Extra Bullets & Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
Michael T. Griffith
EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA
Michael T. Griffith
1996
@All Rights Reserved
Revised on 12/10/97
With the discovery that the single-bullet theory (SBT) is
very probably a physical impossibility, it is perhaps appropriate
to review the evidence of extra bullets and misses in Dealey
Plaza. Since it now seems clear that the SBT is impossible, we
can be very confident that more than one gunman fired at
President Kennedy. We can also be virtually certain that,
contrary to the lone-gunman theory, more than three bullets were
fired during the shooting. This being the case, researchers need
to take another look at the accounts of extra bullets striking in
Dealey Plaza during the shooting, and to reconsider the
implications of the subsequent finding of additional bullets and
weapons in the area.
Extra Bullets and Weapons
-------------------------
* Among the files released by the Assassination Records
Review Board (ARRB) was an FBI evidence envelope (FBI Field
Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122). Although the envelope was empty,
the cover indicated it had contained a 7.65 mm rifle shell that
had been found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. The envelope
is dated 2 December 1963, so the shell was found sometime
between 11/22/63 and 12/2/63. Nothing was known about
the discovery of this shell until the FBI evidence envelope
was released along with other assassination-related files.
* Also released by the ARRB was an FBI report on the
discovery of a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver
near Dealey Plaza. The weapon was found the morning after the
assassination in the "immediate vicinity" of the Texas School
Book Depository (TSBD) Building. The revolver was found hidden
in a small brown paper bag. The FBI has not revealed how its
investigation of the gun was concluded, despite repeated Freedom
of Information requests (Summers 100).
* Other documents released by the ARRB discuss a Johnson
semi-automatic 30.06 rifle that was apparently found in Dealey
Plaza soon after the shooting. The documents strongly
link this rifle to two men who have long been suspected of
being involved in the assassination plot, Loran Hall and Jerry
Patrick Hemming. The files also reveal that the FBI took a
strong interest in the history and ownership of this rifle within
hours of the shooting. A man named Richard Hathcock, who lived
in California at the time, had kept the rifle in his office for a
while. The day after the assassination, an FBI agent questioned
him about the weapon. Among other things, the agent wanted to
know if Hathcock had an employee named Roy Payne, who apparently
knew a great deal about the rifle. In one of the released files,
we read that Hathcock said the following:
It's my opinion that the reason he [the FBI agent]
wanted to see Mr. Payne was because Payne's
fingerprints undoubtedly were all over that rifle from
his having handled it many times. It's also my opinion
that unless that particular rifle had been found [near
the scene of the crime] or in some way involved in
this whole thing [the assassination], that the FBI
would have no interest in it. (HSCA 180-10107-
10443)
This rifle had quite a history. It was used in
CIA-connected anti-Castro raids in Cuba. Roy Payne said the
weapon could "put a hole in a dime at 500 yards" (HSCA
180-10107-10440). Loran Hall and an unidentified Hispanic man
took the weapon from Payne about a week before the assassination.
Hall's associate, Jerry Hemming, is known to have been in Dallas
on the day of the shooting, and Hall himself told Hathcock five
days prior to the assassination that he had to catch a flight to
Dallas (HSCA 180-10107-10440).
* In 1975 a maintenance man named Morgan, while working
on the roof of the County Records Building in Dealey Plaza,
found a 30.06 shell casing lying under a lip of roofing tar at
the base of the roof's parapet on the side facing the plaza,
according to his son, Dean Morgan. The shell casing is dated
1953 and marks on it indicate it was made at the Twin Cities
Arsenal. One side of the casing has been pitted by exposure to
the weather, suggesting that it was exposed on the roof for some
time. The casing, which is still in Morgan's possession, has an
odd crimp around its neck (Marrs 317; Roberts 80-81).
This shell casing is evidence that a sabot may have been
used to fire ammunition from a 30.06 rifle during the
assassination. A sabot is a plastic sleeve that enables a
larger-caliber weapon to fire a smaller-caliber missile. The
smaller missile then exhibits the ballistic features of the
weapon from which it was originally fired. What this means is
that someone could have fired bullets designed for the alleged
murder weapon into water, recovered them, and then reloaded them
into the more accurate and powerful 30.06. By doing this, the
fragments from these bullets would exhibit the characteristics of
the alleged murder weapon.
Extra Misses
------------
The term "extra misses" implies that one miss has already
been documented. This miss is the bullet which struck the south
Main Street curb in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. It
landed about 25 feet from James Tague, who was standing
next to the triple underpass. The bullet made a visible scar
in the curb, and the mark was immediately recognized by those
who saw it as a fresh bullet mark. (The mark might have been
made by a sizeable fragment from a bullet that struck nearby, but
it was probably caused by a bullet.)
Warren Commission (WC) supporters strain to explain this
mark. Most now deny it was made by a bullet. Instead,
they say, it was caused by a fragment. But the closest
bullet they can produce from which this fragment could have
come is the missile that struck the President in the head at
frame 312 in the Zapruder film. However, the mark on the curb
was over 200 feet from the limousine's position at Z312. In
addition, a fragment from the head shot would have just
finished plowing through a human skull, and, to make matters
worse, would have had to somehow fly over the limo's support
bar and windshield just to clear the car.
Another theory has been advanced by Gerald Posner in his
book CASE CLOSED. Posner opines that the sixth-floor gunman
fired at around Z160, that this missile struck a branch of the
intervening oak tree, that the lead core separated from the
bullet's jacket as a result of striking the tree branch, and
that this lead fragment traveled over 400 feet and struck the
curb! Even many WC supporters reject this forced, unlikely
theory. The WC stated that the sixth-floor gunman would have
had a clear view of the limousine until Z166 (see also CE 889).
Now, let us consider some of the accounts of extra misses
striking in Dealey Plaza during the shooting:
* Dallas policeman J. W. Foster, who was positioned on top
of the triple underpass, saw a bullet strike the grass on the
south side of Elm Street near a manhole cover, about 350 feet
from the TSBD. He reported this to a superior officer and was
instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris 72-75; Marrs 315).
Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the
spot where the bullet landed. An unidentified blond-haired man
in a suit was photographed bending down, reaching out his left
hand toward the dug-out point on the ground as if to pick up
something, standing back up, apparently holding a small object in
his hand, and then putting his hand in his pocket (Shaw and
Harris 73-74). The hole made by the bullet was even
photographed, and the picture appeared in the FORT WORTH
STAR-TELEGRAM on 11/23/63.
In his WC testimony, Officer Foster did not address the
issue of whether or not the unidentified man in the suit
retrieved a bullet from the grass near the manhole cover. Foster
did, however, say that a bullet "had hit the turf there at that
location."
Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was
retrieved from the dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole
cover. For example, when the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM published
a photo of the hole in the grass, it included the following
caption:
One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of
President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm
Street. . . .
The next day the DALLAS TIMES HERALD, in referring to the
hole in the grass, reported:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated
the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the
spot where one of the bullets was recovered at
100 yards.
Newsman Richard Dudman said the following about this miss
and the recovered bullet in the 12/21/63 issue of the NEW
REPUBLIC:
On the day the President was shot I happened to
learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police
officers were examining the area at the side of the street
where the President was hit, and a police inspector told
me they had just found another bullet in the grass.
Richard Trask, dismissing all evidence to the contrary,
argues that the blond-haired man did not pick up a bullet from
the hole in the grass (Trask 497-498, 542-543). Trask rests his
case almost totally on the fact that the two of the photographers
who took pictures of the event, Jim Murray and Bill Allen, later
denied that a bullet was found. But neither Murray nor Allen
could say positively that a bullet was NOT found; rather, they
simply did not BELIEVE that a bullet had been found. Nor did
either of them explain exactly what it was that the unidentified
man picked up and put in his pocket. Trask concedes that the
photographic record of the event does not refute the accounts
of a bullet being recovered from the hole in the grass. He also
acknowledges that in the photos the left hand of the unidentified
man in the suit is "cupped" after he stands up, which would
certainly suggest he was holding something.
Murray said he accepted "the later speculation" that the
hole and accompanying mound in the grass were made by "brain
matter from Kennedy's skull." Are we to believe that the
unidentified man in the suit picked up brain matter and put it in
his pocket? If the hole was made by brain matter, why did the
Dallas police maintain a guard over the hole for the next several
hours? Why did not a single police or FBI report mention the
finding of brain matter at this location? And what about the
credible contemporary accounts that a bullet was recovered from
the hole in the grass?
Allen said he didn't believe a bullet was found because
neither Walthers, Foster, nor the blond-haired man specifically
mentioned having just picked up a bullet after the man stood up.
But this was surely a rather weak reason for concluding the man
didn't pick up a bullet. Furthermore, as mentioned, when newsman
Richard Dudman entered the area at the side of Elm Street where
the President had been shot, a police inspector informed him that
they had "found another bullet in the grass." In point of fact,
the discovery of the bullet in the grass near the manhole cover
was photographed and widely reported in the press. It was,
however, quickly dismissed and then ignored by federal
investigators because they were already committed to a scenario
of only three shots fired by a lone gunman from the sixth floor
of the Book Depository Building.
In the photos taken of this event, i.e., the finding and
removal of the bullet, one can see Officer Foster and a
civilian-clothed Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers standing over the
spot where the bullet landed, along with the unidentified man in
the suit. It has been suggested that the man was a federal agent
of some kind. Given the man's dress and appearance, this is not
an unreasonable suggestion. Dallas police chief Jesse Curry
believed the man was an FBI agent, and some researchers have
tentatively identified the man as FBI Agent Robert Barrett.
