The Single Bullet Theory
cdddraftsman
If you believe what the conspiracy books say the Warren Commission
believed about the Single Bullet Theory, you would have to conclude
the commissioners and staff of the commission were a bunch of fools.
Conspiracy authors always show Connally seated directly in front of
Kennedy, at the same height, and facing forward. You've seen Kevin
Costner do this sort of thing. The graphic at right, taken from Groden
and Livingstone's High Treason is an example of this. Could Commission
Exhibit 399, which conspiracists have christened the "Magic Bullet,"
have done what the Warren Commission said it did?
Consider, for example, James Altgen's photo of the limo rounding the
corner of Main and Houston. Check out the relative heights of Kennedy
and Connally.
Rarely seen before, a photo of the limo made after it was returned to
Washington. The right-side door is wide open, and you can plainly see
the relative heights of Kennedy's seat and Connally's seat. Uploaded
by Bob Artwohl to Compuserve, and uploaded here by permission.
But what about the idea that Connally was sitting directly in front
of Kennedy? Numerous photos of the motorcade show Connally well
inboard of Kennedy in the limo. They include:
The picture above left: a frame from an amateur movie shot by
presidential aide Dave Powers. You can see several clips from the
movie at the CNN All Politics web site.
A photo shot by a Paris Match photographer as the limo passed.
Another photo by the same photographer a couple of seconds later.
A frame from the Muchmore film, taken as the limo rounds the corner
from Main to Houston Street. Courtesy of Joe Durnavich.
A film put together from amateur footage by Dallas Cinema Associates
(the "DCA film") has some sequences that clearly show Connally well
inboard of Kennedy. Here is one sequence, and here is another. A still
from the film is below, right.
To view these video sequences you will need Real Player.
Thomas Canning was a NASA scientist who studied the Single Bullet
trajectory for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He used
the Betzner photograph to establish a line to the right of which
Connally could not have been. He also estimated the rotation of
Connally's torso from the Zapruder film. The result was an alignment
that showed the bullet leaving Kennedy's throat to strike Connally in
the back hear the shoulder — which is where Connally was actually
struck. Of course, you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to
figure this out.
Canning used the House Select Committee scenario that had Kennedy and
Connally being struck by the Single Bullet at Zapruder frame 190. More
recent work has pinpointed the time of the hit to Zapruder frame 223.
Various researchers have modelled the Single Bullet Theory at that
frame. Failure Analysis Associates, in work done for a 1992 "mock
trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald for the American Bar Association, used 3-D
computer animation and modelling techniques to research the bullet
trajectory, and concluded that the Single Bullet Trajectory works.
Click here to look at the FAA (now Exponent) web page, and download
the computer animation — if desired.
Dale Myers, a specialist in computer animation, built a 3-D model of
Dealey Plaza, the limo, Kennedy and Connally, and also concluded that
the trajectory works. Click here to see his views from the Sniper's
Nest and from the right front of the limo. Myers animation was
featured on the ABC News Special "Beyond Conspiracy."
Click here for information on how to purchase Myers' video, and
numerous additional frames. This informative page outlines Myers'
technical approach to modeling the assassination sequence in Dealey
Plaza.
The Back and Throat Wounds
Another thing conspiracy authors will do to attack the Single Bullet
Theory is to move the entrance wound in Kennedy's back down below the
Warren Commission location, and move the wound in the front of
Kennedy's neck up in order to require an absurd trajectory though
Kennedy's body. This drawing, again taken from Groden and
Livingstone's High Treason, shows this assumption.
What is the evidence for the "low" back wound location? The piece of
evidence that conspiracy books will most often show you is the
facesheet from the autopsy. It seems to place the wound too low to be
consistent with the exit wound in the front of the neck.
What will the conspiracy books not tell you about this? They won't
tell you that the face sheet also has a measurement placing the wound.
It places the wound 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
That's not consistent with the lower dot location, but it is
consistent with other statements in the autopsy. They also won't tell
you what the autopsy report says about the track of the bullet through
the body.
The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal
pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.
The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543.
But how could the facesheet show that dot in a lower location, yet
describe the wound in a higher location, 14 cm. below the tip of the
mastoid process, and above the scapula?
Commander J. Thornton Boswell, who drew the facesheet, was asked
about this by The Baltimore Sun in 1966. He explained that he made no
attempt to draw the facesheet exactly to scale, and insisted that the
measurements he made were precise, and properly locate the wound. He
made on "X" on a copy of the face sheet, to indicate where the wound
actually was. See the November 25, 1966 issue of the Sun.
Of course, photos were made at the autopsy, including photos of
Kennedy's back. You can see for yourself what they show.
Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?
That's the assumption of conspiracy theorists who point to Boswell's
face sheet and claim that it shows the back wound "too low" to be
consistent with the Single Bullet Theory. But Todd Wayne Vaughan
decided to see whether this assumption is accurate.
The Throat Wound
If moving the back wound down is a way of attacking the Single Bullet
Theory, moving the throat wound up is also. If the throat wound
couldn't have been the exit for a bullet that entered the back, then
it was probably an entrance would from a frontal shot, which implies a
shooter in front of the limo which implies conspiracy. A drawing from
Groden and Livingstone's High Treason shows a typical conspiracy
interpretation of the wounds.
Thus conspiracy books describe the Dallas doctors as being absolutely
sure that the wound in Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound. What
they usually omit is the fact that the doctors who actually saw the
wound speculated that it was an exit wound from a fragment from the
head shot. They also imply that ER personnel can easily tell whether a
wound is an entrance wound or an exit would. This essay consists of
two parts. The first documents the speculations of the Dallas doctors
about the wound, and the second is a passage from the JAMA describing
a careful study of the ability of ER personnel to make judgments about
the forensic aspects of wounds.
Conspiracy authors have consistently claimed that the slits in the
collar of Kennedy's shirt could not have been made by an exiting
bullet. Here is a photograph of the shirt, showing the slits. Decide
for yourself whether they could have been made by an exiting bullet.
One piece of evidence the conspiracy authors use for a "high"
location for the throat wound is the testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico.
Before the Warren Commission, he supposedly said that the wound was
"above the tie." In fact, his testimony isn't quite as the conspiracy
authors represent it. This is his testimony, including the context.
Another thing to remember here is that in his "Admission Note,"
written on November 22, 1963, Carrico said the wound was in the "lower
1/3" of the neck.
On this matter, as on the location of the back wound, the
photographic evidence is decisive. The Left Profile shows the level of
the wound quite clearly. Is it really possible, as the conspiracy
authors claim, for a bullet exiting at the level of the tracheostomy
to have failed to penetrate Kennedy's shirt? Note that this photo has
been rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise, to emphasize the location
of the throat wound.
A Little Logic, Please!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by
conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following
questions. Why did the conspirators . . .
Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to
have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some
livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would
be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the
"one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was
in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in
JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?
Source: Adopted from a post by John Canal on alt.assassination.jfk
Connally Holding His Hat
Long after John Kennedy is seen in the Zapruder film moving his arms
toward his throat in response to being hit, John Connally is seen
holding his hat. Conspiracy writers insist that he could not possibly
have held on to the hat after his wrist was shattered by a bullet. The
implication is that yet another bullet hit Connally at some later
point, contrary to the Single Bullet Theory. But Nellie Connally says
that John held the hat on the way to Parkland Hospital. The late
Governor Connally was a loyal son of Texas. He's probably still
holding that hat.
Men with more severe injuries than Connally's can hold onto things.
In the following passage, Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye describes
how he lost his arm in combat:
At last I was close enough to pull the pin on my last grenade. And as
I drew my arm back, all in a flash of light and dark I saw him, that
faceless German, like a strip of motion picture film running through a
projector that's gone berserk. One instant he was standing waist-high
in the bunker, and the next he was aiming a rifle grenade at my face
from a range of ten yards. And even as I cocked my arm to throw, he
fired and his rifle grenade smashed into my right elbow and exploded
and all but tore my arm off. I looked at it, stunned and unbelieving.
It dangled there by a few bloody shreds of tissue, my grenade still
clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore . . ."
Daniel K. Inouye with Lawrence Elliott, Journey to Washington,
Prentice-Hall 1967, pp. 151-152.
Roger Byrum brought this passage to the author's attention.
When Did the Single Bullet Hit Happen?"
Supposedly, Connally is obviously unhurt in Zapruder frame 230, but
John Kennedy is obviously reacting to being his at this point. Thus,
it is claimed, the same bullet could not have hit both men. But a
careful study of the Zapruder film shows that Connally was hit at
frame 223.
If the Single Bullet Theory is true, then Kennedy had to be hit at the
same time, and again, detailed scrutiny of the film shows this was
likely the case.
A Pristine Bullet?
To the right you will see the "magic bullet" picture shown in all the
conspiracy books. CE 399 is the bullet viewed end-on. This is the
picture the conspiracy books won't show you. See for yourself whether
this bullet is really "pristine."
The Chain of Evidence
Conspiracy books will tell you that the "chain of evidence" on
Commission Exhibit 399 was broken, and that the bullet would have been
inadmissible as evidence in an Oswald murder trial. They will also
tell you that two hospital employees that found the bullet (Tomlinson
and Wright) failed to identify the bullet as the one they found when
questioned by the FBI. What are the conspiracy books not telling you?
The chain of evidence for CE 399 was in fact intact, and the Warren
Commission traced its possession from discovery by Tomlinson to
analysis by the FBI.
Bullets and other physical evidence need not be marked to be
admissible in trails. This brief submitted by the prosecution in the
O.J. Simpson civil trial makes this clear.
Tomlinson and Wright, although failing to positively identify the
bullet, said it "looks like" and "appears to be" the bullet they had
recovered.
Conflicting Testimony?
Conspiracy-oriented author Vincent Palamara has produced a
fascinating compilation of testimony that contradicts the Warren
Commission's timeline on Commission Exhibit 339 — who had it, and
when. Does all this show evidence being planted or tampered with, or
just normal variation in witness accounts? Again, it's your call.
Why not Experiment?
Conspiracy books make all kinds of assertions about the inability of
the Single Bullet to have done the things the Warren Commission said
it did. What happens if one actually experiments, shooting mock torsos
with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using bullets like those Oswald
supposedly used? John Lattimer did that. Click here for a report of
his findings. Lattimer compared an experimental bullet that did the
same damage to his mock bodies that CE 399 did to Kennedy and
Connally. See how similar his experimental bullet is to CE 399.
When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a
human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost certain to be
badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it had been slowed
by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through Connally's chest.
When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was traveling about 1,000
feet per second. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International
Wound Ballistics Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's
bullet through a human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the
resulting bullet.
Putting the Pieces Together
One controversial question about the medical evidence is the angle at
which the shot that hit Kennedy in the back transited his torso. The
HSCA posited a nearly flat transit, that would have required Kennedy
to be slumped forward. Dr. Robert Artwohl's analysis of the issue
differs from that of the HSCA. Artwohl believes the bullet transited
at a downward angle, as demonstrated in this analysis.
Joe Durnavich has pointed out some possible sources of error in
Artwohl's analysis. His computer model of the geometry of the bullet
path and Kennedy's torso suggests a somewhat flatter — but still
downward — angle.
We have already seen the Left Profile photo, which shows the level at
which the bullet exited Kennedy's neck. NECKEXIT.JPG is Artwohl's
analysis, using an autopsy photograph and a photograph of Kennedy in
the motorcade to show that the bullet must have passed through the
collar and the tie. Uploaded by permission.
Was JFK's Coat Bunched When He Was Hit in the Back?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A generation of conspiracy-oriented researchers has argued that the
hole in the back of Kennedy's suit coat — which is 5.3 inches below
the top of the collar — is "too low" to allow the Single Bullet
Theory. Supposedly, a bullet hitting "this low" could not exit the
throat at the collar where the single bullet would have to. Lone
gunman theorists have argued that Kennedy's coat may have been
"bunched up" at the back, allowing the hole to line up with the throat
exit. Two researchers here present contrary views on this.
No
Researcher by Nick Sylene suggests some "home tests" that he thinks
prove that Kennedy's coat could not have been bunched up, and that the
Single Bullet Theory can be ruled out. Sylene's essay is on Deanie
Richard's JFK Place gopher server. Yes
John Hunt, Jr. has taken a different tack, and done an extensive
survey of photographic evidence of JFK in the motorcade. His essay
"The Case for a Bunched Jacket" shows that Kennedy's jacket was
bunched in the majority of pictures of the motorcade in Dallas, and
that Kennedy's posture at the time of the Single Bullet hit makes it
overwhelmingly likely that the jacket was bunched at that moment.
More Research
Researcher Chad Zimmerman has done some very interesting and
informative work on this issue. Like Hunt, he has made a detailed and
serious study of the photographic evidence that Kennedy's coat and
shirt were bunched. He has also done a highly innovative X-ray study
showing that — given the location of the defect in Kennedy's shirt and
coat — very modest and easily recreated bunching produces an inshoot
location at C7 (the seventh cervical vertebra), which is the level of
Kennedy's back wound.
