics and
medical knowledge . Where every word spoken detracts from the sum
total of mans knowledge . Where gargling from the fountain of
knowledge is encouraged . Where stupidity is considered a virtue . On
the positive side he does have a excellent section on the use of
bogus
firearns factoids for use in deceiving people while perpetraiting JFK
Assassination Hoaxes .
The choice is yours . I had already made up my mind years ago
before I had heard of either of these two . The shear ignorance of
the
first conspiracy writers convinced me that there was indeed a
conspiracy going on and that the prognosticators of conspiracy were
indeed the ones they themselves were looking for in regards to ' Who
Killed JFK ' .
By instilling in others falsehoods , urban legends and out and
out Big Whoppers they where indeed commiting a second murder of JFK
by
being disgraceful to his memory and proving to all , that to them his
death was a joke to be profited upon by any means available ,
including sedition , co-conspiring and out right treason against the
country they live in ........................ml
On Apr 8, 4:03 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Lousy has NEVER addresses evidence/teswtimony.
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
>
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176070450....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > What could be possibly worse then Ben's speculation ? Ben's assigning
> > of only one possible explanation for his created , convoluted and
> > uncontroversial 35 reasons list that drew such howling laughter . I
> > suggest in the future that he consume less baked beans , this might
> > clear up his confusion .............................ml
>
> >> BH : But, of course, we're getting away from evidence and into
> >> speculation...
>
> > On Apr 8, 2:29 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> It's a 'fact' reported by the FBI that would *not* have been the sort of
> >> 'fact'
> >> that they would have *preferred* to report. When officials (FBI, WC, SS,
> >> etc)
> >> give evidence that is *NOT* in their favor - I tend to place a higher
> >> reliance
> >> on it. Particularly, as in this case, when the eyewitnesses
> >> *corroborate* it.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Lousy can't leave home withoput Brown Panties.
Lousy FEARSW Rossley
Lousy FEARS these official records>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176082676.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
> It all boils down to this :
>
> Who would you believe ? McAdam's or... hahaha ... Rossley ?
Once again, you've missed the mark. It doesn't boil down to McAdams or
Rossley.
It boils down to Hoover or the witnesses. Who do you believe ? The
man whose whole life was a lie, the man who hated the Kennedys and who
had an agenda to coverup, or the witnesses who had no agenda.
Is an honest investigation one which:
Is conducted in secrecy ? Ignores witnesses ? Alters testimony ?
Substitutes evidence ?
How can someone who WASN'T there (WC) be correct and someone who WAS
there (eyewitnesses) all be wrong ?
Get your heads out of 1964. This is the 21st century. People aren't
stupid.
Ben Holmes
says...
Well stated. This is the essential problem that LNT'ers have (and some
purported CT'ers) - the eyewitnesses.
They don't support the WCR's theory - so they must be discredited. The WC did
much of this in the form of simply not calling them to testify. Some of the
most dangerous eyewitnesses were handled this way. Chaney, Shanklin, Burkley,
come immediately to mind, but there were many others...
Then, when the WC heard the testimony, but *still* needed to discredit, it was
simple: The Commission 'could not accept important elements of Craig's
testimony', Mrs Randel was 'mistaken'; Governor Connolly 'probably' was
mistaken; Frazier 'could easily have been mistaken'; Daniels' testimony 'merits
little credence'; Rowland was 'prone to exaggerate' and there were 'serious
doubts about his credibility'; Whaley's memory was 'inaccurate', he was
'somewhat imprecise' and 'was in error'; Kantor 'was preoccupied' and 'probably
did not see Ruby at Parkland Hospital'; Mrs Tice was in error; Wade 'lacked a
thorough grasp of the evidence and made a number of errors;, Weitzman was
incorrect; Mrs. Helmick's reliability was 'undermined'; Ruby and Shanklin were
misquoted; the doctors at Parkland Hospital were misquoted and also in error;
Mrs. Connally's testimony did 'not preclude' a possibility that it did preclude;
Mrs Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted, etc ... (there are more
examples... search the volumes!)
All that's needed to determine the truth of the coverup perpetrated by the WCR
can be read in their 26 volumes... They lied - and no LNT'er yet has explained
how the truth can be supported by a lie.
Walt
> In article <1176034506.076252.41...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
A DPD motorcycle officer named Starvis Ellis escorted the Limo to
Parkland Here's what he said many years after the event... when he
felt it was safe to reveal what he'd seen at Parkland that day.
I walked by the limousine after they were taken in. The thing
that impressed me was in the seat and on the floorboard there were
puddles of blood. Right in the middle one of those puddles lay a
beautiful red rose. I never forgot that! I can still see it, that red
rose in that blood!
Some of the jockeys around the car were saying, "Looky here!"
What they were looking at was the windshield. To the right of where
the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass
there appeared to be a bullet hole.