As mentioned, the identity of the blond-haired man is
unknown. The recovered bullet was never entered into evidence,
and its present whereabouts are not known.
* Officer Foster also reported that a bullet struck the
concrete part of the abovementioned manhole cover. It is not
known if this was the same missile that made the dug-out hole in
the grass a few feet from the manhole cover. The bullet might
have skipped off the manhole cover and then imbedded itself in
the grass. Or, the mark on the concrete could have been made by
a separate bullet, and thus would represent another miss fired
from the same approximate location. The sewer cover and the hole
in the turf were about 3-5 feet apart, and the latter was farther
down the side of Elm Street (that is, it was slightly farther
away from the TSBD than was the sewer cover).
About two and a half hours after the shooting, Dealey Plaza
witness John Martin came across the mark on the manhole cover.
He immediately identified it as a bullet mark. He then told a
policeman, "you better get your boss down here to check this
thing out, because that will show where the bullet came from"
(Trask 573).
Researchers have noted that the photo of the mark indicates
it did NOT come from the TSBD. The mark can be seen on the
twelfth photo page in the second set of photographs in Harrison
Livingstone and Robert Groden's book HIGH TREASON. One can
readily see that the angle of the mark does not line up with the
Book Depository, but that it does line up with the County Records
Building. It might be worth recalling that a 30.06 rifle shell
casing was later found on the roof of the County Records
Building.
* Just after President Kennedy's limousine passed the front
steps of the TSBD, five witnesses saw a bullet strike the
pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of the limousine.
Witnesses saw this bullet kick up concrete toward the car
(Weisberg 187-189; cf. Posner 324; Moore 198) (Posner attempts to
explain this miss with his bullet-limb-collision theory.)
* Within a day or two of the assassination, Dallas resident
Eugene Aldredge saw a dug-out, four-inch-long bullet mark in the
middle of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street, which is
the side nearest the TSBD. Aldredge did not tell the FBI about
the mark until shortly after the release of the WARREN COMMISSION
REPORT because he assumed, logically enough, that the mark had
surely been noticed by law enforcement officials and would be
discussed in full in the Commission's report. When he realized
that the mark apparently had been "overlooked," he immediately
contacted the FBI and told them about it (Weisberg 383-390).
Aldredge related to the FBI that Carl Freund, a reporter for the
DALLAS MORNING NEWS, had also identified the mark as a bullet
mark.
Less than a week after Aldredge informed the FBI of the
mark's existence and location, he took a friend to see it. They
found the mark, but saw that it had been altered--it had been
filled in. Said Aldredge,
. . . we went to the site and found the mark, [which was]
formerly about 1/4 inch deep, had been filled in with what
appeared to be a mixture of concrete and asbestos. . . .
A crude attempt had been made to make the altered
mark appear to be weather-worn to match the surrounding
concrete.
In its report on the mark, the FBI admitted to locating it
and described it as being approximately 4 inches long, 1/2
inch wide, and "dug out." And why did the FBI dismiss the
significance of this mark? Because, explained the Bureau, it
could not have been made by a shot from the window from which
Oswald allegedly fired.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith is a two-time graduate of
the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of
the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo,
Texas. He is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient
religious texts. His articles on the assassination have appeared
in DALLAS '63, in DATELINE: DALLAS, in THE ASSASSINATION
CHRONICLES, and in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO. He is also the author
of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION
OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, Texas: JFK-Lancer
Productions and Publications, 1996).
Bibliography
------------
Groden, Robert and Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH
TREASON, Berkley Books Edition, New York: Berkley Book, 1990.
Marrs, Jim, CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY, New
York: Carroll and Graf, 1989.
Moore, Jim, CONSPIRACY OF ONE, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group,
1991.
Posner, Gerald, CASE CLOSED, New York: Random House, 1993.
Roberts, Craig, KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY
PLAZA, Typhoon Press, 1994.
Shaw, J. Gary and Larry Harris, COVER-UP, Second Edition,
Austin: Thomas Publications, 1992.
Summers, Anthony and Robbyn, "The Ghosts of November,"
VANITY FAIR, December 1994, pp. 86-139.
Trask, Richard, PICTURES OF THE PAIN: PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, Danvers, Massachusetts:
Yeoman Press, 1994.
Weisberg, Harold, NEVER AGAIN: THE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY IN
THE JFK ASSASSINATION, New York: Carroll and Graf/Richard Gallen,
1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2
"No success can compensate for failure in the home." -- David
O. McKay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Michael Beck
>
> EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA
>
> Michael T. Griffith
> 1996
> @All Rights Reserved
> Revised on 12/10/97
>
> With the discovery that the single-bullet theory (SBT) is
>very probably a physical impossibility, it is perhaps appropriate
>to review the evidence of extra bullets and misses in Dealey
>Plaza. Since it now seems clear that the SBT is impossible, we
snipping the rest of this fiction...
Stop right there!!!!
It is *not* clear that the SBT is "very probably a physical
impossibility"
That is the only explanation that coherently covers all the bases.
Your theory is wild speculation that is not backed up by facts.
Martin Shackelford
Michael:
I understand that a new computer simulation was presented at the
JFK Lancer conference, by Joachim Markus of Germany. Unlike Dale Myers'
simulation (and the WC's FBI and Secret Service reconstructions), which
included only the limousine, JFK and JBC and the physical plaza itself,
Markus included the Secret Service followup car and occupants, and many
of the spectators. Apparently, this created new problems for the Single
Bullet Theory, as the obstacles in the theoretical path of the bullet
ruled it out at key points. I have heard that the simulation will be
released on a CD-ROM, and am looking forward to the opportunity to study
it.
Martin
George Lamm, Jr.
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:05:33 -0500, "Michael T. Griffith"
> <MGrif...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Michael T. Griffith
> > 1996
> > @All Rights Reserved
> > Revised on 12/10/97
> >
> > With the discovery that the single-bullet theory (SBT) is
> >very probably a physical impossibility, it is perhaps appropriate
> >to review the evidence of extra bullets and misses in Dealey
> >Plaza. Since it now seems clear that the SBT is impossible, we
>
> Stop right there!!!!
>
> It is *not* clear that the SBT is "very probably a physical
> impossibility"
>
> That is the only explanation that coherently covers all the bases.
> Your theory is wild speculation that is not backed up by facts.
Mike...
Why stop there why not answer the rest of his post... point by
point???? I've copied his entire post below...later... george
Todd Wayne Vaughan
Michael,
Regarding the .38 revolver, you've changed the wording of
your article from found "in Dealey Plaza", to found "near Dealey
Plaza".
Care to explain why???
Exactly where was that pistol found Mike???
Todd
--
Todd Wayne Vaughan
Jean Davison
Michael T. Griffith <MGrif...@compuserve.com> wrote in article
<01bd0646$5890bd80$LocalHost@default>...
>
> EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA
>
> Michael T. Griffith
> 1996
> @All Rights Reserved
> Revised on 12/10/97
>
>
> * Dallas policeman J. W. Foster, who was positioned on top
> of the triple underpass, saw a bullet strike the grass on the
> south side of Elm Street near a manhole cover, about 350 feet
> from the TSBD. He reported this to a superior officer and was
> instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris 72-75; Marrs 315).
>
> Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the
> spot where the bullet landed. An unidentified blond-haired man
> in a suit was photographed bending down, reaching out his left
> hand toward the dug-out point on the ground as if to pick up
> something, standing back up, apparently holding a small object in
> his hand, and then putting his hand in his pocket (Shaw and
> Harris 73-74). The hole made by the bullet was even
> photographed, and the picture appeared in the FORT WORTH
> STAR-TELEGRAM on 11/23/63.
Have you seen the enlarged photo of this "small object" the man picked
up, Mike? In the enlargement in Shaw/Harris' book, it's very irregular in
shape and somewhat larger than a bullet, as I recall. It sure didn't look
like a bullet to me. Other photos of this scene are in TKOAP, p. 68. One
shows the blond-haired man reaching down. Notice that there are four dark
spots on the grass near his hand. What could those be?
> In his WC testimony, Officer Foster did not address the
> issue of whether or not the unidentified man in the suit
> retrieved a bullet from the grass near the manhole cover. Foster
> did, however, say that a bullet "had hit the turf there at that
> location."
As I remember it, Foster DID address this issue. He was asked if a
bullet was found and said, "No, it ricocheted on out." (I'm quoting from
memory, but if that's inaccurate I hope someone will speak up.) Anyhow, he
did deny finding a bullet, that I'm sure of.
> Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was
> retrieved from the dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole
> cover. For example, when the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM published
> a photo of the hole in the grass, it included the following
> caption:
>
> One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of
> President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm
> Street. . . .
>
> The next day the DALLAS TIMES HERALD, in referring to the
> hole in the grass, reported:
>
> Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated
> the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the
> spot where one of the bullets was recovered at
> 100 yards.
>
> Newsman Richard Dudman said the following about this miss
> and the recovered bullet in the 12/21/63 issue of the NEW
> REPUBLIC:
>
> On the day the President was shot I happened to
> learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police
> officers were examining the area at the side of the street
> where the President was hit, and a police inspector told
> me they had just found another bullet in the grass.
And the press initially reported that Jim Brady was dead and Reagan
wasn't injured. There was numerous false press reports in the beginning,
and that's not unusual.