Gil Jesus
DESTROYING THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY - 6 PARTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzWy00JC6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nCf3C7R8dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-0Hf5L2yXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ViRMc29W0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk4QkyDdBMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMttd8gHRss
SEE MORE HERE:
David Von Pein
UN-DESTROYING THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY - 24 PARTS:
=================================================
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
VINCE BUGLIOSI, DALE MYERS, 3-D DIAGRAMS, AND THE SBT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb129f6cf7c098a
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
YET ANOTHER SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
STILL MORE SINGLE-BULLET CONVERSATION (FOR GOOD MEASURE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/284975f119fe13c0
AND A LITTLE MORE SBT LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
YEP, HERE'S ANOTHER SBT ESSAY (WITH COMMON SENSE AGAIN INSERTED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89
JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
WHAT DID JOHN CONNALLY SEE ON 11/22/63? AND WHAT DIDN'T HE SEE?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1cc5d266271e...
THE SBT AND JOHN CONNALLY'S REACTIONS TO HIS BULLET WOUNDS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/117c00bb91d7361d
WAS BULLET CE399 "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
IF BULLET CE399 DIDN'T INJURE GOVERNOR CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT NUMBER 903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3363328-post.html
DVP VS. A CONSPIRACY THEORIST RE. THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea87c6963644d0c0
David Von Pein
August 2008 reminder......
Gil Jesus is a mega-kook.
(Thanks....and God bless.)
robcap...@netscape.com
Dave us a pychopath who believes in magic bullets and theories that
have NO evidence and proof supporting them.
August 2008 reminder.
Phil Ossofee
fact. PD
David Von Pein
August 2008 reminder (addendum):
Robcap is, as previously declared by DVP months ago, in the
"Inconceivable Kook" category.
And, amazingly, Rob is proud of that ranking. He wears it like a Medal
of Honor.
Again...Inconceivable.
tomnln
"Phil Ossofee" <summersa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12832-489...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> Nothing says asshole quicker than declaring the sinlge bullet theory a
> fact. PD
Rectum Hell.......It Killed them.
Gil Jesus
>On Aug 9, 4:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> August 2008 reminder......
>>
>> Gil Jesus is a mega-kook.
I love it when you can't come back with citations or research ot
support your point.
Insults are a sign of desperation, David.
robcap...@netscape.com
The TRUTH will set you free Dave! Of course those nice checks from
the CIA will stop, but you will be cleansing your soul by telling the
truth for a change.
David Von Pein
>>> "...Those nice checks from the CIA will stop..." <<<
And don't forget about my monthly allowance from Vince B.; plus the
large stipend I still get from Arlen Specter every six months, too.
robcap...@netscape.com
Hey, wait a minute, do they need any additional help? Just kidding.
Enjoy your ill gotten earnings.
Robert Harris
President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA
And a look at Dale Myers analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
Robert Harris
aeffects
On Aug 17, 10:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> Mr. Harris' attempt at debunking Dale Myers' animation work (via the
> above-linked video) can itself be completely trashed when we realize
> that Mr. Myers utilized the ORIGINAL BODY DRAFT of the Kennedy
> limousine throughout all of his animation project.
>
> Myers didn't just suddenly stop relying on the limo body draft (for
> victim placement in their seats) only for the close-up shots. (Or does
> Bob Harris really think Mr. Myers DID do just that very thing?)
>
> IOW -- The whole "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project by Dale K.
> Myers is based on rock-solid, verifiable PHYSICAL data with resoect to
> the TSBD, the angles from the TSBD to the limo, Dealey Plaza as a
> whole, and (most importantly for this post in response to Mr. Harris'
> argument) the body draft from Hess & Eisenhardt for JFK's 1961 Lincoln
> limousine:
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
>
> Moreover.....
>
> Mr. Myers didn't simply MAKE UP (from whole cloth) the measurements he
> used to position JFK and Connally in their respective seats. He relied
> on photos and, as mentioned, the actual body draft of the limo. Here's
> a photo of the specific layout of the car in which the victims were
> riding when they were shot (and this comes not from Myers, but from
> the HSCA volumes--from 30 years ago). And just look at the amount of
> "leg room" for the back-seat occupants (which would have been JFK and
> Jackie on 11/22/63 in Dallas). Not very much room there, per my
> perception of things:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA...
>
> The exact numbers are hard to read, but it looks like it says 8.80
> inches betwwen the front of the (JFK) back seat and the back of the
> (Connally) jump seat. For comparison, my Size-10 shoes are about 10
> inches long. IOW, there sure wasn't much room between those seats.
>
> Here are some additional looks at the car (via actual pictures of the
> limo from various angles):
>
> http://in-broad-daylight.com/LIMO1961.jpg
>
> http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/window.jpg
>
> http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky4.jpg
>
> And this one really shows the "cramped" nature of those seats:
>
> http://in-broad-daylight.com/LIMO1961.jpg
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9328fa334b2541be
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
Mr. Harris' attempt at debunking Dale Myers' animation work (via the
above-linked video) can itself be completely trashed when we realize
that Mr. Myers utilized the ORIGINAL BODY DRAFT of the Kennedy
limousine throughout all of his animation project.
Myers didn't just suddenly stop relying on the limo body draft (for
victim placement in their seats) only for the close-up shots. (Or does
Bob Harris really think Mr. Myers DID do just that very thing?)
IOW -- The whole "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project by Dale K.
Myers is based on rock-solid, verifiable PHYSICAL data with respect to
the TSBD, the angles from the TSBD to the limo, Dealey Plaza as a
whole, and (most importantly for this post in response to Mr. Harris'
argument) the body draft from Hess & Eisenhardt for JFK's 1961 Lincoln
limousine:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
Moreover.....
Mr. Myers didn't simply MAKE UP (from whole cloth) the measurements he
used to position JFK and Connally in their respective seats. He relied
on photos and, as mentioned, the actual body draft of the limo. Here's
a photo of the specific layout of the car in which the victims were
riding when they were shot (and this comes not from Myers, but from
the HSCA volumes--from 30 years ago). And just look at the amount of
"leg room" for the back-seat occupants (which would have been JFK and
Jackie on 11/22/63 in Dallas). Not very much room there, per my
perception of things:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
The exact numbers are hard to read, but it looks like it says 8.80
inches between the front of the (JFK) back seat and the back of the
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
When CT'ers start ignoring the evidence - you begin to wonder...
When they begin *inventing* evidence, you *know* there's a problem.
I didn't have to go very far into the first video before I spotted some invented
evidence.
aeffects
[...]
> IOW -- The whole "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project by Dale K.
> Myers is based on rock-solid, verifiable PHYSICAL data with respect to
> the TSBD, the angles from the TSBD to the limo, Dealey Plaza as a
> whole, and (most importantly for this post in response to Mr. Harris'
> argument) the body draft from Hess & Eisenhardt for JFK's 1961 Lincoln
> limousine:
so you understand son, Myers cartoon is based on the alleged Zapruder
film - the cartoon in fact is a 3D rendering of a 2D product. Without
the alleged Zapruder film there is no Myers cartoon. That alleged
Zapruder film product being a piece of non-professional 8mm film/
celluoid, exposed thru a non-professional camera (albeit a fair
quality camera).
Now, if the alleged Zapruder film is altered, what does THAT make the
Myers cartoon? Without the alleged Zapruder film, the Hess &
Eisenhardt drawing/plan is not necessary, nor the DP elevation-topo,
nor the building specs, nor the cones of fire, etc
Can you psyche wrap itself around that little gem?
DMyers: "Case closed..." ROTFLMFAO!
robcap...@netscape.com
> For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
the body either. I do believe a shot or shots came from the Dal-Tex
building, but I do not believe the medical evidence supports a SBT of any
kind. Thanks for your response.
David Von Pein
PRINTED BELOW IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT (AS USUAL) REBUTTAL BY DALE MYERS
TO THE CONTINUOUS RIDICULOUS ATTEMPTS BY VARIOUS CONSPIRACY KOOKS
(THIS TIME ROBERT HARRIS) TO UNDERMINE AND DEBUNK MR. MYERS' TOP-NOTCH
ANIMATION WORK REGARDING THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE
SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
"I’ve gotten more than one email in the last few days asking
about a video posted on YouTube over the weekend claiming to debunk my
computer animation work on the validity of the single bullet theory.
This latest video posting, entitled “Dale Myers or Voodoo Geometry
101,” arrives courtesy of conspiracy advocate Robert Harris who
manages to prove how little he knows about my computer work,
photography and geometric relations, and the Kennedy assassination in
general in less than six minutes.
The crux of Mr. Harris’ argument is that yours truly (that’s me)
falsified the geometric positions of Kennedy and Connally in order to
make it appear that the single bullet theory was valid and that the
single bullet shot traced back to Lee Harvey Oswald’s firing position
on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In short,
according to Mr. Harris, my computer work is a transparent lie.
Never mind that Mr. Harris’ charges have been made numerous times in
the past by equally ignorant detractors and rebutted in detail on my
own website (see, FAQ: Computer Reconstruction of the JFK
Assassination) and here in this forum (see, Con Job: Debunking the
Debunkers).
The modern day pied pipers of the YouTube generation count on the
short attention spans and general ignorance of their audience to sell
their own brand of snake-oil and promote themselves as reliable
purveyors of truth via video on the Internet.
Of course, anyone can point a webcam at their own mug a pretend to be
someone of knowledge and responsibility. Hence, the wisdom of the
ancient axiom, “You get what you pay for.”
In this case, those who buy Mr. Harris’ free offerings are getting a
pig in a poke.
For instance, Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a
two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the
presidential limousine and it’s occupants (as culled from the
Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine
the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest.
Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying
principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is
impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two
dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and
angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human
science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.
Conspiracy guru Jack White found out the lessons of photogrammetry the
hard way when he took a beating in 1978 while trying to convince the
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that multiple press
photographs of Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle depicted multiple
rifles of differing lengths. The “proof” Mr. White offered of the
multiple rifle cover-up were measurements he made on two-dimensional
press photographs.
As the HSCA photograph experts called to rebut Mr. White rightly
pointed out, the former advertising photographer failed to take into
account the relationship between the camera making the photograph and
the tilt of the rifle in three dimensional space. In fact, White had
never heard of the principle of photogrammetry.
Apparently, Mr. Harris never heard of Jack White’s boo-boo, because he
makes the same error. And he makes it more than once.
For instance, Mr. Harris claims that a comparison of a photograph of
the presidential limousine made early in the parade route with a
computer rendering of my limousine model shows that “Myers has jammed
the two men much more closely together than they really were.” Mr.
Harris claims that the distance between the back seat where the
president was seated and Governor Connally’s jumpseat were compressed
in my computer model by “a little over fifty percent.”
What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions
of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?
Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise
at visually aligning two different photographs made from two
completely different angles in three dimensional space – [a] virtual
impossibility – along with an unsupported declarative statement:
“There is no way JFK’s legs could have been up against the back of
Connally’s car seat.”
In fact, Mr. Harris’ credibility on this last point is effectively
destroyed by the existence of numerous photographs taken throughout
the motorcade (a photograph on the back dust jacket of Bill Sloan’s
JFK: Breaking the Silence to name one) which shows exactly the
opposite to be true – Kennedy’s knees were comparatively tight to the
back of Connally’s jump seat.
In addition, Mr. Harris’ claim that “when the House Select Committee
on Assassinations depicted the victims they had to move Connally
considerably [more] to his left” than he appeared to be in other
photographs suggests that Mr. Harris doesn’t know that the HSCA
Photographic Panel mistakenly based Connally’s position on a line of
sight as seen in a photograph made by Hugh Betzner and that the HSCA
analysis failed to take into account the fact that Connally’s right
shoulder was below Betzner’s line of sight (as proven by the Altgens’
photograph) and hence Connally might have been seated further right
than the HSCA believed. My three dimensional analysis of the Zapruder
film bares this fact out.
Most importantly, Mr. Harris states, “The next scene from [Mr. Myers’]
presentation includes an amazing sleight of hand or pixels or
whatever. Watch closely folks, as Mr. Myers tries to hide the evidence
of his deception by slipping the victims back into a proper position.”
Here, Mr. Harris shows a clip from the Discovery program which
features my computer work in which the moment of the single bullet is
shown in wireframe and in solid form as the camera circles the
limousine and its occupants.
Mr. Harris then adds this, “Okay, notice two things here. First the
car and the background are all wireframes. Also, he still has Kennedy
and Connally close together, so that 18 degree bullet trajectory looks
pretty reasonable. But as the car rotates, notice that something
happens. The wireframes disappear and right in the middle of the
rotation, Mr. Myers switches to a totally different video. In this
video he positions President Kennedy and Governor Connally correctly.”
What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and
solid form) depict THE SAME MODEL.
That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been
“jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and
perpetuate the cover-up, is the exact same model (and in the same
position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts
Kennedy and Connally correctly.