I talked to a Secret Service man about it, and he said, "Aw,
that's just a fragment!" It looked like a clean hole in the
windshield
to me. In fact, one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil
through it, or said he could.
If I'm interpreting Ellis correctly the bullet hole in the glass was
probably a little left of the center line of the car, and just abve
the metal molding at the bottom of the windshield . The windshield
reclined at a very shallow angle ( 35 degrees) from the horizontal .
Any "fragment" od a bullet fired from the rear striking the windshield
on the interrior surface probably would have been deflected down onto
the dashboard because of that windshield angle. Conversely a bullet
striking that windshield from the front could easily have pierced the
windshield and left the hole just as Ellis said. However..... a
bullet striking that low on the windshield and traveling at a down
angle definitely would have no connection to JFK's throat wound.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Where do you get the angle for an incoming bullet that struck the windshield?
Nor was it that low... just view the photos...
Walt
> In article <1176135238.767522.190...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
Any bullet fired the front would have had to have been fired at a
angle 0 to about 10 degrees above the car...any angle greater than 10
degrees would have required the gun to be in some type of aircraft to
the front of the limo. Since we can be sure the gunman was not
standing in the middle of Elm street in front of the limo we can
logically deduce that the gun had to have been above 4 degees and
below 10 degrees, and the 10 degree angle would be the more
logical. I'm not offering the angles as precise .....I'm merely
attempting to answer your question.
>
> Nor was it that low... just view the photos..
Ben..... I'm merely repeating what Ellis observed......
The photos don't seem to show a bullet HOLE.... they seem to show a
mark like that made when a piece of gravel strikes a windshield and
not a HOLE. Perhaps there was both a hole as Ellis said and a
fragment pit as the Secret Service man said.
Walt
.- Hide quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
windshield. These can be fleshed out. I believe the JFK Assassination
Encyclopedia names them. The WC's photograph of the windshield could
easily be a switch, so it has little evidentiary value--- Old Laz, who
tends to believe witnesses who corroborate each other independently.
David Von Pein
Then you must also believe that Oswald shot Tippit (via Davis, Davis,
Markham, Scoggins, Tatum, Callaway, and Reynolds).
And you must also believe that only three shots were fired in Dealey
Plaza....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Yes, you'll also believe the proverbial "30+" BOH witnesses too....but
you get my point. Right?*
* = But once Vincent Bugliosi (in "RH") fully explains the "LN"
solution to the seemingly-baffling "BOH Wound Witnesses" situation
(which is a situation that has bothered me as well).....then the rest
of the LN case is a piece of Sara Lee cheesecake. :)
Anthony Marsh
Kinda hard to have a switch that early. Only a few hours after the
shooting and the cracks would have to match the photo in Dealey Plaza.
Ben Holmes
Oh? Do you have an eyewitness who reported that there was *NO* hole that early?
One that was *NOT* connected with the government?
Does it *hurt* to keep defending the WCR?
Gil Jesus
through the windshield was fired from a point above the car. Think
about it. There was a point where a shooter on the SOUTH side of Elm
St had a single, clear shot at the left side of JFK through the
windshield, between the SS men in the front seat and between the
Connallys.
I believe this why, prior to the Dallas motorcade, the SS removed the
General from the front seat and moved the eight (four on each side)
motorcycle escorts from the sides of the car, to get them out of the
line of fire.
If a shot was fired from that side, the bullet would have travelled
through the windshield at a point to the left (driver's side) of the
center and would have struck JFK's tie on the left side, precisely the
side on which the tie is nicked.
Walt
> I think everyone's taking it for granted that the shot that went
> through the windshield was fired from a point above the car. Think
> about it. There was a point where a shooter on the SOUTH side of Elm
> St had a single, clear shot at the left side of JFK through the
> windshield, between the SS men in the front seat and between the
> Connallys.
>
>
> I believe this why, prior to the Dallas motorcade, the SS removed the
> General from the front seat and moved the eight (four on each side)
> motorcycle escorts from the sides of the car, to get them out of the
> line of fire.
>
> If a shot was fired from that side, the bullet would have travelled
> through the windshield at a point to the left (driver's side) of the
> center and would have struck JFK's tie on the left side, precisely the
> side on which the tie is nicked.
Gil, I'd suggest that you go to a automoble wrecking yard or a glass
shop, and obtain a piece of windsheild glass and take it to a rifle
range for a test. Tilt the piece of glass at about a 35 degree angle
and place it about 7.5 feet from a paper plate target that has a two
inch diameter bulls-eye painted in the center of it. From a distance
of about 50 yards fire a 22 caliber bullet ( the size of the hole in
JFK's throat ) at the bulls-eye through the glass, and see if you can
hit that bull-eye.
I'll wager a hundred bucks that you can't hit the bulls eye..... If
you hit the paper plate at all, what is the size of the hole made by
the bullet?
Walt