> Richard Trask, dismissing all evidence to the contrary,
> argues that the blond-haired man did not pick up a bullet from
> the hole in the grass (Trask 497-498, 542-543). Trask rests his
> case almost totally on the fact that the two of the photographers
> who took pictures of the event, Jim Murray and Bill Allen, later
> denied that a bullet was found. But neither Murray nor Allen
> could say positively that a bullet was NOT found; rather, they
> simply did not BELIEVE that a bullet had been found.
Well, yeah, but the "evidence to the contrary" you quote above is
secondhand info, too. Even Curry (if he was quoted correctly) wasn't there
to see it firsthand.
> Nor did
> either of them explain exactly what it was that the unidentified
> man picked up and put in his pocket. Trask concedes that the
> photographic record of the event does not refute the accounts
> of a bullet being recovered from the hole in the grass. He also
> acknowledges that in the photos the left hand of the unidentified
> man in the suit is "cupped" after he stands up, which would
> certainly suggest he was holding something.
Holding *something*, I agree, it looks that way.
> Murray said he accepted "the later speculation" that the
> hole and accompanying mound in the grass were made by "brain
> matter from Kennedy's skull." Are we to believe that the
> unidentified man in the suit picked up brain matter and put it in
> his pocket?
The brain matter and pieces of skull seen exploding in Z313 had to come
down somewhere. He may not have picked up "brain matter," but could it
have been an irregular-shaped piece of bone?
> If the hole was made by brain matter, why did the
> Dallas police maintain a guard over the hole for the next several
> hours? Why did not a single police or FBI report mention the
> finding of brain matter at this location? And what about the
> credible contemporary accounts that a bullet was recovered from
> the hole in the grass?
Rather loaded questions there, Mike, I would say.<g> Could the hole
in the grass have been made by a fragment from the head-shot bullet which
"ricocheted on out"? And though I'm speculating, of course, I think it's
quite possible that the police might've stood guard over this grisly brain
matter "evidence," if that's what it was. (Any other ideas about what
those dark spots on the grass might've been?)
> Allen said he didn't believe a bullet was found because
> neither Walthers, Foster, nor the blond-haired man specifically
> mentioned having just picked up a bullet after the man stood up.
> But this was surely a rather weak reason for concluding the man
> didn't pick up a bullet.
No, Mike, Foster *denied* finding a bullet. So did Walthers. On
December 13, 1967, he told a reporter "that the object was not a bullet but
a piece of the President's skull" (quoting the Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate,
March 17, 1968)
> Furthermore, as mentioned, when newsman
> Richard Dudman entered the area at the side of Elm Street where
> the President had been shot, a police inspector informed him that
> they had "found another bullet in the grass." In point of fact,
> the discovery of the bullet in the grass near the manhole cover
> was photographed and widely reported in the press. It was,
> however, quickly dismissed and then ignored by federal
> investigators because they were already committed to a scenario
> of only three shots fired by a lone gunman from the sixth floor
> of the Book Depository Building.
The discovery of *something* "in the grass...was photographed," true,
but not necessarily a bullet, in my opinion. It may've been "quickly
dismissed" because the reports of a bullet were erroneous, as suggested by
Foster's and Walther's statements. The reason doesn't always have to be
the work of a nefarious cover-up crew.
> In the photos taken of this event, i.e., the finding and
> removal of the bullet, one can see Officer Foster and a
> civilian-clothed Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers standing over the
> spot where the bullet landed, along with the unidentified man in
> the suit. It has been suggested that the man was a federal agent
> of some kind. Given the man's dress and appearance, this is not
> an unreasonable suggestion. Dallas police chief Jesse Curry
> believed the man was an FBI agent, and some researchers have
> tentatively identified the man as FBI Agent Robert Barrett.
According to other posts I've seen recently, Barrett has been ruled
out, based on a comparison with other photos known to be of him.
> As mentioned, the identity of the blond-haired man is
> unknown. The recovered bullet was never entered into evidence,
> and its present whereabouts are not known.
Souvenir hunters are an American tradition, it seems. If someone did
pick up a piece of skull, maybe he didn't want to admit it. Or could this
be a piece of skull that was sent to Bethesda and received during the
autopsy? (I don't know, I'm just asking.)
> * Officer Foster also reported that a bullet struck the
> concrete part of the abovementioned manhole cover. It is not
> known if this was the same missile that made the dug-out hole in
> the grass a few feet from the manhole cover. The bullet might
> have skipped off the manhole cover and then imbedded itself in
> the grass. Or, the mark on the concrete could have been made by
> a separate bullet, and thus would represent another miss fired
> from the same approximate location. The sewer cover and the hole
> in the turf were about 3-5 feet apart, and the latter was farther
> down the side of Elm Street (that is, it was slightly farther
> away from the TSBD than was the sewer cover).
Someone who saw this mark in the concrete on a trip to Dallas has
said that it looked to him like a space left when an object such as a small
stick had been removed from the wet concrete -- that's just an opinion, of
course. But shouldn't you establish first that a bullet is capable of
gouging out a deep mark in concrete, as opposed to, say, splattering or
ricocheting off? Has anyone tested this?
<snip, snip>
Jean
John Ritchson
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
[snip]
Greetings,Would you be good enough to provide some hard data on the
aformentioned rifle?The reason for my request is that I know of
no commercially manufactored rifles of any caliber bearing the name
Johnson.
There are several gun-smiths by the name of Johnson, Joe L.out of
El Paso,Texas and Leonard out of Cruthersville, Missouri who both used
to custom-make rifles.But if this rifle was in fact custom made,it
would be very easy to trace provided it was a lawfully done deal.
At any rate, I am very interested in finding out anything I can
regarding this rifle.
Regards,
John Ritchson(SSGT.499th TC USATC HG US Army,Class of 69)
(Master-Machinest,Gun-Smith,Ballistician, )
(and Survivor of the US Foreign-Policy )
(Experiment in SE Asia.[11bravo7,RVN 70-71])
***********************************************************
Not even the strength of mighty armys can match the power
of a single Idea who's time has come.(Victor Hugo)
***********************************************************
Bruce J Schuck
Jean Davison wrote in message
<01bd0779$c7e5b800$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
It is clear they are depressions in the dirt where small handfulls of dirt
have been removed as if someone had been searching for an object by hand.
> As I remember it, Foster DID address this issue. He was asked if a
>bullet was found and said, "No, it ricocheted on out." (I'm quoting from
>memory, but if that's inaccurate I hope someone will speak up.) Anyhow, he
>did deny finding a bullet, that I'm sure of.
Please go ahead and prove this.
My memory of his testimony is that he clearly saw a bullet impact.
Bill Hamley
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:51:23 -0500, Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
wrote:
Martin, It was a veru interesting presentation. It even included a trajectory
from behind the picket fence that was used for the throat wound, believe
it or not the bullet hit nothing but JFK and Elm St. Not sure that the project
does not need a refinement thou. At least in my mind there are some areas
that I question. The method does appear to have merit and I had an opportunity
to talk to Joachim Markus after the presentation. He has done some amazing
things with his program in the area of police work and crime scene
reconstruction. I'm looking forward to the CD-ROM too.
Bill
Jean Davison
Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> wrote in article
<66udlv$au1$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> ><01bd0646$5890bd80$LocalHost@default>...
> >>
> >> EXTRA BULLETS AND MISSED SHOTS IN DEALEY PLAZA
> >>
> >> Michael T. Griffith
> >> 1996
> >> @All Rights Reserved
> >> Revised on 12/10/97
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Have you seen the enlarged photo of this "small object" the man picked
> >up, Mike? In the enlargement in Shaw/Harris' book, it's very irregular
in
> >shape and somewhat larger than a bullet, as I recall. It sure didn't
look
> >like a bullet to me. Other photos of this scene are in TKOAP, p. 68.One
> >shows the blond-haired man reaching down. Notice that there are four
dark
> >spots on the grass near his hand. What could those be?
>
dirt
> have been removed as if someone had been searching for an object by hand.
To me, the TKOAP photo isn't clear enough to be sure exactly what
those dark spots are.
>
> > As I remember it, Foster DID address this issue. He was asked if a
> >bullet was found and said, "No, it ricocheted on out." (I'm quoting
from
> >memory, but if that's inaccurate I hope someone will speak up.)
> > Anyhow, he did deny finding a bullet, that I'm sure of.
>
>
> Please go ahead and prove this.
>
> My memory of his testimony is that he clearly saw a bullet impact.
>
Prove that he denied finding a bullet? Sure. I didn't claim that he
denied seeing a bullet impact (or what he thought was a bullet impact).
From his testimony in volume VI, p. 252:
MR. BALL. What did you do after that?
MR. FOSTER. I moved to---down the roadway there, down to see if I
could find where any of the shots hit.
[.....]
B. Did you recover any bullet?
F. No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
Walthers also testified that he didn't find a bullet, even when he and
another deputy returned to the scene later and searched again. (VII, 550)
Jean
Fathom
In article <01bd0817$6647e660$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
<dav...@together.net> wrote:
> (or what he thought was a bullet impact).
> From his testimony in volume VI, p. 252:
>
> MR. BALL. What did you do after that?
> MR. FOSTER. I moved to---down the roadway there, down to see if I
> could find where any of the shots hit.
> [.....]
> B. Did you recover any bullet?