For you tech junkies, the model of the single bullet moment was simply
rendered in a 360 degree rotational view multiple times with a variety
of surface settings (wireframe, solids, etc.), and then combined with
simple dissolves pulled between the various layers.
At the end of his presentation, Mr. Harris proudly boasts, “People
like Myers have been playing this same game for years, misconstruing
the positions of the President and Governor Connally to make it appear
that the shot was fired from the sixth floor of the depository. But
the angles from there just don’t work.”
Of course, the only game players in this case are the conspiracy
diehards like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what
happened in Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and
naïve who are more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing
to tell them whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy
assassination – truth be damned."
Dale K. Myers
August 18, 2008
PermaLink to above article:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/08/youtube-pied-pipers.html
===================================================
===================================================
Now seems like a good time to re-post what I wrote regarding this same
topic (on 08/18/2008 at 1:48 AM EDT):
David Von Pein
>>> "It is the hypocrisy which is delicious. Myers and his sycophants love to call conspiracy researchers kooks when they get the details of the limo wrong, such as placing Connally and Kennedy at the same height. He says of course the SBT can not work when you start with the wrong data. Then he himself proceeds to make his SBT work with HIS wrong data? How did he do that trick? Again, by lying." <<<
Of course, it doesn't matter at all to Tony that Dale K. Myers has
LOCKED IN and SYNCHED his computer model to the ZAPRUDER FILM ITSELF.
Does it, Tony?
Tony apparently must think that even though Myers has done this
extensive, painstaking overlay ("Key Framing" as it's called), whereby
each frame of the Z-Film is placed "in sync" as much as humanly
possible to Dale's computer model, Myers then (evidently, per Tony
Marsh) went OUTSIDE that Key Framing process for some of the culled
imagery we see of Myers' animation on TV shows, and CTers think that
Myers has skewed all kinds of data for those individual SBT clips that
the CTers (for some reason) think are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what can
be seen in Dale's complete version of the animation project.
Is that about the size of the deception you think Mr. Myers has
performed here, Tony?
Or did Myers just LIE altogether on the webpage below, wherein he
talks in great detail about how he lined up his computer animation
model as close as humanly possible to the Z-Film via this Key-Framing
method?:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm
If the Key Framing is accurate (and why would anyone believe Myers has
deliberately skewed it, except for diehard CTers?), then it doesn't
matter how many "inches" a person SAYS Connally was from JFK in the
car, or how much taller one man was than the other, etc., because the
Key Framed computer model is going to be accurate anyway and will show
John Connally in just the places he was located in relation to JFK
throughout the entire Z-Film sequence on Elm Street.
Which, of course, is why Dale Myers' computer method of Key Framing is
so accurate. It, in essence, IS the Zapruder Film placed onto a
computer in 3D space.
Gil Jesus
>
> > August 2008 reminder......
>
> > Gil Jesus is a mega-kook.
Wow, David, thats really hurts my feelings. But you know what would
make me feel better ?
Your answering these questions:
1. Earwitnesses claimed they hear the sound of gunshot from the
picket fence area, Critics attributed it to echoes. Eyewitnesses also
reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard
to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his
taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".
-----------------------------------------------------------
4. Why is there no "jet effect" in any other REAL death videos ?
------------------------------------------------------------
5. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from
west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street,
the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets
struck.
http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidece" existed
that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book
Depository.
In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many other
unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?
---------------------------------------------------------------
6. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the
"Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the
autopsy ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L43...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized
Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to
the assassination ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
8. JFK was was breathing when they brought him in to Parkland
Hospital. He had a heartbeat. Proof that his brain stem WAS intact.
Yet his brain stem was severed by the time his body was seen in
Bethesda for the autopsy. How and when was it severed ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
9. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows no
entry wound anywhere in the neck above the top of the shoulders. Yet
the Humes- supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base
of the neck.
Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the location of
the wound ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2J...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
10. Prior to 11/22/63, can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened
President Kennedy specifically ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
11. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any
6.5mm ammunition ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
12. How did a "Defector" ( with a dishonorable discharge ) get
employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work
on U-2 photos ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
13. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no
clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
14. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit
murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic when gun shells are
clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always
identified by that label.
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5H...
----------------------------------------------------------------
15. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was
known to be unreliable ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In 2007, the FBI admitted that the Comparative Lead Bullet
Analysis test was in fact unreliable, thus making the evidence it used
to connect Oswald to the Kennedy assassination bogus.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207Oswald.htm
Why, then do some, including the media, still argue in favor of
Oswald's guilt ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI examined
any of the evidence ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
18. How did the President's tie get nicked in the front of the knot
from a bullet exiting ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L69NM5E3t=pXIv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
19. How did Oswald fire a "steel jacket (sic) bullet" from a "high
powered rifle" in the Walker shooting, when his rifle could only fire
copper-jacketed bullets ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzYNJcJiu=Svbv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
20. What evidence is there that Oswald ever received the mail-order
rifle from the Post Office ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods"
four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE
1952) ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6Bi23nHP=XDZv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
22. The path of the "magic bullet" through Kennedy would have resulted
in damage to his vertebra
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyZvYMteE=bZWv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
and yet there was no such damage. Why is that ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Present video proof from one Parkland medical witness who said
that he/she saw a small entry wound in the rear of the President's
skull as depicted in the autopsy photos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
1. Earwitnesses claimed they hear the sound of gunshot from the
picket fence area, Critics attributed it to echoes. Eyewitnesses also
reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard
to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his
taking
possession of his brother's brain and locking it away ?
3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".
4. Why is there no "jet effect" in any other REAL death videos ?
5. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from
west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street,
the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets
struck.
http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidece" existed
that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book
Depository.
In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many
other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible
evidence"?
6. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the
"Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the
autopsy ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L43PxNpX4tvLv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
7. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to
Organized
Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to
the assassination ?
8. JFK was was breathing when they brought him in to Parkland
Hospital. He had a heartbeat. Proof that his brain stem WAS intact.
Yet his brain stem was severed by the time his body was seen in
Bethesda for the autopsy. How and when was it severed ?
9. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows
no
entry wound anywhere in the neck above the top of the shoulders. Yet
the Humes- supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base
of the
neck. Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the
location
of the wound ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JNc3mcUPlBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
10. Can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy
specifically ?
11. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any
6.5mm ammunition ?
12. How did a "Defector" ( with a dishonorable discharge ) get
employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work
on U-2 photos ?
13. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no
clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?
14. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit
murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic when gun shells are
clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always
identified by that label.
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5HXVp2DRcQuv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
15. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was
known to be unreliable ?
16. In 2007, the FBI admitted that the Comparative Lead Bullet
Analysis test was in fact unreliable, thus making the evidence it
used
to connect Oswald to the Kennedy assassination bogus.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207Oswald.htm
Why, then do some, including the media, still argue in favor of
Oswald's guilt ?
17. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI
examined
any of the evidence ?
18. How did the President's tie get nicked in the front of the knot
from a bullet exiting ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L69NM5E3tpXIv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
19. How did Oswald fire a "steel jacket (sic) bullet" from a "high
powered rifle" in the Walker shooting, when his rifle could only fire
copper-jacketed bullets ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzYNJcJiuSvbv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
20. What evidence is there that Oswald ever received the mail-order
rifle from the Post Office ?
21. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain
rods"
four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE
1952) ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6Bi23nHPXDZv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
22. The path of the "magic bullet" through Kennedy would have
resulted
in damage to his vertebra
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5JUDN6q*7*Sv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
and yet there was no such damage. Why is that ?
23. Present video proof from one Parkland medical witness who said
that he/she saw a small entry wound in the rear of the President's
skull as depicted in the autopsy photos.
we'll start with these. Good Luck.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b42fcf59f2182d73
Oh, goodie, 23 questions from a kook who seems to think those 23 Qs
have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in the past.
That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving Kook" --- A person who
has a 6-minute memory.
I especially love #11 from Gilbert The Mega-Kook -- "What evidence is
there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"
IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if LNers can't prove exactly WHERE and
HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano bullets, then
there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald didn't shoot
President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact that all
of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which was
owned and possessed by LHO prior to 11/22/63).
But it should be quite obvious to every reasonable-thinking person (in
a "common-sense" sort of fashion) that if Lee Oswald purchased a rifle
via mail-order (which we know beyond ALL doubt that he did, using his
alias "A. Hidell"), then it probably stands to reason that he planned
on getting SOME BULLETS TO PUT IN THAT GUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
And it also stands to reason that if mail-order houses (like Klein's
Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago, Illinois) were selling 1940-era
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles through magazine advertisements in 1963,
then the ammunition for such a gun would be readily available for the
consumer to also purchase.
In fact, Klein's sold boxes of 6.5mm Carcano bullets (108 per box) for
$7.50/box via its magazine ads in 1963:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4098-001.gif
Now, it's true that Oswald apparently didn't order any of his bullets
through Klein's when he ordered the rifle and scope (at least there's
no record of any such bullet order from LHO using Klein's), but it
just shows that the type of bullets that Oswald needed for his Carcano
rifle could easily be purchased.
Perhaps Oswald found a better deal on his bullets in a different
magazine ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure?
Nobody can. But just because there's no specific paper trail marked
"Oswald's Receipts For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle
#C2766" doesn't mean he didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.
I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with
firearms is to be considered "Not Guilty" if it can't be determined
beyond a reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained
the bullets that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?
Plus: Is there ANY other case in HISTORY where a "Guilty" verdict
required a definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant
buy his bullets?"?
I'm not positive, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd wager to say
that the answer to that last silly inquiry is "No".
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b42fcf59f2182d73
>
> Oh, goodie, 23 questions from a kook who seems to think those 23 Qs
> have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in the past.
>
> That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving Kook" --- A person who
> has a 6-minute memory.
>
> I especially love #11 from Gilbert The Mega-Kook -- "What evidence is
> there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"
>
> IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if LNers can't prove exactly WHERE and
> HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano bullets, then
> there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald didn't shoot
> President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact that all
> of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which was
> owned and possessed by LHO prior to 11/22/63).
These are REQUIRED steps in determining guilt Dave, nice try though.
The total lack of any proof and evidence is what shows LHO shot no
one, not this question. How about proving for once he ordered and
received the rifle. Then prove he practiced with it and used it. I
won't be holding my breath.
> But it should be quite obvious to every reasonable-thinking person (in
> a "common-sense" sort of fashion) that if Lee Oswald purchased a rifle
> via mail-order (which we know beyond ALL doubt that he did, using his
> alias "A. Hidell"), then it probably stands to reason that he planned
> on getting SOME BULLETS TO PUT IN THAT GUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
I don't know such a thing (LHO purchased a rifle) as I am silly - I
require proof. I guess in Dave's mind wanting proof is NOT equal to
having "common-sense" or being reasonable. You are guessing and
rambling, but NOT proving anything.
> And it also stands to reason that if mail-order houses (like Klein's
> Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago, Illinois) were selling 1940-era
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifles through magazine advertisements in 1963,
> then the ammunition for such a gun would be readily available for the
> consumer to also purchase.
It was Dave, along with the rifle, but "LHO" decided not to purchase
it. Why?? That is why it is a legitimate question to ask where he
purchased his ammo. He could have purchased any weapon and any ammo
without a trace if he wanted to, this is why this is all so contrite.
It was an obvious attempt to frame him.
> In fact, Klein's sold boxes of 6.5mm Carcano bullets (108 per box) for
> $7.50/box via its magazine ads in 1963:
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4098-001.gif
They sure did, but this is the very point we CTers are making, the
person who ordered the rifle chose NOT to order any ammo at the same
time. Why?
> Now, it's true that Oswald apparently didn't order any of his bullets
> through Klein's when he ordered the rifle and scope (at least there's
> no record of any such bullet order from LHO using Klein's), but it
> just shows that the type of bullets that Oswald needed for his Carcano
> rifle could easily be purchased.
They had several places in Dallas (two I believe) that he could have
purchased it from, but they showed NO sales of 6.5mm ammo in the
timeframes given.
> Perhaps Oswald found a better deal on his bullets in a different
> magazine ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure?
> Nobody can. But just because there's no specific paper trail marked
> "Oswald's Receipts For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle
> #C2766" doesn't mean he didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.
Why would he leave a paper trial (albeit a poor one) for the rifle,
but then be so careful with the ammo? Makes no sense to a "common-
sense" thinker like me.
> I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with
> firearms is to be considered "Not Guilty" if it can't be determined
> beyond a reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained
> the bullets that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?
This is where and why MOTIVE is so important as juries can overlook
some things if the MOTIVE is strong enough for the crime. Did he WC
offer any real motive for LHO? NO!!!!
> Plus: Is there ANY other case in HISTORY where a "Guilty" verdict
> required a definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant
> buy his bullets?"?
The more important question is where did LHO allegedly get JUST FOUR
BULLETS from? You see Dave, they don't sell the bullets like 25 cent
gumballs, you have to purchase a box of them. Where did the rest of
the box go?