> F. No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
IOW, he testified that he *did* find a place well away from both the limo
and Tague's curb, where he was convinced a stray bullet had impacted. If
he was right, it makes another (fifth? sixth?) bullet ignored by the WC;
whether it was picked up or not is scarcely
material, if his observation could be trusted.
How distinctive would a bullet streak be on a wet lawn?
Recognition of bullet impacts was also a central controversy in the RFK
investigation, BTW.
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
Disagree at your peril.
Todd Wayne Vaughan
>>>My memory of his testimony is that he clearly saw a bullet
impact.<<<
Foster NEVER, EVER, said, ANYWHERE, that he saw a bullet strike
the manole area. What he has said, consistantly, is that he sound
where he thought one had struck, after the fact.
Jean Davison
Fathom <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in article
<no-spam-1412...@d176.pm5.sonic.net>...
> In article <01bd0817$6647e660$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
> <dav...@together.net> wrote:
>
> > (or what he thought was a bullet impact).
> > From his testimony in volume VI, p. 252:
> >
> > MR. BALL. What did you do after that?
> > MR. FOSTER. I moved to---down the roadway there, down to see if I
> > could find where any of the shots hit.
> > [.....]
> > B. Did you recover any bullet?
> > F. No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
>
>
> IOW, he testified that he *did* find a place well away from both the limo
> and Tague's curb, where he was convinced a stray bullet had impacted. If
> he was right, it makes another (fifth? sixth?) bullet ignored by the WC;
> whether it was picked up or not is scarcely
> material, if his observation could be trusted.
distance from the limo at Z313 -- I think about 60 feet, but possibly someone
else knows the exact figure. Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of the
TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with Tague's
position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that. A good
portion of the fatal bullet wasn't recovered and evidently flew out of the car.
I wouldn't say the WC ignored it. Foster was asked about it, and Walthers,
too. For instance, WC counsel Ball questioned Foster:
B. I show you a picture here of a concrete slab, or manhole cover. Do you
recognize that picture?
F. Yes, sir.
B. Does the picture show -- tell me what it shows there.
F. This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here
[indicating].
B. See any mark on the manhole cover?
F. No,sir; I don't. Not on the -- well, it is on the turf, on the concrete,
right in the corner.
B. Can you put an arrow showing the approximate place you saw that?
There's a picture of the manhole cover in TKOAP, p. 41, but I can't actually
see anything that looks like a bullet impact, can you?
<snip>
> These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
> Disagree at your peril.
>
Sure hope I haven't gotten myself in big trouble here, Fathom.<g> Jean
John McAdams
Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca.nospamatall> wrote:
: In article <01bd0ca2$af741ea0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison" <dav...@together.net> wrote:
: >Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
: >line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of
: > the
: >TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with Tague's
: >position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that.
: You are. The FBI said that the "snipers nest", Limo and Tague only lined
: up at the equivalent of frame 410 of the Zapruder film.
Bruce, the "only lined up" statement of yours above assumes that there was
absolutely positively zero horizontal deflection of the bullet fragment
leaving Kennedy's head.
But there is no reason to assume that.
.John
Bruce J Schuck
In article <01bd0ca2$af741ea0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison" <dav...@together.net> wrote:
>> <dav...@together.net> wrote:
>>
>> > (or what he thought was a bullet impact).
>> > From his testimony in volume VI, p. 252:
>> >
>> > MR. BALL. What did you do after that?
>> > MR. FOSTER. I moved to---down the roadway there, down to see if I
>> > could find where any of the shots hit.
>> > [.....]
>> > B. Did you recover any bullet?
>> > F. No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
>>
>>
>> IOW, he testified that he *did* find a place well away from both the limo
>> and Tague's curb, where he was convinced a stray bullet had impacted. If
>> he was right, it makes another (fifth? sixth?) bullet ignored by the WC;
>> whether it was picked up or not is scarcely
>> material, if his observation could be trusted.
>
>
> Yes, Foster did believe a bullet had impacted there. I'm not sure of the
>distance from the limo at Z313 -- I think about 60 feet, but possibly someone
>else knows the exact figure.
About 200-250 feet. The Limo was just slightly closer to Tague at 313 than
from the snipers nest, and the nest was 265 feet away from the Limo.
You really should take a look at an overhead photo of Dealey Plaza
before making such poor guesses.
>Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
>line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of
> the
>TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with Tague's
>position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that.
You are. The FBI said that the "snipers nest", Limo and Tague only lined
up at the equivalent of frame 410 of the Zapruder film.
JFK was very dead by then.
>A good
>portion of the fatal bullet wasn't recovered and evidently flew out of the car.
Not if it was going downwards from the TSBD. In that case it would have
ended up going through the floor.
However, a shot from the right front could well have hit JFK above the right
eye and exited from the top of the head near the coronal suture and missed
the limo completely.
Remove the nospamatall from my e-mail address
Bruce J Schuck
In article <67fmut$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>, John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca.nospamatall> wrote:
> <dav...@together.net> wrote:
>
>
>: >Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
>: >line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of
>: > the
>: >TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with
> Tague's
>: >position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that.
>
>: You are. The FBI said that the "snipers nest", Limo and Tague only lined
>: up at the equivalent of frame 410 of the Zapruder film.
>
>
>absolutely positively zero horizontal deflection of the bullet fragment
>leaving Kennedy's head.
That's *exactly* what the various proponents of the SBT and rear head
shot assume when trying to pin the blame on Oswald.
Once deflection within the body is considered, then all trajectory
analysis work pointing back to the TSBD "snipers nest" is totally
invalid.
Good point perfessor.
Jean Davison
Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
<01bd0cec$2b0e1400$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca.nospamatall> wrote in article
<67fgmd$1q0$2...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> In article <01bd0ca2$af741ea0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
<dav...@together.net> wrote:
> >distance from the limo at Z313 -- I think about 60 feet, but possibly someone
> >else knows the exact figure.
>
> About 200-250 feet. The Limo was just slightly closer to Tague at 313 than
> from the snipers nest, and the nest was 265 feet away from the Limo.
That sounds about right, but I was talking about the distance between
the limo and the manhole cover, not Tague, when I said "60 feet."
> You really should take a look at an overhead photo of Dealey Plaza
> before making such poor guesses.
I did.<g>
> >Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
> >line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of
> > the
> >TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with
> >Tague's
> >position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that.
> You are. The FBI said that the "snipers nest", Limo and Tague only lined
> up at the equivalent of frame 410 of the Zapruder film.
I realize that it doesn't line up exactly, which is why I said "fairly
well, though not perfectly." The alignment is close enough that Josiah Thompson
argued that Tague was hit by a fragment from the head shot bullet.
> >A good
> >portion of the fatal bullet wasn't recovered and evidently flew out of the
> >car.
> >
> Not if it was going downwards from the TSBD. In that case it would have
> ended up going through the floor.
Evidently not, since pieces of a bullet fired from behind hit the
windshield and dented the chrome above it.
> However, a shot from the right front could well have hit JFK above the right
> eye and exited from the top of the head near the coronal suture and missed
> the limo completely.
I'm looking at Z312, Bruce, and it seems to me that such a shot would've had
to be fired by Mrs. Connally. Jean
>
Bruce J Schuck
In article <01bd0d81$8b1b3400$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison" <dav...@together.net> wrote:
>Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
><01bd0cec$2b0e1400$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
>Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca.nospamatall> wrote in article
><67fgmd$1q0$2...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>> In article <01bd0ca2$af741ea0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
><dav...@together.net> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, Foster did believe a bullet had impacted there. I'm not sure of
> the
>> >distance from the limo at Z313 -- I think about 60 feet, but possibly
> someone
>> >else knows the exact figure.
>>
>> About 200-250 feet. The Limo was just slightly closer to Tague at 313 than
>> from the snipers nest, and the nest was 265 feet away from the Limo.
>
> That sounds about right, but I was talking about the distance between
>the limo and the manhole cover, not Tague, when I said "60 feet."
Ahhh. Well, you had been talking about Tague (which you cut out).
>
>> You really should take a look at an overhead photo of Dealey Plaza
>> before making such poor guesses.
>
> I did.<g>
If you did, you failed to notice that none of what you are proposing even
remotely lines up. :)
>
>> >Looking at a chart of DP, the location seems to
>> >line up quite well with the position of the limo and the southeast corner of
>> > the
>> >TSBD. It also seems to line up fairly well, though not perfectly, with
>> >Tague's
>> >position further down the street, but I could be wrong about that.
>
>> You are. The FBI said that the "snipers nest", Limo and Tague only lined
>> up at the equivalent of frame 410 of the Zapruder film.
>
> I realize that it doesn't line up exactly, which is why I said "fairly
>well, though not perfectly."
"fairly well?
It would miss Tague by well over 100 feet.
>The alignment is close enough that Josiah
> Thompson
>argued that Tague was hit by a fragment from the head shot bullet.
Over 100 feet is not close. Not even with grenades.
>
>> >A good
>> >portion of the fatal bullet wasn't recovered and evidently flew out of the
>> >car.
>> >
>> Not if it was going downwards from the TSBD. In that case it would have
>> ended up going through the floor.
>
> Evidently not, since pieces of a bullet fired from behind hit the
>windshield and dented the chrome above it.
A bullet hit the chrome.
And no one knows if it was travelling downwards from the TSBD,
or horizontally from the Dal-Tex or what.
Certainly if the trajectory is allowed to be altered by impact with the
skull, then a shot from the rear could have come from anywhere.
>
>> However, a shot from the right front could well have hit JFK above the right
>> eye and exited from the top of the head near the coronal suture and missed
>> the limo completely.
>
> I'm looking at Z312, Bruce, and it seems to me that such a shot would've
> had
>to be fired by Mrs. Connally. Jean
Get new glasses.
Fathom
> > Not if it was going downwards from the TSBD. In that case it would have
> > ended up going through the floor.
>
> Evidently not, since pieces of a bullet fired from behind hit the
> windshield and dented the chrome above it.
Both statements are true, AFAIK. *If* it came from the 6th floor, it would
seem to go through the seat and floor (or dashboard??) of the car. In
actuality, the chrome was dented, indicating a shot from the rear but from
near ground level.
> > However, a shot from the right front could well have hit JFK above the
right
> > eye and exited from the top of the head near the coronal suture and missed
> > the limo completely.
>
> I'm looking at Z312, Bruce, and it seems to me that such a shot
would've had
> to be fired by Mrs. Connally.
Now *there's* a new theory!
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
Disagree at your peril.
jack white
MIKE...PLEASE BE AWARE THAT JEAN IS AUTHOR OF THE LN BOOK **OSWALD*S GAME**.
MTGriffith wrote:
>
> [Copy to be posted to alt.conspiracy.jfk.]
>
> > > From: Jean Davison <dav...@together.net>
> > > Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> > > Subject: Re: Extra Bullets & Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
> > > Date: Monday, January 01, 1601 12:00 AM
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Earlier, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > * Dallas policeman J. W. Foster, who was positioned on top
> > > > > > > of the triple underpass, saw a bullet strike the grass on the
> > > > > > > south side of Elm Street near a manhole cover, about 350 feet
> > > > > > > from the TSBD. He reported this to a superior officer and was
> > > > > > > instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris 72-75; Marrs 315).
> > >
> > > You seem to be relying on Marrs for this, but he gives no source. Is
> > > there a quote from Foster saying that he "saw a bullet strike the grass" or
> > > that he was told to guard the area?
>
> Foster said they "FOUND WHERE ONE SHOT HIT THE TURF THERE AT THE LOCATION"
> (Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN, p. 497, emphasis added). In the first picture of
> the Murray photo sequence, Foster is kneeling down over the spot and pointing
> back toward the TSBD (Ibid., p. 497).
>
> > > > > > > Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the
> > > > > > > spot where the bullet landed.
> > >
> > > Evidently not all bystanders were kept away, since the bottom photo on
> > > p. 68, TKOAP, shows an African-American man in khaki work clothes bending
> > > over this site while the other men seem to ignore him.
>
> In other photos this man has a hat on and seems to be in some kind of uniform.
> He might have been one of those who was supposed to help keep people away.
>
> > > [snipping here and below, for space]
> > > > > > Have you seen the enlarged photo of this "small object" the man
> > > > > > picked up, Mike? In the enlargement in Shaw/Harris' book, it's very
> > > > > > irregular in shape and somewhat larger than a bullet, as I recall.
> > > > > > It sure didn't look like a bullet to me. Other photos of this scene
> > > > > > are in TKOAP, p. 68. One
> > > > > > shows the blond-haired man reaching down. Notice that there are four
> > > > > > dark spots on the grass near his hand. What could those be?
> > > >
> > > > A slug (used bullet) with some dirt clinging to it could very well give
> > > > such an appearance.
> > >
> > > I don't think you've seen the photo. After looking at it again, I
> > > see
> > > that the object (which is in Walthers' hand, not the blond guy's)
> > > is roughly square, light in color. The "agent" then bent down and
> > > apparently
> > > also picked up something. Would you expect there to be *two* spent
> > > bullets lying on *top* of the ground? If not, how do you explain this?
>
> I'm not talking about what Walthers is holding in his hand, but about what the
> man in the suit sticks into his pocket after bending down and coming up with
> his hand in cupping shape (the sequence is shown in Shaw's COVER-UP, pp.
> 72-74).
>
> > > > > > As I remember it, Foster DID address this issue. He was asked if a
> > > > > > bullet was found and said, "No, it ricocheted on out."
> > > >
> > > > That's not exactly the same thing. He didn't specifically deny the man
> > > > in the suit retrieved a bullet. But, I'm going to change this paragraph
> > > > to reflect that Foster did deny a bullet was found.
> > >
> > > Good, and I hope you'll add Walthers' denial. True, Foster
> > > didn't deny the man retrieved a bullet, but saying "it ricocheted on out"
> > > certainly implies that he thought that no bullet was recovered, that it
> > > went downrange somewhere.
>
> Jean, if Foster and Walthers had admitted a bullet had been found, and if the
> man in the suit had stepped forward and said, "Yeap, I picked up a bullet," you
> would suggest the bullet was "not necessarily related to the assassination and
> may have been in the grass before the shooting."
>
> Foster had no doubt a bullet had struck the grass. A police official told
> Richard Dudman that very afternoon a bullet had been found; Lt. Day seemed to
> know all about it and estimated the distance from the bullet's recovery point
> to the window; and the bullet's finding was matter-of-factly reported in the
> press and was specifically said to have been found near the manhole cover.
>
> > > > > > > Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was
> > > > > > > retrieved from the dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole
> > > > > > > cover....
> > >
> > > > > > And the press initially reported that Jim Brady was dead and
> > > > > > Reagan wasn't injured. There was numerous false press reports
> > > > > > in the beginning, and that's not unusual.
> > > >
> > > > And this is really all you can say--that Day got it wrong, that Dudman
> > > > got it wrong, and that somehow, someway the local press was led to
> > > > believe a bullet had been recovered from near the manhole cover.
> > > > This is extremely unlikely.
> > > > Dudman was specifically told this by a police official in Dealey Plaza
> > > > soon after the shooting. Day seemed to know full well a bullet had
> > > > been found and
> > > > he went on to give an estimate of the distance from the recovery spot to
> > > > the sixth-floor window. Isn't it obvious that a bullet was found but
> > > that it
> > > > was made to disappear because it couldn't fit into the lone-gunman
> > > > explanation?
> > >
> > > Don't misunderstand me -- I can't be certain that no bullet was found.
> > > I just think the evidence overall points the other way.
>
> What "evidence"? Walthers' and Foster's denials, even though Foster said a
> bullet struck the grass? So these two denials take precedence over Dudman's
> report, over Lt. Day's matter-of-fact comment about the found bullet, and over
> the press reports that said a bullet was found near the manhole cover? Of
> course.
>
> > > For one thing, I
> > > think you're relying almost entirely on Marr's account of early press
> > > reports, which have been shown to be wrong time and again. And none of the
> > > people quoted
> > > claimed to have seen a bullet there, only said what they'd heard.
>
> I'm not relying on Marrs, though his analysis of the matter is worthwhile. Go
> read Trask's treatment--even though he opines a bullet wasn't found, he does do
> a good job of covering most of the facts on the matter.
>
> > > > Are you aware of the location of the manhole cover? How would brain
> > > > and/or bone from Kennedy's skull reach that location?
> > >
> > > Yes, I know where the manhole cover is. It does seem a long way, but
> > > how do we know how far exploded brains and skull "usually" travel?
>
> So they somehow flew over the roll bar, the sun vizors, and the top of the
> windshield, and then dived back down, traveled well over 100 feet and struck
> the ground hard enough to dig holes in the grass? I think this is a
> far-fetched position.
>
> > > > Speaking of the brain and skull that are seen to explode in Z313, have
> > > > you read
> > > > Dr. Mantik's analysis of this explosion and his conclusion that it is
> > > > much too
> > > > fast, unnaturally fast, to be genuine? This is in his chapter on the Z
> > > > film in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.
> > >
> > > Haven't read it, so I won't comment, but at which frame does he
> > > assume a bullet entered the skull? Not Z313, I hope.
>
> No, not Z313.
>
> > > > By the way, Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object is NOT metal.
> > > > He also
> > > > notes that the object is visible on the lateral x-ray (you once claimed
> > > > the autopsists could have missed it on the lateral view).
> > >
> > > No, I didn't claim they could've "missed" it,
>
> In effect, you did say this--if not explicitly, implicitly.
>
> > > I reported Dr.
> > > Artwohl's argument that the autopsists may have confused the two
> > > largest fragments seen in the A-P x-ray when they tried to locate them
> > > on the lateral view. But we're getting off the subject here.
>
> Now how on earth could they have "confused" the fragments on the lateral view?
> How? One is at the front of the skull, the other's at the very back of the
> skull (in fact on the outer table of the skull). Somebody knew there was a
> fragment in the back of the skull because someone told Sibert & O'Neill about
> it. Dr. Mantik discovered there is a genuine, smaller fragment beneath the
> image of the 6.5 mm object.
>
> If you say the pathologists "confused" the two largest fragments seen on the AP
> x-ray when they tried to locate them on the lateral, then you're in effect
> saying they didn't notice the fragment in the back of the skull--otherwise, how
> could they have been "confused'? (How could they have been confused anyway?
> How hard could it have been to distinguish between the frontal fragment and the
> one at the very back of the skull? Such speculation isn't worthy of serious
> consideration.)
>
> On a related note, Dr. Mantik scanned the area of the proposed higher entry
> wound and found no indication whatsoever of a wound there.