> I'm not positive, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd wager to say
> that the answer to that last silly inquiry is "No".
I wish you would go onto a limb and could follow you with a saw.
David Von Pein
>>> "The total lack of any proof and evidence is what shows LHO shot no one. .... How about proving for once he ordered and received the rifle. Then prove he practiced with it and used it." <<<
I think I'll go into "Analogy 101" mode for a moment (so excuse me as
I drift)......
Per Robby's kooky crime-busting methods, if a man was physically seen
by 14 total witnesses (equalling the number of witnesses who actually
saw Lee Oswald either physically shooting his two 11/22 victims or saw
him flee the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand) robbing a bank
and escaping in his getaway car --- all kinds of secondary, lower-
level things would be REQUIRED to be proven in court at the man's
trial in order for the robber to be convicted. Such as:
Where did the bank robber buy his gun?
When did he buy his gun?
Did the robber ever practice with his gun?
Where did the robber purchase the bullets he placed in his gun?
When did the robber buy those bullets?
Where did the robber purchase the getaway vehicle?
When did he buy that car?
Did he ever practice parallel parking while driving the getaway car?
Did the robber ever eat meat on Fridays?
Was the robber ever seen in the company of gay men in New Orleans?
Was the robber ever married to Liz Taylor?
Has the robber ever seen the 1964 movie "The Patsy", starring Jerry
Lewis?
www.imdb.com/title/tt0058456
And on and on to obscure infinity.....
It wouldn't matter to a Rob-like kook that FOURTEEN PEOPLE physically
saw and positively identified the bank robber (again, matching the
Oswald scenario from 1963). Because if the laundry list of chaff-laden
questions cannot be answered beyond all doubt, then the guilty robber
MUST go free (per the kook's rules of law).
Quick Tip Of The Day:
Best way to get away with a crime --- Make sure Robcap is sitting on
the jury at your trial. Then you're home free. Because via Robby's
oddball rules of law and evidence, no criminal could ever be locked up.
Baldoni
>> On Aug 9, 4:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> August 2008 reminder......
>>
>>> Gil Jesus is a mega-kook.
>
>
> Wow, David, thats really hurts my feelings. But you know what would
> make me feel better ?
> Your answering these questions:
>
> 1. Earwitnesses claimed they hear the sound of gunshot from the
> picket fence area, Critics attributed it to echoes. Eyewitnesses also
> reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
> What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
All well and good but it is like pissing against the wind when one
considers the amounts of ammunition the Germans were making from 1934
onwards.
If you get a grasp of the foundation then everything else will fall
into place.
Look how clever the British were by aiding and abetting Orson Welles in
his plans to shoot the President !
--
Count Baldoni
Robert Harris
<aa04bade-a544-42be...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>
>
> How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
> the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
> the body either.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
from the third floor of the Daltex building.
It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
This is NOT a religion guys. It's just a crime, with a LOT of good
evidence at our disposal. But that evidence is worthless to people who
have closed their minds.
Robert Harris
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The total lack of any proof and evidence is what shows LHO shot no one. .... How about proving for once he ordered and received the rifle. Then prove he practiced with it and used it." <<<
>
> I think I'll go into "Analogy 101" mode for a moment (so excuse me as
> I drift)......
>
> Per Robby's kooky crime-busting methods, if a man was physically seen
> by 14 total witnesses (equalling the number of witnesses who actually
> saw Lee Oswald either physically shooting his two 11/22 victims or saw
> him flee the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand) robbing a bank
> and escaping in his getaway car --- all kinds of secondary, lower-
> level things would be REQUIRED to be proven in court at the man's
> trial in order for the robber to be convicted.
This is a lie Dave, there are NO 14 witnesses saying LHO was the man
doing the shooting and you know it. NO ONE saw LHO shoot anyone, that
is one of your main problems. IF you really had 14 witnesses who were
firm and positive in their initial statements we wouldn't be
discussing this issue nearly 45 years later, would we?
>Such as:
> Where did the bank robber buy his gun?
> When did he buy his gun?
> Did the robber ever practice with his gun?
> Where did the robber purchase the bullets he placed in his gun?
> When did the robber buy those bullets?
> Where did the robber purchase the getaway vehicle?
> When did he buy that car?
> Did he ever practice parallel parking while driving the getaway car?
> Did the robber ever eat meat on Fridays?
> Was the robber ever seen in the company of gay men in New Orleans?
> Was the robber ever married to Liz Taylor?
> Has the robber ever seen the 1964 movie "The Patsy", starring Jerry
> Lewis?www.imdb.com/title/tt0058456
Robbing a bank and murdering two people (a President and a cop) and
wounding another (a Governor) is not really the same now is it? The
point is yes, all these things would have to be investigated unless
you had him dead to right in terms of being captured while doing the
crime or he/she confesses.
> And on and on to obscure infinity.....
>
> It wouldn't matter to a Rob-like kook that FOURTEEN PEOPLE physically
> saw and positively identified the bank robber (again, matching the
> Oswald scenario from 1963). Because if the laundry list of chaff-laden
> questions cannot be answered beyond all doubt, then the guilty robber
> MUST go free (per the kook's rules of law).
Name them so we can see how well they really said LHO was the man.
Come on, I dare you.
> Quick Tip Of The Day:
>
> Best way to get away with a crime --- Make sure Robcap is sitting on
> the jury at your trial. Then you're home free. Because via Robby's
> oddball rules of law and evidence, no criminal could ever be locked up.
It is your duty to make sure someone is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt when serving on a jury. I feel bad for anyone you would judge
as you believe everything the authorities tell you.
Bud
> Nothing says asshole quicker than declaring the sinlge bullet theory a
> fact. PD
You spelled "denying" wrong, Phil.
Harry
Please let me second Phil's assertion.
ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!
And who needs Microsoft Word SpellCheck? We have BUD THE SPELL CHECKER
TO CORRECT OUR EVERY FREAKING FAULT.
THANKS, BUD. YOU'RE A PEACH.
harryfr...@gmail.com
I disbelieve it based on the medical and no video is going to change
that. Gerald Ford admitted the medical results to concoct the SBT. The
SBT is a lie.
David Von Pein
>>> "The point is yes, all these things would have to be investigated unless you had him dead to right in terms of being captured while doing the crime or he/she confesses." <<<
Including the questions I posed re. Liz Taylor and movie-watching
habits?
There are no bigger kooks than "ABO / JFK Conspiracy Kooks". A one-of-
a-kind breed.
Ben Holmes
harryfr...@gmail.com says...
Yep... the medical evidence, the REAL medical evidence - demonstrates that there
was no transit of JFK's body. Even the conclusion of transit was originally
admitted to have been formed *AFTER* JFK's body was no longer there to be
examined.
Even as late as January of '64 - there was still evidence that the neck wound
was totally unconnected with the back wound. Anyone remember the Executive
session comment?
People who want the SBT want it for one simple reason - it allows for only three
shots to have been fired. Sadly, the evidence demonstrates that there were more
than three shots fired.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article
> <aa04bade-a544-42be-8e12-560110bb0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> > > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>
> > How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
> > the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
> > the body either.
>
>
> Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
> with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
> from the third floor of the Daltex building.
>
> It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
> this video:
I watched the video Robert, but the problem I have is I am familar with
the medical evidence and there is no way to connect the back wound with
the throat wound (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
that were a result of glass). NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
came from. How do you prove this when the back wound did NOT transverse
the body and was too low to come out the throat (not to mention it would
have hit the spine but there is no indication of this happening)?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
>
> This is NOT a religion guys. It's just a crime, with a LOT of good
> evidence at our disposal. But that evidence is worthless to people who
> have closed their minds.
Who said it was a religion? I know I haven't. You are ignoring a lot
of this "good evidence" in making your point and I guess I am just
curious why. This last sentence is the tired, old refrain from people
who put forth issues and points that are NOT supported by the evidence
- it is NOT received because we all have closed minds. You have the
closed mind as you are proposing something that is NOT possible and
will not listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you. It is your
option to do this, but there is no way you can show me that the SBT is
valid in anyway.
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> > I do believe a shot or shots came from the Dal-Tex
> > building, but I do not believe the medical evidence supports a SBT of any
> > kind. Thanks for your response.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
>
> > > also:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA
>
> > > And a look at Dale Myers analysis:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Harris
<aeecee2a-1ec4-4aa1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <aa04bade-a544-42be-8e12-560110bb0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> > > > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
> >
> > > How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
> > > the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
> > > the body either.
> >
> > Go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
> >
> > Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
> > with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
> > from the third floor of the Daltex building.
> >
> > It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
> > this video:
>
> I watched the video Robert, but the problem I have is I am familar with
> the medical evidence and there is no way to connect the back wound with
> the throat wound
That is not what most medical experts claim - even excluding the govt
guys. Mantik made that claim, but like his assertion that he can "see"
evidence of forgery in the autopsy pics, he will not present his papers
for peer review.
Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
referring to the neck.
> (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> that were a result of glass).
And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
take him so long?
> NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> came from.
But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
> How do you prove this when the back wound did NOT transverse
> the body and was too low to come out the throat (not to mention it would
> have hit the spine but there is no indication of this happening)?
It was ONLY too low, if you posit a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
It aligns perfectly, from the 3rd floor of the Daltex - in both the
vertical and horizontal dimensions.
You are basing your entire belief system on a minority opinion. Mantik
is certainly a bright guy, but he is also heavily biased and has taken
some pretty extreme positions - as evidenced by the fact that he won't
test his ideas with other experts. I want to hear from doctors who
couldn't care less one way or the other, about the assassination.
What I DO know however, is that the visual evidence proves that Connally
was hit at frame 223. His jacket was blown open then and his tie flipped
and went to his left. Look at the stripes - they are reversed from what
we see in photos at Love field. That was the result of blood and other
material being expulsed and partially redirected by his jacket.
His arm rested on that jacket, which caused it to be taut, and to snap
back in the following frame.
And 223 matches perfectly with JFK, whose right arm began to rise three
frames later at 226.
That doesn't eliminate the possibility that they were hit simultaneously
by separate bullets I suppose, but that seems rather unlikely. It is
equally unlikely that a bullet missed Kennedy and struck JBC where it
did. I realize it is not impossible, but the shot would have to have
come from a very high elevation, from an incredibly inept shooter.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article
><aeecee2a-1ec4-4aa1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 19, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <aa04bade-a544-42be-8e12-560110bb0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> > > On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
>> > > > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>> >
>> > > How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
>> > > the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
>> > > the body either.
>> >
>> > Go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>> >
>> > Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
>> > with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
>> > from the third floor of the Daltex building.
>> >
>> > It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
>> > this video:
>>
>> I watched the video Robert, but the problem I have is I am familar with
>> the medical evidence and there is no way to connect the back wound with
>> the throat wound
>
>That is not what most medical experts claim - even excluding the govt
>guys.
A common theme among LNT'ers... appealing to authority.
Most "medical experts" would have defined a location on the back by two
measurements... vertically - which vertebra the wound lined up with, and
horizontally, how far away from the midpoint of the spine.
Can you produce any "medical experts" who would have measured a back wound as
Dr. Humes did?
Appealing to "medical experts" in this case is a fools game.
>Mantik made that claim, but like his assertion that he can "see"
>evidence of forgery in the autopsy pics, he will not present his papers
>for peer review.
>
>Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
>back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
>referring to the neck.
>
>
>> (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
>> wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
>> embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
>> that were a result of glass).
>
>And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
>glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
>take him so long?
>
>
>> NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
>> came from.
>
>But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
>since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
>who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
>with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
The accuracy of the angles involved are limited to the accuracy with which the
wound locations can be determined.
The FACT that the wound locations were never accurately determined, and can vary
depending on what evidence you're willing to accept is beyond dispute.
This means that the angles aren't as solid as you'd like to imply.
>> How do you prove this when the back wound did NOT transverse
>> the body and was too low to come out the throat (not to mention it would
>> have hit the spine but there is no indication of this happening)?
>
>It was ONLY too low, if you posit a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>It aligns perfectly, from the 3rd floor of the Daltex - in both the
>vertical and horizontal dimensions.
>
>You are basing your entire belief system on a minority opinion.
"Transit" is an opinion, NOT medically based on a primary examination of the
body.
It still *remains* an opinion - the only real evidence for which, the interior
photo - was "lost".
>Mantik
>is certainly a bright guy, but he is also heavily biased
This is cant for "doesn't believe what I believe"
Someone who accepts your position would never be "heavily biased"
>and has taken
>some pretty extreme positions - as evidenced by the fact that he won't
>test his ideas with other experts. I want to hear from doctors who
>couldn't care less one way or the other, about the assassination.
>
>What I DO know however, is that the visual evidence proves that Connally
>was hit at frame 223.
No, it doesn't. It, like much else in this post, is merely an opinion.
>His jacket was blown open then and his tie flipped
>and went to his left.
Yep. A bullet, on the other hand, would have put a HOLE in the jacket. A
bullet moves quite a bit faster than the jacket was capable of moving out of the
way.