>
> > > > > > > If the hole was made by brain matter, why did the
> > > > > > > Dallas police maintain a guard over the hole for the next several
> > > > > > > hours? Why did not a single police or FBI report mention the
> > > > > > > finding of brain matter at this location? And what about the
> > > > > > > credible contemporary accounts that a bullet was recovered from
> > > > > > > the hole in the grass?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rather loaded questions there, Mike, I would say.<g>
> > > >
> > > > They seem like very fair questions to me. If brain or skull was found
> > > > there, surely someone would have recorded such an important finding.
> > >
> > > They're loaded because you're assuming, among other things, that a
> > > hole must've been made by either brain matter or a bullet, when it could've
> > > been neither. (How big was this "hole," anyway? Can you refer me to a
> > > photo that shows it?) Incidentally, I didn't claim that brain/skull
> > > fragment made a hole. I suggested that it might've been a fragment
> > > from the head shot (bullet), possibly.
>
> What?
>
> You're snatching complexity and confusion from the jaws of straightforward
> simplicity. They found a bullet. Day knew it. A police official told Dudman
> about it shortly after the event. The local press reported on it, and included
> a photo of the grass.
>
> But, no! We are to believe that streaking brain and speeding bullet fragments
> from the head shot somehow cleared the roll bar and the sun vizors then dived
> back down and struck the ground with enough force to dig holes in the grass.
> Now, about the fragments from the head shot. So, missile fragments from the
> head shot not only marked the curb near Tague and/or cut Tague's face, but they
> also dug marks into the grass near the manhole cover? Perhaps fragments from
> the head shot made the mark in the concrete on the manhole cover as well!
>
> > >
> > > Finding the brain matter may've been mentioned to higher-ups but not
> > > necessarily written down, because who could've foreseen that we'd be
> > > debating exactly where pieces of the President's brain landed in Dealey
> > > Plaza?
>
> I don't agree. I think someone would have made some kind of notation or report
> on finding brain matter near the manhole cover. I also think the press would
> have learned of this and would have reported on it when they discussed the
> manhole cover. But, everyone was certain a bullet had been found.
>
> Moreover, I thought you were also talking about a piece or two of skull bone.
> Surely they would have mentioned finding skull fragment material.
>
> > > There was no controversy about the nature of the head wound at
> > > that time and no such thing as JFK researchers, who're the only ones
> > > interested in knowing these gruesome details even now. (I include myself
> > > in this group.)
>
> Controversy over the head wound is a straw-man argument. If they'd found even
> one piece of skull at the manhole cover, they would have reported it. The
> policemen would have mentioned it in their testimony and in their reports, just
> as Weitzman mentioned finding a piece of skull.
>
> > > > Unless you're willing to scoot the limo up quite a ways on the street,
> > > > how do you get brain and skull anywhere near the manhole cover?
> > > >Take a look at a diagram of Dealey Plaza. For that matter, given the
> > > > manhole cover's location,
> > > > the skull frag would have had to somehow fly over the roll bar and the
> > > > windshield. Are we talking about another case of magic?
> > >
> > > Re distance, see above. In Z313 pieces of skull can be seen ascending
> > > in front of the head well above the level of the roll bar/windshield. The
> > > bullet fragments got past the roll bar to strike the windshield and chrome
> > > above it, so the roll bar was no obstacle.
>
> The bullet fragments must have gone UNDER the roll bar to strike the chrome, if
> they are what caused the damage to the chrome and windshield. Are you really
> prepared to argue that the fragments veered above the roll bar and then
> immediately dived back down to strike the windshield chrome?
>
> > > Altgens was in front of the car
> > > on that side of the street, and I believe he said he saw ejecta coming in
> > > his
> > > direction (don't have the quote handy).
>
> You should read Dr. Mantik's discussion on the frontal effusion. By the way,
> Altgens said he was 15 feet from the limo at the time of the explosive head
> shot.
>
> > > > So four years later Walthers said it was a piece of skull. Leaving aside
> > > > the abovementioned problems with this explanation, why didn't Walthers
> > > > mention the
> > > > important finding of a piece of JFK's skull in any of his reports or in
> > > > his WC testimony?
> > >
> > > It seems "important" *now*.
>
> "NOW"? Finding a piece of bone after the President has been shot--this
> wouldn't rate being documented, and no one would even mention it? Come on.
>
> > > Are you sure that Walthers didn't
> > > mention a piece of skull in his testimony?
>
> He didn't mention finding one near the manhole cover. Nor did Foster. No one
> did.
>
> > > Also, this is admittedly subjective and not evidence, but the demeanor
> > > of the men in the photos suggests (to me) that it may've been skull, not a
> > > bullet.
>
> Could you elaborate on this skull-fragment-found demeanor?
>
> > > If it had been a bullet I believe the other men would've likely
> > > wanted to see it and the "retriever" would've shown it to them.
> > > (It was
> > > too early for anyone to know it was "the wrong bullet.")
>
> The man in the suit would have simply said, "This is evidence, and we're not
> here for show and tell." If the mystery man was one of the cover-up operatives
> in the plaza, he would known this piece of evidence had to disappear and would
> not have shown it to the other people standing nearby.
>
> > > Instead, there's
> > > not
> > > even much eye contact in this series of photos. They stand around looking
> > > vaguely uneasy, imo, and I don't see anyone rooting around for a bullet,
> > > just picking up something off the grass.
>
> Uh, among other things, as mentioned, in one photo Foster is pointing back
> toward the TSBD, which would clearly seem to suggest they were trying to figure
> out the trajectory of a bullet from that location to the grass (where they had
> just found a bullet).
>
> > > > And just where from the skull would this fragment have come? The
> > > > mortician,
> > > > Tom Robinson, said there was still an orange-sized hole in the back of
> > > > the President's skull AFTER the inclusion of all the late-arriving bone
> > > > fragments
> > > > from Dallas. Robinson was quite specific about the location of the
> > > > defect--but, I know, he "must" have been "mistaken."
> > >
> > > Wasn't Robinson's claim "belated"?<g>
>
> As soon as he was interviewed by the HSCA, he freely related what he saw and
> did that night. He was not interviewed by the WC.
>
> > > This orange-sized hole can't be
> > > seen in any photographs that show the back of the head.
>
> So did Robinson, an experienced mortician, who handled the skull, who
> reassembled it, did he confuse the back of the head for the side or front of
> the head (depending on whether you go with the WC's exit wound or with the
> HSCA's exit wound)? When Aubrey Rike lifted Kennedy's head and felt the edges
> of the right-rear defect with his hands, did he just not realize where he had
> his hands? When Nurse Bowron cleaned and packed the wound with gauze squares,
> did she get her anatomy wrong too? Did Dr. Clark, a neurosurgeon, likewise
> forget basic skull anatomy? Did Clint Hill, who was taken to the morgue for
> the express purpose of viewing the wounds, was he seeing things when he said he
> saw a large wound in the right rear part of the head? When Dr. McClelland, who
> said he had plenty of time and ample opportunity to observe the wound, and who
> said he was in an ideal location to do so, did he also forget basic skull
> anatomy when he described the same wound so many others saw?
>
> No, the right-rear defect can't be seen in the photos that show the back and
> the back of the head (though F8 is another story), which is one more indication
> those photos have been altered. Veronica Cass, an authority on photo
> retouching, and Steve Mills, a professional photographer and photo lab tech,
> have identified signs of tampering in these photos. The lateral x-ray has an
> unnaturally bright white patch over the right occipital-parietal area--my, my,
> what a coincidence, just where dozens of witnesses explicitly described seeing
> a large wound. Drs. Mantik and Aguilar have observed that the AP x-ray
> indicates missing bone in the back of the head.
>
> > > The Z film,
> > > autopsy x-rays/photos you apparently believe were fakes.
>
> We KNOW the AP x-ray has been altered. Dr. Mantik discovered the 6.5 mm object
> is not metallic, and he found that ghosting through this superimposed image is
> a genuine, smaller fragment 1 cm below the proposed higher entry point. And no
> one has yet explained the unnatural white patch on the rear of the lateral
> x-ray. Dr. Mantik could not find a single genuine skull x-ray that showed such
> a drastic difference between the dark and white areas of the skull, and of
> course it's just a whopping coincidence that this unnatural, unexplainable
> white patch "just happens" to cover that part of the skull where dozens of
> witnesses, to include doctors and nurses, saw a large wound.
>
> > > The Moorman photo also?
>
> Again, you need to read Dr. Mantik's chapters in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. You're
> a bit behind the times.
>
> > > But again, this is off topic. I really don't want to rehash all
> > > these old arguments, Mike. I'm trying to keep my posts here to a minimum.
>
> What you need to do is acquaint yourself with the new evidence that is now
> available.
>
> > > > > > According to other posts I've seen recently, Barrett has been
> > > > > > ruled
> > > > > > out, based on a comparison with other photos known to be of him.
> > > >
> > > > I had heard that Barrett's family or friends of the family have said it
> > > > was Barrett.
> > >
> > > Guess it goes to show that you can't believe everything you hear or
> > > read, huh?
> > >
> > > > Anyway, whether it was Barrett or not, the fact remains the man
> > > > certainly looked like your typical FBI or SS agent. Who else would have
> > > > been allowed to get so close to the area while bystanders were being
> > > > kept away? Who
> > > > else would have been allowed to reach down and retrieve "something" from
> > > > the grass?
> > >
> > > See photo of man in khakis. He looks as if he might be about to
> > > retrieve something.
>
> Or he could have just been bending down to look. He was in a uniform, to
> include a hat, and he may have been asked to help keep people away. No
> ordinarily dressed bystanders were allowed near the area--at least that's what
> the photos show. They were kept back.
>
> > > > There is no evidence a skull fragment was recovered from anywhere near
> > > > the manhole cover.
> > >
> > > Walthers' statement is "evidence," whether you believe him or not.
>
> Walthers' statement came years after the fact. If they had really found a
> piece of Kennedy's skull in that grass, Walthers would have mentioned it--so
> would Foster. This would have been mentioned in reports that day.
>
> > > > > > Someone who saw this mark in the concrete on a trip to Dallas has
> > > > > > said that it looked to him like a space left when an object such as a
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > stick had been removed from the wet concrete -- that's just an
> > > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > of course. But shouldn't you establish first that a bullet is
> > > > > > capable of
> > > > > > gouging out a deep mark in concrete, as opposed to, say, splattering
> > > > > > or ricocheting off? Has anyone tested this?
> > > >
> > > > Well, when Foster looked at it he immediately concluded the mark had been
> > > > made by a bullet.
> > >
> > > How many bullet marks on concrete had he ever seen before? Any? You
> > > still haven't told me how you know a bullet is even capable of gouging a
> > > long line in concrete. Take a look at some sidewalks tomorrow, Mike. You
> > > may find a few gouges and marks that nobody notices -- unless there's a
> > > shooting nearby and people start looking around for "bullet marks."
>
> > > Jean
>
> Of course--anything but an extra bullet. Foster wasn't the only one who
> thought the concrete mark was made by a bullet, by the way, as I observe in my
> article.
>
> Mike Griffith
MTGriffith
Jean Davison
MTGriffith <mtgri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971224000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Earlier, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > * Dallas policeman J. W. Foster, who was positioned on top
> > > > > > > of the triple underpass, saw a bullet strike the grass on the
> > > > > > > south side of Elm Street near a manhole cover, about 350 feet
> > > > > > > from the TSBD. He reported this to a superior officer and was
> > > > > > > instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris 72-75; Marrs 315).
> > >
> > > You seem to be relying on Marrs for this, but he gives no source. Is
> > > there a quote from Foster saying that he "saw a bullet strike the grass" or
> > > that he was told to guard the area?
>
> Foster said they "FOUND WHERE ONE SHOT HIT THE TURF THERE AT THE
> LOCATION"
> (Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN, p. 497, emphasis added). In the first picture of
> the Murray photo sequence, Foster is kneeling down over the spot and pointing
> back toward the TSBD (Ibid., p. 497).
Yes, I know, Mike, but finding a place on the ground "where a shot hit"
is not the same thing as seeing a bullet -strike- the ground. I don't believe
he ever said that, and I'm not sure that he was told to guard the area. Once
again, can you give me a source for either one of those statements?
> > > > > > > Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the
> > > > > > > spot where the bullet landed.
> > >
> > > Evidently not all bystanders were kept away, since the bottom photo on
> > > p. 68, TKOAP, shows an African-American man in khaki work clothes bending
> > > over this site while the other men seem to ignore him.
>
> In other photos this man has a hat on and seems to be in some kind of uniform.
> He might have been one of those who was supposed to help keep people away.
In the picture in TKOAP, it looks like an ordinary cap with a visor, like a
baseball cap. What kind of uniform did you have in mind? Surely not a police
uniform, not a FBI or Secret Service suit. What's left?
> > > > > > Have you seen the enlarged photo of this "small object" the man
> > > > > > picked up, Mike? In the enlargement in Shaw/Harris' book, it's very
> > > > > > irregular in shape and somewhat larger than a bullet, as I recall.
> > > > > > It sure didn't look like a bullet to me. Other photos of this scene
> > > > > > are in TKOAP, p. 68. One
> > > > > > shows the blond-haired man reaching down. Notice that there are four
> > > > > > dark spots on the grass near his hand. What could those be?
> > > >
> > > > A slug (used bullet) with some dirt clinging to it could very well give
> > > > such an appearance.
> > >
> > > I don't think you've seen the photo. After looking at it again, I
> > > see
> > > that the object (which is in Walthers' hand, not the blond guy's)
> > > is roughly square, light in color. The "agent" then bent down and
> > > apparently
> > > also picked up something. Would you expect there to be *two* spent
> > > bullets lying on *top* of the ground? If not, how do you explain this?
>
> I'm not talking about what Walthers is holding in his hand, but about what the
> man in the suit sticks into his pocket after bending down and coming up with
> his hand in cupping shape (the sequence is shown in Shaw's COVER-UP, pp.
> 72-74).
There is, to my knowledge, no photo showing what "agent guy" picked up,
but there -is- a photo showing the object in Walthers' hand, so why aren't you
interested in that, Mike?
I have a xerox of page 73 from COVER-UP. It shows four photos. Left to
right starting at the top, the captions read:
"Walthers stoops to retrieve something from the turf."
"Walthers' hand holding an unidentifiable object" [the roughly square
object mentioned above]
"Walthers straightens up, clutching something in his right hand. 'Agent'
moves in to inspect the area."
"Agent reaches for something on ground."
If you'd like to see this, e-mail your address and I'll send you (or anyone
here) a copy. So here we have -two- men apparently picking up something
from the same area. You seem certain that "agent guy" pocketed a bullet,
but then what do you suppose Walthers picked up?
> > > > > > As I remember it, Foster DID address this issue. He was asked if a
> > > > > > bullet was found and said, "No, it ricocheted on out."
> > > >
> > > > That's not exactly the same thing. He didn't specifically deny the man
> > > > in the suit retrieved a bullet. But, I'm going to change this paragraph
> > > > to reflect that Foster did deny a bullet was found.
> > >
> > > Good, and I hope you'll add Walthers' denial. True, Foster
> > > didn't deny the man retrieved a bullet, but saying "it ricocheted on out"
> > > certainly implies that he thought that no bullet was recovered, that it
> > > went downrange somewhere.
>
> Jean, if Foster and Walthers had admitted a bullet had been found, and if the
> man in the suit had stepped forward and said, "Yeap, I picked up a bullet," you
> would suggest the bullet was "not necessarily related to the assassination and
> may have been in the grass before the shooting."
No, that's not what I'd say. I notice that you did indeed revise your
paragraph, but you didn't mention Walthers:
>>In his WC testimony, Officer Foster denied a bullet was recovered from near
the manhole cover, though he did not explain what the man in the suit picked up
and put in his pocket. Foster did, however say that a bullet "had hit the turf
there at that location [near the manhole cover].<<
But Walthers DID explain what was picked up. In his testimony, he
said that no bullet was found even when he and another deputy returned to
search the area again. This is in the WR, p. 641. Don't you think you
should at least deal with this part of the record?
Of course, there's a long line of writers who talk about the "recovered
bullet" but don't mention that Foster and Walthers denied it under oath --
e.g., Marrs, Groden and Livingstone, Duffy and Ricci ("The Assassination
of John F. Kennedy: The Complete Book of Facts"), Garrison.... and
now Griffith.<g>
> Foster had no doubt a bullet had struck the grass. A police official told
> Richard Dudman that very afternoon a bullet had been found; Lt. Day seemed to
> know all about it and estimated the distance from the bullet's recovery point
> to the window; and the bullet's finding was matter-of-factly reported in the
> press and was specifically said to have been found near the manhole cover.
Yes, Foster had no doubt a bullet hit the grass. Doesn't mean he was
right, though, does it? How can one tell what caused a mark on the ground?
Would any of us be able to?
Dudman mentioned a police inspector, but there's no inspector in the photos
that I've seen, so again, this may not have been firsthand information. I'd like
to see that article quoting Day and compare it with other news accounts of
what he said, if there are any.
There were several reports about a recovered bullet and then, nothing.
Did the coverup crew control -everyone- in the press, or did reporters
figure out that this was a mistake and drop it, as they dropped "Darryl
Click, the taxi driver," "the assassin eating a chicken lunch," and
various other errors? I think it's the latter, but why do -you- think the
press stopped mentioning this "bullet"?
> > >
> > > Don't misunderstand me -- I can't be certain that no bullet was found.
> > > I just think the evidence overall points the other way.
>
> What "evidence"? Walthers' and Foster's denials, even though Foster said a
> bullet struck the grass? So these two denials take precedence over Dudman's
> report, over Lt. Day's matter-of-fact comment about the found bullet, and over
> the press reports that said a bullet was found near the manhole cover? Of
> course.
Absolutely, I'd take sworn testimony over newspaper reports.
But there's more evidence than this testimony. The pictures show
two men picking up something near several dark spots on the ground. One
"something" (in Walthers' hand) looks more like skull than a bullet, imo.
The location lines up pretty well with the head shot. Z313 shows skull
fragments and brain tissue ejecting upward in front of JFK's head.
> > > For one thing, I
> > > think you're relying almost entirely on Marr's account of early press
> > > reports, which have been shown to be wrong time and again. And none of the
> > > people quoted
> > > claimed to have seen a bullet there, only said what they'd heard.
>
> I'm not relying on Marrs, though his analysis of the matter is worthwhile. Go
> read Trask's treatment--even though he opines a bullet wasn't found, he does do
> a good job of covering most of the facts on the matter.
Well, I think you did rely on him, Mike, since your account is very
similar. It follows Marrs' account closely and leaves out the same
things.<g>
> > > > Are you aware of the location of the manhole cover? How would brain
> > > > and/or bone from Kennedy's skull reach that location?