>Look at the stripes - they are reversed from what
>we see in photos at Love field. That was the result of blood and other
>material being expulsed and partially redirected by his jacket.
Once again, sheer opinion with nothing to support it.
Since you believe that he was hit at Z-223 - you can't explain his reactions
later, where his lungs are suddenly compressed...
Or possibly you believe he was struck multiple times... it wasn't beyond
possibility for the doctors...
But there's *NO* evidence he was struck more than once through his chest. So
you have no explanation for Connally's violent expulsion of air from his lungs
that happened later...
>His arm rested on that jacket, which caused it to be taut, and to snap
>back in the following frame.
>
>And 223 matches perfectly with JFK, whose right arm began to rise three
>frames later at 226.
>
>That doesn't eliminate the possibility that they were hit simultaneously
>by separate bullets I suppose, but that seems rather unlikely. It is
>equally unlikely that a bullet missed Kennedy and struck JBC where it
>did. I realize it is not impossible, but the shot would have to have
>come from a very high elevation, from an incredibly inept shooter.
How silly!!!
A shot could have struck Connally, having missed JFK by mere inches, (not, by
the way, from the SN) and you'd call a shot like that, having missed by inches,
on a moving target, to have been fired by an "inept" shooter.
How much shooting have you done? Do you have any qualifications that would lead
lurkers to believe that you can correctly assess the shooting possibilities
here?
>Robert Harris
The only evidence that means much in this case is that of the eyewitnesses,
since it's clear that much of the physical evidence is suspect or altered.
Presumed CT'ers who try to argue that the "hard evidence" is authentic, have no
real place to argue conspiracy... since the conspiracy evidence is PRECISELY
that of the eyewitnesses.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9b062...
>
> >>> "It is the hypocrisy which is delicious. Myers and his sycophants love to call conspiracy researchers kooks when they get the details of the limo wrong, such as placing Connally and Kennedy at the same height. He says of course the SBT can not work when you start with the wrong data. Then he himself proceeds to make his SBT work with HIS wrong data? How did he do that trick? Again, by lying." <<<
>
> Of course, it doesn't matter at all to Tony that Dale K. Myers has
> LOCKED IN and SYNCHED his computer model to the ZAPRUDER FILM ITSELF.
> Does it, Tony?
if the Z-film is altered -- how do you spell "perpetuating a lie?"
> Tony apparently must think that even though Myers has done this
> extensive, painstaking overlay ("Key Framing" as it's called), whereby
> each frame of the Z-Film is placed "in sync" as much as humanly
> possible to Dale's computer model, Myers then (evidently, per Tony
> Marsh) went OUTSIDE that Key Framing process for some of the culled
> imagery we see of Myers' animation on TV shows, and CTers think that
> Myers has skewed all kinds of data for those individual SBT clips that
> the CTers (for some reason) think are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what can
> be seen in Dale's complete version of the animation project.
>
> Is that about the size of the deception you think Mr. Myers has
> performed here, Tony?
>
> Or did Myers just LIE altogether on the webpage below, wherein he
> talks in great detail about how he lined up his computer animation
> model as close as humanly possible to the Z-Film via this Key-Framing
> method?:
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm
>
> If the Key Framing is accurate (and why would anyone believe Myers has
> deliberately skewed it, except for diehard CTers?), then it doesn't
> matter how many "inches" a person SAYS Connally was from JFK in the
> car, or how much taller one man was than the other, etc., because the
> Key Framed computer model is going to be accurate anyway and will show
> John Connally in just the places he was located in relation to JFK
> throughout the entire Z-Film sequence on Elm Street.
IF, the keyframing is accurate....? Listen dolt, above you inferred it
is accurate... Covering your sorry ass? Its abundantly clear you have
no conception what KEY framing is regarding motion animation. You
probably think "tweeners" is getting laid between luch and a coffee
break... When you're in the throngs of panic, give me a call or better
yet do your self a favor, WIKIPEDIA
> Which, of course, is why Dale Myers' computer method of Key Framing is
> so accurate. It, in essence, IS the Zapruder Film placed onto a
> computer in 3D space
Well son, if the Z-film is altered, that means, at best, Myer's
animation is a depection of an altered film. An altered film is an
altered film.... who needs a 250,000 grand animation (that's on the
cheap side)?
Film is a 2D medium, placing computer generated Z-frames in a 3D
medium adds nothing to tarot card accuracy, ya moron.... I will say
Myers has fair texturing ability, unless he used off-the-shelf maps.
The cartoon is a 2D depiction in a 3D space, viewed in 2D world -- cut
the Lone Nut bullshit, ya sound the fool!
On second thought please continue.....
robcap...@netscape.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <aa04bade-a544-42be-8e12-560110bb0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> > > > > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>
> > > > How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
> > > > the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
> > > > the body either.
>
> > > Go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> > > Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
> > > with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
> > > from the third floor of the Daltex building.
>
> > > It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
> > > this video:
>
> > I watched the video Robert, but the problem I have is I am familar with
> > the medical evidence and there is no way to connect the back wound with
> > the throat wound
>
> That is not what most medical experts claim - even excluding the govt
> guys. Mantik made that claim, but like his assertion that he can "see"
> evidence of forgery in the autopsy pics, he will not present his papers
> for peer review.
Well, I'll have to answer this a second time since I didn't realize we
were posting on aaj too. Provide which medical experts you think
support your claim. Mantik is quite good and from what I have seen he
shares with others too. I don't know what you are refering to as the
SBT possibility is NEVER mentioned until December 13 in the newspaper
following the SS's visit to Parkland on December 12. They were there
to force the PH doctors to change their statement that the throat
wound was one of entry to one of exit.
> Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> referring to the neck.
The wound I am discussing is the one in JFK's throat area. (There was
one in his right temple as well).
> > (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> > wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> > embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> > that were a result of glass).
>
> And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> take him so long?
All evidence that did NOT support the official theory was buried. Joe
West was able to get the mortician's notes and make them available.
Who cares when this happened as the truth is the truth.
> > NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> > came from.
>
> But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
According to Fonzi and others on the HSCA investigation team Braden
was a radio man in the Dal-Tex building. I do believe shots came from
there but this is a seperate issue from one bullet causing 7 wounds in
two men.
> > How do you prove this when the back wound did NOT transverse
> > the body and was too low to come out the throat (not to mention it would
> > have hit the spine but there is no indication of this happening)?
>
> It was ONLY too low, if you posit a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
> It aligns perfectly, from the 3rd floor of the Daltex - in both the
> vertical and horizontal dimensions.
The body does NOT lie! Where did Adm. Burkley get "T-3" if not from
the autopsy doctors? Again, I am NOT disputing shots came from the Dal-
Tex building, but rather one went in JFK's back and came out his
throat adn then went into Connally.
> You are basing your entire belief system on a minority opinion. Mantik
> is certainly a bright guy, but he is also heavily biased and has taken
> some pretty extreme positions - as evidenced by the fact that he won't
> test his ideas with other experts. I want to hear from doctors who
> couldn't care less one way or the other, about the assassination.
Ah, last time I looked the LN theory is the minority opinion. Prove
the bullet went from a T-3 or T-4 wound in his back, went dramitically
upward, passed the spine without nicking it, and then went out of the
throat. Good luck with that one no matter where the shot came from.
> What I DO know however, is that the visual evidence proves that Connally
> was hit at frame 223. His jacket was blown open then and his tie flipped
> and went to his left. Look at the stripes - they are reversed from what
> we see in photos at Love field. That was the result of blood and other
> material being expulsed and partially redirected by his jacket.
There are many other good theories regarding this event, and you have
to overcome JBC saying he was not hit with the same bullet as JFK.
> His arm rested on that jacket, which caused it to be taut, and to snap
> back in the following frame.
This is all junk as JFK's body says your theory is impossible!
> And 223 matches perfectly with JFK, whose right arm began to rise three
> frames later at 226.
Ditto.
> That doesn't eliminate the possibility that they were hit simultaneously
> by separate bullets I suppose, but that seems rather unlikely. It is
> equally unlikely that a bullet missed Kennedy and struck JBC where it
> did. I realize it is not impossible, but the shot would have to have
> come from a very high elevation, from an incredibly inept shooter.
Rather unlikely? IT is common knowledge there were multiple gunmen so
how is it unlikely they were hit by seperate bullets? The bottom line
is JFK's body does NOT agree with your theory and that really has the
final say on this matter.
David Von Pein
>>> "Have you looked at what happened when another team of "experts" tried to duplicate a SBT shot?" <<<
Oh, you bet I have. That is a good program. An outstanding one, in
fact. That 2004 Australian SBT re-creation is the best thing done yet
for the "pro-SBT" stance....because it proved beyond all doubt that an
actual WCC/MC bullet (not just a simulation on a computer screen) can--
and will--slice through two human-like torsos/bodies and achieve
generally the very same things achieved by the Single-Bullet Theory
and the SBT bullet (CE399).
How any objective person can watch that Discovery Channel documentary
("Unsolved History -- JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") and come away
with the feeling that the SBT is a total and utter failure and a
complete IMPOSSIBILITY....is beyond me.
More of my thoughts on that excellent SBT re-creation performed in
Australia in October of 2004:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
tomnln
Hasn't Dale Myers taught you what can be done with film????
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e31189d4-cfa1-41c9...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Hasn't Dale Myers taught you what can be done with film????" <<<
Oh good! Now the kook named Thomas is apparently prepared to argue
that the Discovery Channel documentary has been faked in some fashion
(which would be an odd, contradictory stance, since I'm quite sure,
being the ultra-CT-Kook that he is, that he thinks the Discovery
Channel program, in an unaltered condition, proves that the SBT is
impossible).
I guess it's the same quandary that the kooks are in with respect to
the Z-Film....i.e., Is it fake, or isn't it?
The question no CT-Alterationist has ever answered (nor can they) is
-- If the Z-Film is a fake, why did the stupid plotters LEAVE IN the
one thing more than any other that spells out "conspiracy" to almost
every CTer who looks at it -- the Rear Head Snap?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <aa04bade-a544-42be-8e12-560110bb0...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 17, 9:46 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> > > > > President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>
> > > > How did one bullet pass through? IOW from where to where? I ask because
> > > > the back wound did NOT lineup with throat wound and it did NOT transverse
> > > > the body either.
>
> > > Go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> > > Then go to 4:57 and look at the trajectory I overlayed onto the image
> > > with a blue line. That represents a trajectory of 10 degrees vertical,
> > > from the third floor of the Daltex building.
>
> > > It is a PERFECT match, as is the horizontal angle, as you can see in
> > > this video:
>
> > I watched the video Robert, but the problem I have is I am familar with
> > the medical evidence and there is no way to connect the back wound with
> > the throat wound
>
> That is not what most medical experts claim - even excluding the govt
> guys. Mantik made that claim, but like his assertion that he can "see"
> evidence of forgery in the autopsy pics, he will not present his papers
> for peer review.
What medical experts are we talking about? There were several sets of
autopsy reports and Rankin chose to quote the first one when he talked
about it in January at the WC executive session. There is NO mention of
the SBT until AFTER the SS visited, and most likely intimidated, the
Dallas doctors on December 12. On December 13 there is the very first
story about the back (now neck) wound coming out the front. The Bethesda
doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY before the autopsy was
over. Where did Burkley get the T-3 level for the death certificate if
NOT from the autopsy doctors?
> Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> referring to the neck.
He was referring to the one and ONLY wound in JFK's front area, the
throat.
> > (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> > wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> > embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> > that were a result of glass).
>
> And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> take him so long?
He knew it right away as his notes mention it and it took Joe West to find
them and produce them (the same poor man who would die under strange
circumstances). You can't be this naive can you? IF things do NOT
support the offiical theory they got buried.
> > NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> > came from.
>
> But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
This is a sad trick. I mentioned earlier I believe shots came from the
Dal-Tex building (along with other locations), but in this point I meant
in regards to a SBT scenario. There is NO way a SBT scenario is possible
based on the medical evidence. Acccording to the investigation by Fonzi
and others at the HSCA Brading was the radio man, not the shooter. I do
believe he was there and he participated, but you are mixing this up with
a SBT theory which is bunk.
> > How do you prove this when the back wound did NOT transverse
> > the body and was too low to come out the throat (not to mention it would
> > have hit the spine but there is no indication of this happening)?
>
> It was ONLY too low, if you posit a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
> It aligns perfectly, from the 3rd floor of the Daltex - in both the
> vertical and horizontal dimensions.
What???? I am saying it was to low based on where it was on the body,
NOT the source location of the shot.
> You are basing your entire belief system on a minority opinion. Mantik
> is certainly a bright guy, but he is also heavily biased and has taken
> some pretty extreme positions - as evidenced by the fact that he won't
> test his ideas with other experts. I want to hear from doctors who
> couldn't care less one way or the other, about the assassination.
You seem to be the biased one Robert as you are mixing LN theory with your
stuff, Mantik isn't doing this. I hate to inform you but the vast
majority of people do NOT believe the LN theory one iota, so you are the
one basing your theory on a minority belief. I have evidence, my belief
is NOT needed. I have read quite a bit of his work and he talks about
others and how he has worked with them quite a bit so I don't know where
you get the idea he doesn't share his thoughts.
> What I DO know however, is that the visual evidence proves that Connally
> was hit at frame 223. His jacket was blown open then and his tie flipped
> and went to his left. Look at the stripes - they are reversed from what
> we see in photos at Love field. That was the result of blood and other
> material being expulsed and partially redirected by his jacket.
How do you get around the fact Connally said he was NOT hit by the
same bullet as JFK? There are other reasons for the lapel puffing and
flip as well.
> His arm rested on that jacket, which caused it to be taut, and to snap
> back in the following frame.
The MOST important evidence is the body, and it shows a SBT is
impossible.
> And 223 matches perfectly with JFK, whose right arm began to rise three
> frames later at 226.
One can study the Z-film until they are blue in the face, but the body
of JFK makes ANY SBT theory inplausible.
> That doesn't eliminate the possibility that they were hit simultaneously
> by separate bullets I suppose, but that seems rather unlikely. It is
> equally unlikely that a bullet missed Kennedy and struck JBC where it
> did. I realize it is not impossible, but the shot would have to have
> come from a very high elevation, from an incredibly inept shooter.
Why is seperate bullets impossible? There were multiple shooters
right? The body of JFK has proven you wrong nearly 45 years ago. You
CAN'T get around that fact.
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
>
> > > This is NOT a religion guys. It's just a crime, with a LOT of good
> > > evidence at our disposal. But that evidence is worthless to people who
> > > have closed their minds.
>
> > Who said it was a religion? I know I haven't. You are ignoring a lot
> > of this "good evidence" in making your point and I guess I am just
> > curious why. This last sentence is the tired, old refrain from people
> > who put forth issues and points that are NOT supported by the evidence
> > - it is NOT received because we all have closed minds. You have the
> > closed mind as you are proposing something that is NOT possible and
> > will not listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you. It is your
> > option to do this, but there is no way you can show me that the SBT is
> > valid in anyway.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > > > I do believe a shot or shots came from the Dal-Tex
> > > > building, but I do not believe the medical evidence supports a SBT of any
> > > > kind. Thanks for your response.
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
>
> > > > > also:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA
>
> > > > > And a look at Dale Myers analysis:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> > > > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> SBT until late April 1964. As of the April 27, 1964 the WC theory was
> the same as the official FBI report, three shots, three hits, no misses.
I am aware of this, but my comment pertained to the media, NOT the
WC. The first mention of the bullet coming through the throat area
from the back wound was December 13, the day after SS agent Elmore
Moore visited the Dallas Doctors. He would brag about getting Dr.
Perry to change his version to one of EXIT in the throat area.
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html
> MEMORANDUM April 27, 1964
> TO: J. Lee Rankin
> FROM: Norman Redlich
>
> The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why
> certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain
> on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate
> points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the
> Presidential limousine.
> Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
> the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by
> the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the
> bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
> corner window of the TSBD building.
> As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that
> these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above.
> All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by
> the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the
> physical facts at the scene of the assassination.
> Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third
> shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable
> accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame
> (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we
> know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the
> movie fram [sic] where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined
> the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo
> of the same spot from the point were Zapruder was standing.
> We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the
> Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably
> cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with
> the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did
> not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The Governor feels that
> it came around 230 which is certainly consistent with our observations
> of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was
> shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between
> two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.
> Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we
> had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the
> sign which occurs between frames 215 to 225. We have expert testimony to
> the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum of time of 2
> 1/4 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at
> 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames
> between shots. It is apparent therefore, that if Governor Connally was
> hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit
> no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.
> We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
> whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
> frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds
> to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by
> photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the
> President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the
> point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis
> which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.
> I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied
> by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of
> the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without
> establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically
> possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report
> in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the
> Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by
> our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these
> questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which
> challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on
> our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods
> available to us.
> I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession,
> submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are
> totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely
> misleading picture.
> It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI
> and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff
> project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken
> expeditiously.
>
Again, this is NOT what I refering to. Humes admitted during the ARRB
he could have had at least two sets of drafts prior to the Sunday
morning bonfire episode. In this transcript that you have posted
Rankin said:
"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment
came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must
have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we
have the PICTURE of where the bullet entered in the back, that the
bullet entered BELOW THE SHOULDER BLADE TO THE RIGHT OF THE BACKBONE,
which is below the place where the PICTURE shows the bullet came out
in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to
the autopsy DIDN'T STRIKE ANY BONE AT ALL..." (emphasis mine) (Weisber
1975, p.307) (taken from WC Executive session 1/27/64)
This is what I was refering to, NOT the matchup with the extant Z-
film. This one paragraph raises so many legitimate questions. First
of all, the main point was he was refering to wounds that were listed
in a draft copy of the autopsy report as these are NOT the official
version of the wounds sustained by JFK. The final version of the
report, after LHO's death, did NOT list these kinds of wounds, so why
was Rankin mentioning the old copy and NOT the final one? This is
what Horne from the ARRB wanted to know as Humes always said he had a
consistent report from the night of the autopsy to the final copy.
This proves he did NOT have a consistent report, that he willingly
changed it the wounds after the death of LHO.
Next we come to the pictures. Why is Rankin looking at pictures that
show wounds that NONE of the photos in the National Archives show?
Where are these photos? The official theory says he had a wound at the
base of the neck (courtesy of Ford), yet he is refering to a wound
that is reported by all other people who actually saw the body, but
the extant photos DO NOT show this wound. Why?
Finally, do the wounds Rankin mention sound like they could connect?
We know from people there that at least three probes were done, and
photographed, yet none of the extant photos show any probes. Why? He
mentions there is no damage to the spine, which is virtually impossibe
if a bullet transited through the neck and out into the throat. This
is confirmed by the autopsy report he read, but why does the official
and final one NOT say this? The deflection you mention would have
been one of the greatest in history to move a downward bullet up and
out the throat (all while leaving no damage of major consequences).
The other thing you can't change is all sources, death certificate,
autopsy report, etc...say the cause of death was the result of being
shot with HIGH-VELOCITY bullets. The M-C was never a high-velocity
rifle, so how does this occur?
> Humes and the doctors had their own SBT which they presented to the WC
> on April 14, 1964. All of them agreed that the first shot went through
> JFK and then through Connally's torso. The second shot hit Connally's
> wrist and then lodged in his thigh. The third shot hit President Kennedy
> in the head.
Of course they did, but this is NOT what their intitial (pre-LHO
death) autopsy draft said and we have Ranking (and Horne) for showing
this.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_2998.pdf
> > Dallas doctors on December 12. On December 13 there is the very first
> > story about the back (now neck) wound coming out the front. The Bethesda
>
> You are talking about a newspaper story? The autopsy doctors agreed
> reluctantly that the bullet transited the next day when they found out
> about the throat wound. It did not take weeks to reach that conclusion.
> It was a Eureka moment.
You are wrong as the press made no mention of the wound in the throat
being one of exit until the SS made a visit to PH on 12/12/63.
Nothing Eureka about it, they bullied the doctors into changing the
real direction and cause of the wound.
> > doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY before the autopsy was
> > over. Where did Burkley get the T-3 level for the death certificate if
> > NOT from the autopsy doctors?
>
> He definitely did not get it from the autopsy doctors. He made it up all
> on his own.
Sure he did! A man has high up as Adm. Burkley just makes up wound
locations. Why don't you prove he made it up?
> >> Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> >> back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> >> referring to the neck.
>
> > He was referring to the one and ONLY wound in JFK's front area, the
> > throat.
>
> >>> (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> >>> wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> >>> embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> >>> that were a result of glass).
> >> And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> >> glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> >> take him so long?
>
> > He knew it right away as his notes mention it and it took Joe West to find
> > them and produce them (the same poor man who would die under strange
> > circumstances). You can't be this naive can you? IF things do NOT
> > support the offiical theory they got buried.
>
> If you make a claim like that produce the notes. I do not believe you.
I added the link to the notes the embalmer gave to Joe West, why you
won't read them is not my concern, but to accuse me of something like
this is off base. You are not even responding to what I am writing in
several cases, so I would contain the accusations if I were you.
> >>> NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> >>> came from.
> >> But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> >> since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> >> who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> >> with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
>
> > This is a sad trick. I mentioned earlier I believe shots came from the
> > Dal-Tex building (along with other locations), but in this point I meant
> > in regards to a SBT scenario. There is NO way a SBT scenario is possible
> > based on the medical evidence. Acccording to the investigation by Fonzi
>
> Some type of SBT scenario is possible, but so far no one has produced
> one which works in this case. There are other cases of a SBT.
NO TYPE of the SBT is possible and the medical (the real evidence)
proves this. I take it you have never read the Sibert and O'Neill
report either?
Ben Holmes
Top-Post: All you have to remember about Tony Marsh is that he's a LNT'er wolf
in a CT'ers sheep clothing...
He will lie about the evidence if he thinks he won't get caught - and will
simply ignore any requests for citations.
He dangerously mixes truth with fiction - so you never know what to trust from
Tony... so much of his material is conspiracy, then he tosses in LNT'er factoids
and sheer fiction to mix people up.
Tony started facing too much heat on this forum, too many people started
recognizing him for the LNT'er dangle that he is... so he moved to the censored
group.
Heh Tony! Ever going to support or retract your assertion that Dr. Humes was
burning ANYTHING AT ALL on Saturday morning?
In article <9c462613-edea-4c04...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_2998.pdf
> > Dallas doctors on December 12. On December 13 there is the very first
> > story about the back (now neck) wound coming out the front. The Bethesda
>
> You are talking about a newspaper story? The autopsy doctors agreed
> reluctantly that the bullet transited the next day when they found out
> about the throat wound. It did not take weeks to reach that conclusion.
> It was a Eureka moment.
You are wrong as the press made no mention of the wound in the throat
being one of exit until the SS made a visit to PH on 12/12/63. Nothing
Eureka about it, they bullied the doctors into changing the real direction
and cause of the wound.
> > doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY before the autopsy was
> > over. Where did Burkley get the T-3 level for the death certificate if
> > NOT from the autopsy doctors?
>
> He definitely did not get it from the autopsy doctors. He made it up all
> on his own.
Sure he did! A man has high up as Adm. Burkley just makes up wound
locations. Why don't you prove he made it up?
> >> Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> >> back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> >> referring to the neck.
>
> > He was referring to the one and ONLY wound in JFK's front area, the
> > throat.
>
> >>> (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> >>> wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> >>> embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> >>> that were a result of glass).
> >> And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> >> glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> >> take him so long?
>
> > He knew it right away as his notes mention it and it took Joe West to find
> > them and produce them (the same poor man who would die under strange
> > circumstances). You can't be this naive can you? IF things do NOT
> > support the offiical theory they got buried.
>
> If you make a claim like that produce the notes. I do not believe you.
I added the link to the notes the embalmer gave to Joe West, why you won't
read them is not my concern, but to accuse me of something like this is
off base. You are not even responding to what I am writing in several
cases, so I would contain the accusations if I were you.
> >>> NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> >>> came from.
> >> But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> >> since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> >> who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> >> with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
>
> > This is a sad trick. I mentioned earlier I believe shots came from the
> > Dal-Tex building (along with other locations), but in this point I meant
> > in regards to a SBT scenario. There is NO way a SBT scenario is possible
> > based on the medical evidence. Acccording to the investigation by Fonzi
>
Robert Harris
<5b2cfe3b-0585-4e76...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
All medical experts except Mantik. If there are others who made that
claim, please cite them.
> There were several sets of
> autopsy reports and Rankin chose to quote the first one when he talked
> about it in January at the WC executive session. There is NO mention of
> the SBT until AFTER the SS visited, and most likely intimidated, the
> Dallas doctors on December 12. On December 13 there is the very first
> story about the back (now neck) wound coming out the front. The Bethesda
> doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY before the autopsy was
> over. Where did Burkley get the T-3 level for the death certificate if
> NOT from the autopsy doctors?
The Parkland doctors initially believed that the throat wound was of
entrance, solely because the hole was small. In a majority of cases that
would be correct, but not in all - especially if the bullet was more
sharply pointed, as the men who handled the stretcher bullet, said it was.
>
>
> > Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> > back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> > referring to the neck.
>
> He was referring to the one and ONLY wound in JFK's front area, the
> throat.
I guess I didn't make myself clear.
In claiming that the path from the back wound to the throat wound was
obstructed by bones, wasn't Mantik referring to an entry point at the
neck, where the WC originally claimed it was?
I don't think he or any other doctor has claimed that this was true of
all locations on the back.
>
>
> > > (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> > > wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> > > embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> > > that were a result of glass).
> >
> > And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> > glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> > take him so long?
>
> He knew it right away as his notes mention it and it took Joe West to find
> them and produce them (the same poor man who would die under strange
> circumstances). You can't be this naive can you? IF things do NOT
> support the offiical theory they got buried.
Well, I found West's notes and there wasn't even a hint that glass hit
JFK's face.
Why didn't you cite him verbatim?
It makes infinitely more sense that the "shrapnel" was from a missed,
early shot that struck the pavement to JFK's right, which explains why JFK
spun sharply to his right and shielded his fact at frame 193, and why
Kellerman heard him say, "My God I've been hit".
>
>
> > > NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> > > came from.
> >
> > But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> > since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> > who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> > with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
>
> This is a sad trick.
IC.
So, my suggesting that Braden (or whoever was with him in that location)
took part in the attack, was for the purpose of bamboozling you?? Good
thing I planned ahead a bit and started talking about this 12 years ago,
eh:-)
Did you know that a line from that office to Tague's location, passes just
inches to the right of JFK at frame 285? Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> I mentioned earlier I believe shots came from the
> Dal-Tex building (along with other locations), but in this point I meant
> in regards to a SBT scenario.
Ok, so if shots did indeed, come from there, then isn't there a pretty
good chance that one of them hit JFK in the back at 223?
And isn't it an amazing coincidence that JBC began to react at exactly
that point, and that the line from app. T-3, through the throat wound, to
Connally's back wound, forms a perfect line??
And YES, the line is straight - PERFECTLY STRAIGHT. Do *not* make the
mistake of thinking that because some people's T-3 location is lower than
the equivalent of JFK's throat wound, on their own bodies, that the same
is true of him.
Kennedy's anatomy was such that the base of his throat sat considerably
lower than it does on most other people. Look at this photo of him in
profile:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-8242-C.
jpg
Overlay a 10 degree, rising line from the location of his throat wound, to
your right. Tell me it isn't a perfect match. That same line, extended to
JBC, hits him at EXACTLY the location of his (JBC's) back wound.
The 9-10 degree horizontal angle from the alleged sniper's nest strikes
Connally too far to his right.
The 2 degree angle from the Daltex is spot-on.
It seems that nobody in a.c.j. can be bothered to download a free drawing
program and/or invest a dollar in a protractor. If they did, I wouldn't
have had to spend all these years trying to explain this stuff.
> There is NO way a SBT scenario is possible
> based on the medical evidence.
Bullshit!
Cite the evidence - verbatim this time.
> Acccording to the investigation by Fonzi
> and others at the HSCA Brading was the radio man, not the shooter.
That might be. Someone who was with him might have fired the shots. But
I would like to hear about *specific* evidence which suggests that
Braden was the radio operator.
And why would you listen to Fonzi? He claimed in his book that the
*ONLY* evidence for conspiracy was the testimony of Silvia Odio.
And Odio testified that the Cuban exiles who accompanied Oswald, said he
was an isolated, lone "nut" who was "loco" and to their horror, suggested
that JFK should be killed!
Gosh, with supporters like that, we don't need Posner and Bugliosi:-)
Anyway, I will leave the final word(s) to you. Trying to convince ANYBODY
around here to change his thinking is a bit like trying to talk Billy
Graham into becoming an atheist.
That's why I am presenting my analysis to a later generation.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<reharris1-4E08E...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Correction - meant to say too far to his left. Someday I will learn to
proof what I write.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article
> <5b2cfe3b-0585-4e76-9d0f-aaeacc7d5...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
This is not the truth. NO credible medical doctor who saw JFK's body
said there was a connection between the back wound and the throat
wound. NONE. Even the prosectors did not say this until LHO was
gunned down. There is NO credible evidence for the SBT. Period.
> > There were several sets of
> > autopsy reports and Rankin chose to quote the first one when he talked
> > about it in January at the WC executive session. There is NO mention of
> > the SBT until AFTER the SS visited, and most likely intimidated, the
> > Dallas doctors on December 12. On December 13 there is the very first
> > story about the back (now neck) wound coming out the front. The Bethesda
> > doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY before the autopsy was
> > over. Where did Burkley get the T-3 level for the death certificate if
> > NOT from the autopsy doctors?
>
> The Parkland doctors initially believed that the throat wound was of
> entrance, solely because the hole was small. In a majority of cases that
> would be correct, but not in all - especially if the bullet was more
> sharply pointed, as the men who handled the stretcher bullet, said it was.
More bull with no proof. Back up your claim that EXIT wounds are
small and round. You are talking about doctors who had a great deal
of experience working with gunshot wounds, they would certianly
recognize an entrance wound. You are sounding like an LNer Robert.
> > > Also, is he referring to an entry in the neck, or further down on the
> > > back, where the bullet actually entered? If I remember correctly, he was
> > > referring to the neck.
>
> > He was referring to the one and ONLY wound in JFK's front area, the
> > throat.
>
> I guess I didn't make myself clear.
>
> In claiming that the path from the back wound to the throat wound was
> obstructed by bones, wasn't Mantik referring to an entry point at the
> neck, where the WC originally claimed it was?
Yes, the wound in the neck is one of entry. Mantik is certainly not
the first person to say this.
> I don't think he or any other doctor has claimed that this was true of
> all locations on the back.
What??? You are losing me. The point is the back wound was too low,
too much to the right and did NOT transverse the body, this is why any
SBT is NOT possible.
> > > > (in fact some new work by Dr. Mantik suggests the throat
> > > > wound could have been from a piece of glass from the windshield as the
> > > > embalmer/mortician said he had to plug three holes near JFK's right eye
> > > > that were a result of glass).
>
> > > And when did he "remember" this? Forty years later? Finding pieces of
> > > glass in JFK's face would have been a bombshell revelation. Why did it
> > > take him so long?
>
> > He knew it right away as his notes mention it and it took Joe West to find
> > them and produce them (the same poor man who would die under strange
> > circumstances). You can't be this naive can you? IF things do NOT
> > support the offiical theory they got buried.
>
> Well, I found West's notes and there wasn't even a hint that glass hit
> JFK's face.
He mentioned 2 wounds that needed plugging, no he does NOT give the
cause of the wounds, but the WC and the doctors who saw JFK never
mentioned any bullet striking JFK's face, therefore, it is Mantik's
opinion it was glass that caused it. It is a theory, just like the
SBT, but in this theory it is very provable as the only other option
are bullet fragments for the wounds. The only way bullet fragments
could have done this is by hitting the street near the limo, and
witnesses did say they saw this, so it is also possible. LNers won't
accept this because you need more bullets than three for this to
happen. Mantik was putting out an idea, he never claimed it to 100%
possible unlike you SBT folks.
> Why didn't you cite him verbatim?
Where did I say the embalmer, via Joe West, said it was glass? I was
merely pointing out that Mantik came up with this idea based on
leaking holes in JFK's face that needed plugging.
> It makes infinitely more sense that the "shrapnel" was from a missed,
> early shot that struck the pavement to JFK's right, which explains why JFK
> spun sharply to his right and shielded his fact at frame 193, and why
> Kellerman heard him say, "My God I've been hit".
I don't disagree at all, but you are getting off point, the SBT is NOT
possible.
> > > > NONE. I don't care what angle the shot(s)
> > > > came from.
>
> > > But you should. That information is incredibly important, especially
> > > since the trajectories point directly to the only professional criminal
> > > who was apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day, and who obviously, met
> > > with Jack Ruby and other mafia thugs on the eve of the assassination.
>
> > This is a sad trick.
>
> IC.
>
> So, my suggesting that Braden (or whoever was with him in that location)
> took part in the attack, was for the purpose of bamboozling you?? Good
> thing I planned ahead a bit and started talking about this 12 years ago,
> eh:-)
Nice try at "muddying" the waters. The point is I do believe a shot
or shots came from there, but the point is even from this location you
CANNOT prove the SBT to be accurate. Can you?
> Did you know that a line from that office to Tague's location, passes just
> inches to the right of JFK at frame 285? Look at this video:
I know that. Have for 20 years. If a shot came from the TSBD it
would have landed 25 feet to the right of Tague. Again, I am NOT
disputing that shots came from the Dal-Tex building, just that they
did not magically cause a SBT scenario to happen. I have NOT noticed
your proof for this theory.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
> > I mentioned earlier I believe shots came from the
> > Dal-Tex building (along with other locations), but in this point I meant
> > in regards to a SBT scenario.
>
> Ok, so if shots did indeed, come from there, then isn't there a pretty
> good chance that one of them hit JFK in the back at 223?
Yes, but the back wound was too low, too much to the right of the
back, and DID NOT transverse the body. You can repeat this claim a
million times, but it will not change the wounds JFK's body showed.
> And isn't it an amazing coincidence that JBC began to react at exactly
> that point, and that the line from app. T-3, through the throat wound, to
> Connally's back wound, forms a perfect line??
It is harldy a perfect line, especially when the entering bullet was
allegedly travelling downward at 60 degrees from above. This scenario
makes as much sense as the offiical one? Why, if you are a CTer, are
you trying to prove a SBT when there is NO need to? We admit there
were more than three shots and more than one shooter, so I am
perplexed as to your cause here.
> And YES, the line is straight - PERFECTLY STRAIGHT. Do *not* make the
> mistake of thinking that because some people's T-3 location is lower than
> the equivalent of JFK's throat wound, on their own bodies, that the same
> is true of him.
What??? Why would JFK's body be different from everyone elses'? Was
he some human freak or something? Your theory is incorrect and you
have no proof for it.
> Kennedy's anatomy was such that the base of his throat sat considerably
> lower than it does on most other people. Look at this photo of him in
> profile:
NONE of this matters since the back wound did NOT fully penetrate and
exit his body at all. Show me a probe picture showing the bullet path
from the back to the throat. I want to see this.
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-8242-C.
> jpg
>
> Overlay a 10 degree, rising line from the location of his throat wound, to
> your right. Tell me it isn't a perfect match. That same line, extended to
> JBC, hits him at EXACTLY the location of his (JBC's) back wound.
You are making up stuff that is not possible. Show me the probe
picture.
> The 9-10 degree horizontal angle from the alleged sniper's nest strikes
> Connally too far to his right.
>
> The 2 degree angle from the Daltex is spot-on.
I want the probe picture showing the back wound connected to the troat
wound. If you can't produce one, then your theory is sunk like the
official SBT.
> It seems that nobody in a.c.j. can be bothered to download a free drawing
> program and/or invest a dollar in a protractor. If they did, I wouldn't
> have had to spend all these years trying to explain this stuff.
It is because the SBT is bunk, I don't need to do this since NO photo
exists that shows a probe connecting the back wound to the troat wound
at the autopsy. You have NO validity to your theory.
> > There is NO way a SBT scenario is possible
> > based on the medical evidence.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Cite the evidence - verbatim this time.
Wrong!! You are the one claiming it can be done, prove it. Where is
the probe picture connecting these two wounds? Where is your proof
this was even possible?
> > Acccording to the investigation by Fonzi
> > and others at the HSCA Brading was the radio man, not the shooter.
>
> That might be. Someone who was with him might have fired the shots. But
> I would like to hear about *specific* evidence which suggests that
> Braden was the radio operator.
Read the HSCA stuff and Fonzi's book "The Last Investigation",
honesty, if you are a CTer I'm surprised you haven't read it yet.
> And why would you listen to Fonzi? He claimed in his book that the
> *ONLY* evidence for conspiracy was the testimony of Silvia Odio.
Not really, he mentioned many other things, this was his focus as this
is what he investigated for the HSCA in a full-time method. His point
was this one thing showed a conspiracy, as do many other things, but
this was his area of focus.
I could say the same thing about you, why is a supposed CTer saying
the SBT is valid?
> And Odio testified that the Cuban exiles who accompanied Oswald, said he
> was an isolated, lone "nut" who was "loco" and to their horror, suggested
> that JFK should be killed!
A lot of people said things in front of the WC and HSCA that were not
the truth as they were afraid to do anything else. You are digressing
though, as you have failed to prove a SBT scenario is likely.
> Gosh, with supporters like that, we don't need Posner and Bugliosi:-)
Where's YOUR proof?
> Anyway, I will leave the final word(s) to you. Trying to convince ANYBODY
> around here to change his thinking is a bit like trying to talk Billy
> Graham into becoming an atheist.
I am a CTer so you don't have to convince me of a conspiracy, I'm just
why an alleged CTer would support a SBT when there is NO proof for it?
> That's why I am presenting my analysis to a later generation.
Does this mean a less educated one? Your theory is bunk now, it will
be bunk in 10 years.
Raymond
> For anyone out there who still doubts that one bullet passed through
> President Kennedy, these videos should be helpful:
>
>
> also:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA
>
> And a look at Dale Myers analysis:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xP0mH_u_no
>
> Robert Harris
By now, anyone interested in the JFK coup, knows that the Warren
Commission concluded that three shots were fired from the Texas School
Book Depository. Allegedly, the first shot missed completely and no
fragments were recovered. Not sure again, they said that the second shot
hit JFK in the back, exited through his neck, went through John Connally,
and ended up on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. It became known as the
Magic Bullet (C.E. 399). Finally, a third shot became the fatal bullet
that hit JFK in the head. According to students , who agree with the
Warren fable, much of this bullet was recovered in the limousine and in
the body of the President. The only fragment recovered from the Magic
Bullet was allegedly found in the Governor.
NO ONE can PROVE that three shots were fired AT THE MOTORCADE. However. it
appears that three sounds of gunfire WERE HEARD which does not prove that
the three sounds came from the TSBD.
But for now, let's just deal with the weight of 399. Forget about the tale
of its journey to the hospital and its odd discovery.
CE 399 , when recovered, weighed in at 158.6 grains. We do not know the
actuaal weight of the bullet before firing, so we don't know how much of
the slug is missing.
"FBI Firearm's Expert, Robert Frazier weighed three 6.5 mm caliber bullets
chosen at random and found them to weigh 160.85, 161,5 and 161.1 grains.
WC Vol.III, page 430 . Is it possible that CE 399, weighing 158.6 grains,
did not have any weight loss?"
Now before someone informs us that there cannot use mm's and calibers
together, that's correct. The WC may not know the difference.
For anyone interested on how to convert inches to mm's, multiply by 25.4
To convert mm's to inches , multiply by .0394
example:
6.5 mm
X.0394
_____________
0.2561 caliber
HSCA Answer-
"All bullet weights are approximate. Due to the manufacturing
tolerances, it is not possible to determine weight loss without knowing
the actual weight prior to firing. Characteristically, some weight is lost
from a combination of friction, pressure and heat resulting from the
firing process. Impact/ penetration damage may also cause some weight
loss."
ISSUE A-4
"I feel that there would be some difficulty explaining all wounds as
being inflicted by bullet exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of
loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet."- - Dr.
Robert Shaw, WC Hearings, Vol. IV, page 114.
If we are willing to agree that the original bullet weighed 161 grains, we
must believe that only 2.4 grains are missing. That means that if more
than 2.4 grains was in Connally, it was not from CE 399, the alleged
second shot.
According to Robert Frazier, "no more than three or four grains could be
missing from CE 399 and there did not necessarily have to be any weight
loss to the bullet."
There were eight fragment specimens recovered from the Dallas shooting.
Only one of these ( CE 842-Q9 ) was recovered from Connally. It weighed
0.5 grains and was said to come from 399. And since none of the copper
outer skin of 399 was missing and the FBI tested the 0.5 grain fragment
for copper , we can only conclude that the fragment somehow came from the
inner core of the bullet.
There is another problem with the Connally fragments. Dr. Robert Shaw, the
surgeon that operated on the Governor, told the Warren Wizards that he
believed that more than three grains were in the wrist alone.
Audrey Bell, the operating room nurse, stated that there were four or five
fragments " anywhere from three to four millimeters in length and a couple
of millimeters wide. " These fragments disappeared at the autopsy.
In addition, what happened to the fragment found in Connally's leg wound?
Also, there was a fragment in the governor's chest that was never
recovered, He died with fragments still in his body that may have weighed
more than the alleged two or three missing grains from 399, a bullet
described as pristine or near pristine, and the Wizards also say: "The
Governor's wrist would was not caused by a pristine bullet." ( p.94 ).
Only because 399 was found at Parkland did the Warrens have to explain its
part in the drama. They didn't know if it was the bullet that hit JFK and
Connally anymore than any of us do. They didn't know for sure if a shot
missed (WR p.111) They didn't know for sure if the fragments in the car
came from the JFK/ Connally hit or from the head shot. With their
unprofessional logic, they guessed that they came from the head shot. ..
since a shot missed and 399 was from JFK/JC, ergo, the frags had to come
from the head shot. Yet, they weren't sure about the two fragments found
in the car: "The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose and a
lighter fragment consisted of a bullet's base portion." Then, "The two
fragments were both mutilated and it was not possible to determine from
the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one
bullet or of two separate bullets."
If one shot missed the car and one was found complete at Parkland, how
could anyone believe that the fragment nose and base could have come from
separate shots. NO ONE can PROVE that the Parkland bullet was even fired
that day in Dallas. Or, that it was fired through any human body. IF the
JFK murder was a conspiracy, it makes sense that a diversionary shot would
be fired from the knoll so that the authorities would look for the shooter
at that location and the real shooter, in the TSBD would have more time to
exit the building, However, the shot from the knoll would not be fired at
the motorcade. That would have ruined the plan to link LHO alone to the
murder. What if it hit someone in the crowd or was later found and proven
to have come from a weapon other than the MC allegedly beloning to LHO?
There goes the lone gunman nut case .
Doesn't it make sense that the shot fragments to the neck and through
Connally would have remained in the limousine after considering the angle
of the shot? And the head shot would have shattered and mostly gone to the
winds of the plaza. Again considering the angle of the shot and the fact
that the limo had moved farther down Elm St..? Was the fragment that hit
the curb and the one that hit Tague from the head shot. Tague was not sure
what shot resulted in the fragment that hit him. And the curb projectile
was from the inner part of the bullet which should eliminate the alleged
first shot that allegedly missed the limousine altogether..
In a conspiracy, the conspirators could not be SURE that bullet evidence
found after the shooting could be traced to the murder weapon, so firing a
shot from the rifle before 11-22 and leaving it where it could be found
and proven to have come from the murder weapon sure makes sense. Enter the
magic bullet which left no doubt that it came from the 6th floor rifle.
Three shots reported. three shell casings found. One projectile positively
came from the murder weapon The math works out well and the magic bullet
was the assurance, along with the serial number on the MC barrel, that was
the ONLY POSITIVE evidence connecting LHO to the event. This would have
been the prosecutor's only vidence that could have been used against the
ALLEGED killer of JFK. Anything else was circumstantial.
The Warren wizards suspected that there was only two shots fired from the
6th floor. Page 110-111 WR The three shot idea came from the fact that
three shell casings were found on the floor. But, they said that it was
possible that only two shots were fired and the shooter carried an empty
casing in the weapon that was ejected before the shots were fired at the
president. In a conspiracy, that empty third casing would also cover for
the report on the knoll Hoover also suspected that the extra casing was
not fired from the MC that day.
Finally, or at least for now:
The HSCA Analysis /Comments Example # 2: "CE 399 has been termed the
miracle bullet because of the feats attributed to it. The WC never did a
test that simulated all of the wounds but rather simulated each wound
independently. The only way to test 399's believability is to simulate all
seven wounds. This is possible. On the other hand, establishing the facts
surrounding the discovery etc. will be more difficult if not impossible.
"So, basically, what I'm saying is that there are some things that can be
done now and other areas that need to be checked out at least. Let's get
this things delineated and get at it."
From HSCA Archives documents
jfk...@gmail.com
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by identifying which SB
scenario you are pushing by defining which Z-frame your scenario
references.
Raymond
PAGE II
It would be senseless to argue that there was not an explosive
"report" from the Knoll, and a careful analyses of testimonies
clearly indicates that it was the first "report" of three such sounds,
but it
was not necessarily from a rifle. No one saw a weapon fired. And
there was no physical evidence of such a shot. Witnesses did
report seeing and smelling smoke on the Knoll however.
In previous posts, I suggested that the first "report" was a
diversionary pistol shot fired into the air by Jim Brading to draw
attention away from the TSBD's shooter, thus the reason for the extra
cartridge found on the floor along with the other two that had
resulted from the shots AT the motorcade.
Jim Braden was at the Cabana Motel that was visited by Jack Ruby on
Thursday night. He also allegedly went to see the same oil people
that Jack delivered a young lady to see . They were both in the same
building PROBABLY at about the same time.
Jim had his picture taken down by the underpass after the shooting.
(See Groden's picture book). Did you ever read his affidavit? Jim
Braden (Brading) said he was walking down Elm Street trying to GET A
CAB when
he heard someone say that the President had been shot. He then
"Walked
UP AMONG THE PEOPLE." Jim had lived in Dallas at one time and knew,
like everyone else, that walking down Elm Street was not the place to
get a cab. Main Street, by the Adolphus Hotel, or at the Greyhound
Bus
Station was where smart folks went for a cab. Even Lee Oswald went to
the bus
station to get his cab to Oak Cliff.
Besides the three casings, 76.7% of the witnesses said that three
shots were fired. Thirty-five (33.7%) said the shots came from the
Knoll and fifty-six (53.8%) said the TSBD. I personally believe that
both were right.
It is hard to imagine that one third of the witnesses were wrong
when they reported shots from the Grassy Knoll. What is more
interesting is what they said.
SS Agent Clinton Hill said that the second and third shots sounded
alike. they had a different sound..."than the first sound I heard."
Sam Holland; "...I definitely saw a puff of smoke and heard the
report from under the trees."
Frank Reilly:... "at the park where all the shrubs is up
there...up the slope."
James Simmons:... " Fumes of smoke near the embankment."
Austin Miller:..."there is a little plaza on the hill...who threw
the firecracker or whatever it was."
Clemon Johnson:... " white smoke was observed by the pavilion."
Mary Woodward, Maggie Brown, Auretia Lorenzo, Ann Donaldson: All
on the sidewalk said they heard a horrible . "ear-shattering noise
coming from behind us and a little to our right."
John Chism: ..." by the Stemmons sign, I looked behind me,"
Marion Chism;... "It came from behind us."
Ammett Hudson:.. "The shots that I heard definitely came from
behind and above me." He was sitting on the steps on the Knoll.
Ronald Fisher:..." from just west of the TSBD."
Jean Hill: " I frankly thought they were coming from the Knoll."
Others that reported shots from the Knoll: Charles Brehm, Roy
Truly, Virgil Campbell, Mrs. Alvin Hopson, Mrs. Chas. Davis, Dorthy
Ann Garner, Steven Wilson, Otis Williams, Victoria Adams, Billy
Lovelady, Danny Arce, Wesley Frazier, James Jarman, Roger Craig, J.
E. Decker, James Jarman, Harry Weatherford, and many more names can
be
added to the list.
As Ass't. DA Alexander said, "The single bullet is like the
Immaculate Conception. Either you believe it or you don't."
I personally do not believe there was a missed shot.
If I were the master-mind of the murder, I would be sure to provide
evidence that would assure the connection to the rifle and its owner.
And since I could not rely on the future condition of the bullets
actually fired at the occupants of the limousine, I would fire a
bullet through the barrel of the murder weapon before 11-22-63
and be sure to leave it where it would be found. Enter the near
pristine Parkland slug.
And enter Jack Ruby and the Parkland slug.
I do believe that a single bullet transited both men thus the single
bullet, but I will never believe that the Parkland bullet is one and
the same bullet. I believe that the JFK /Connally bullet remained in
the car and the Parkland bullet was planted on the wrong stretcher,
at Parkland, by Jack Ruby, when he failed to plant it in the
limousine
in Dealey Plaza because the car went on to the hospital.
(Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza during the shooting)
SEE:
The Fourth Decade, Volume 4, Issue 2
Current Section: Where Was Jack Ruby on November 21 and November 22?,
by Martha A. Moyer & R.F. Gallagher
At the time of the shooting, Jack Ruby was in front of the Texas
School Book Depository, not in the Dallas Morning News as he claimed.
SEE pictures of Ruby and read " Where was Jack Ruby......."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=519986
.
I would agree that there were three shots fired. At least it
would be hard to argue that 90% of the witnesses did not hear three
SOUNDS that they called gunfire. It is also hard to argue that one of
these shots did not come from the grassy knoll, but it may not have
been a shot at the President. Witnesses said it sounded different
and it was the first sound. Some of us believe that it was Jim
Braden
firing a 38. Cal .pistol into the air as a diversion shot to draw
attention away from the TSBD and allow our shooter to get away. Was
he the Secret Service man that Officer Smith confronted? The
Commission
may have thought so also, since they had a .38 fired on the knoll
during the later reenactment. And how about that bent casing found on
the floor of the TSBD? Most of the gun lovers that I know say that
it
could not have been fired from C-2766 that day or any other day. I
agree. (See Tink Thompson Six Seconds in Dallas.) Was it the empty
casing that the Commission said may have been carried in the rifle?
(P111 WR) If someone fired a diversion shot on the knoll and
witnesses reported three shots - it would help if three casings were
found in the TSBD to make us believe that three shots were fired from
there, NO?
Was Agent Bennett one of them? He was stationed in the right rear
seat of the follow up car. He heard a sound like a firecracker as the
motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. Could that have been Braden and
his .38 ? Bennett then said, " I looked at the back of the
President.
I heard another firecracker noise and SAW THAT SHOT HIT THE
PRESIDENT
ABOUT FOUR INCHES DOWN THE RIGHT SHOULDER. A second shot followed
immediately and hit the right rear of the President's head.
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observation. Although his
formal statement was dated Nov, 23, 1963, his notes indicated that he
recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 PM 11-22-63 , on the airplane
en route to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet
known that the President had been hit in the back.
Dealey Plaza drawing:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmapL.htm