> > >
> > > Yes, I know where the manhole cover is. It does seem a long way, but
> > > how do we know how far exploded brains and skull "usually" travel?
>
> So they somehow flew over the roll bar, the sun vizors, and the top of the
> windshield, and then dived back down, traveled well over 100 feet and struck
> the ground hard enough to dig holes in the grass? I think this is a
> far-fetched position.
A far-fetched position that's not mine! I've never said that brain debris
dug out anything. You are confusing me with photographer Jim Murray, who
speculated that "brain matter" made a "mound in the grass." And
again, Z313 SHOWS brain matter and skull fragments well above the roll bar
and windshield, heading upward. I suppose you will argue that this
"frontal effusion" was added to the Z film. Be my guest.<g> Where
does the "well over 100 feet" come from?
<Snipping the discussion about ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, since I've told
you I haven't read it and feel it's off the subject, anyway....>
> > > > By the way, Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object is NOT metal.
> > > > He also
> > > > notes that the object is visible on the lateral x-ray (you once claimed
> > > > the autopsists could have missed it on the lateral view).
> > >
> > > No, I didn't claim they could've "missed" it,
>
> In effect, you did say this--if not explicitly, implicitly.
No, Mike. I quoted Sibert and O'Neill -mentioning- a fragment at the rear of
the skull, remember? They must've gotten this from the autopsy doctors.
> > > I reported Dr.
> > > Artwohl's argument that the autopsists may have confused the two
> > > largest fragments seen in the A-P x-ray when they tried to locate them
> > > on the lateral view. But we're getting off the subject here.
>
> Now how on earth could they have "confused" the fragments on the lateral view?
> How? One is at the front of the skull, the other's at the very back of the
> skull (in fact on the outer table of the skull). Somebody knew there was a
> fragment in the back of the skull because someone told Sibert & O'Neill about
> it. Dr. Mantik discovered there is a genuine, smaller fragment beneath the
> image of the 6.5 mm object.
I'm sorry that I couldn't make you understand that, yes, one frag was in
the back, one in the front, but only in the -lateral- view were their positions
obvious. In the A-P one must -interpret- "front" and "back," and since it's
taken from a different angle the fragments don't look the same as they do
in the lateral x-ray. They were thin slivers of metal.
<snip>
> > > > > > > If the hole was made by brain matter, why did the
> > > > > > > Dallas police maintain a guard over the hole for the next several
> > > > > > > hours? Why did not a single police or FBI report mention the
> > > > > > > finding of brain matter at this location? And what about the
> > > > > > > credible contemporary accounts that a bullet was recovered from
> > > > > > > the hole in the grass?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rather loaded questions there, Mike, I would say.<g>
> > > >
> > > > They seem like very fair questions to me. If brain or skull was found
> > > > there, surely someone would have recorded such an important finding.
> > >
> > > They're loaded because you're assuming, among other things, that a
> > > hole must've been made by either brain matter or a bullet, when it could've
> > > been neither. (How big was this "hole," anyway? Can you refer me to a
> > > photo that shows it?) Incidentally, I didn't claim that brain/skull
> > > fragment made a hole. I suggested that it might've been a fragment
> > > from the head shot (bullet), possibly.
>
> What?
>
> You're snatching complexity and confusion from the jaws of straightforward
> simplicity. They found a bullet. Day knew it. A police official told Dudman
> about it shortly after the event. The local press reported on it, and included
> a photo of the grass.
Sure, there was a photo "of the grass" -- can you refer me to a photo that
shows a mark that looks like a bullet impact on the ground? That was my
question. I think I once asked you, Mike, to give me a count of all the
people you think lied under oath or otherwise became part of the coverup
squad. I guess you'd better add Day, the police inspector, Foster, Walthers,
"Suit Man," anybody else?<g>
> > > Finding the brain matter may've been mentioned to higher-ups but not
> > > necessarily written down, because who could've foreseen that we'd be
> > > debating exactly where pieces of the President's brain landed in Dealey
> > > Plaza?
>
> I don't agree. I think someone would have made some kind of notation or report
> on finding brain matter near the manhole cover. I also think the press would
> have learned of this and would have reported on it when they discussed the
> manhole cover. But, everyone was certain a bullet had been found.
It may not have been mentioned because the "retrievers" intended to keep
them. Horrible to think so, but a Parkland employee tried to keep a piece
of JFK's clothing, according to Thompson's book, and even the Harper
fragment was not immediately reported or turned over. I recently read that
someone at Einstein's autopsy kept his brain, and still has it, in a
Tupperware container. Human nature is marvelous, isn't it? It was
a different era, too, with different sensibilities, and possibly reporters
thought it tasteless to write about finding "brain matter" lying on
the ground, especially a President's. This is not pleasant to talk
about, even now.
<snip>
> > > Also, this is admittedly subjective and not evidence, but the demeanor
> > > of the men in the photos suggests (to me) that it may've been skull, not a
> > > bullet.
>
> Could you elaborate on this skull-fragment-found demeanor?
I thought I just did that, below.
> > > If it had been a bullet I believe the other men would've likely
> > > wanted to see it and the "retriever" would've shown it to them.
> > > (It was
> > > too early for anyone to know it was "the wrong bullet.")
>
> The man in the suit would have simply said, "This is evidence, and we're not
> here for show and tell." If the mystery man was one of the cover-up operatives
> in the plaza, he would known this piece of evidence had to disappear and would
> not have shown it to the other people standing nearby.
Yet there's no photo showing the mystery man saying -anything-, right?
He apparently just walked away. And really, Mike -- "cover-up operative"?
I would love to have heard the orders he got. "We're using other guns and
pinning it on a patsy, so hang around the plaza and pick up the 'wrong'
bullets, got that?" And this seemed like a sensible plan? The other men
at the scene didn't attempt to see what the "agent" picked up. Were they
"operatives," too? Besides, Mike, why would a bullet or bullets end up
on -top- of the ground?
> > > Instead, there's
> > > not
> > > even much eye contact in this series of photos. They stand around looking
> > > vaguely uneasy, imo, and I don't see anyone rooting around for a bullet,
> > > just picking up something off the grass.
>
> Uh, among other things, as mentioned, in one photo Foster is pointing back
> toward the TSBD, which would clearly seem to suggest they were trying to figure
> out the trajectory of a bullet from that location to the grass (where they had
> just found a bullet).
I don't deny that Foster -thought- he'd found a spot where a bullet hit,
and he testified that he thought it came from the Houston/Elm area.
However, he denied that a bullet was -found- there, and Marrs didn't
tell you that.<g>
> > > > And just where from the skull would this fragment have come? The
> > > > mortician,
> > > > Tom Robinson, said there was still an orange-sized hole in the back of
> > > > the President's skull AFTER the inclusion of all the late-arriving bone
> > > > fragments
> > > > from Dallas. Robinson was quite specific about the location of the
> > > > defect--but, I know, he "must" have been "mistaken."
> > >
> > > Wasn't Robinson's claim "belated"?<g>
>
> As soon as he was interviewed by the HSCA, he freely related what he saw and
> did that night. He was not interviewed by the WC.
I was teasing you about your saying that photographers Murray and Allen's
claims were "belated." They hadn't been interviewed before Trask, either, had
they?
<snipping more off-topic stuff>
> > > > > > According to other posts I've seen recently, Barrett has been
> > > > > > ruled
> > > > > > out, based on a comparison with other photos known to be of him.
> > > >
> > > > I had heard that Barrett's family or friends of the family have said it
> > > > was Barrett.
> > >
> > > Guess it goes to show that you can't believe everything you hear or
> > > read, huh?
> > >
> > > > Anyway, whether it was Barrett or not, the fact remains the man
> > > > certainly looked like your typical FBI or SS agent. Who else would have
> > > > been allowed to get so close to the area while bystanders were being
> > > > kept away? Who
> > > > else would have been allowed to reach down and retrieve "something" from
> > > > the grass?
> > >
> > > See photo of man in khakis. He looks as if he might be about to
> > > retrieve something.
>
> Or he could have just been bending down to look. He was in a uniform, to
> include a hat, and he may have been asked to help keep people away. No
> ordinarily dressed bystanders were allowed near the area--at least that's what
> the photos show. They were kept back.
So, is the only evidence that bystanders were kept away the photos?? It
appears to me that "Khaki Guy" is reaching down for something. Have you
considered that people may've been kept away because of the brain
debris? I am speculating, of course, but so are you.
> > > > There is no evidence a skull fragment was recovered from anywhere near
> > > > the manhole cover.
> > >
> > > Walthers' statement is "evidence," whether you believe him or not.
>
> Walthers' statement came years after the fact. If they had really found a
> piece of Kennedy's skull in that grass, Walthers would have mentioned it--so
> would Foster. This would have been mentioned in reports that day.
No one "would have" tried to make off with JFK's clothing, either, right?
No one would have stolen Einstein's brain and kept it in Tupperware, right?
Alas, it's very hard to say what people "would have" done.
> > > > > > Someone who saw this mark in the concrete on a trip to Dallas has
> > > > > > said that it looked to him like a space left when an object such as a
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > stick had been removed from the wet concrete -- that's just an
> > > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > of course. But shouldn't you establish first that a bullet is
> > > > > > capable of
> > > > > > gouging out a deep mark in concrete, as opposed to, say, splattering
> > > > > > or ricocheting off? Has anyone tested this?
> > > >
> > > > Well, when Foster looked at it he immediately concluded the mark had been
> > > > made by a bullet.
> > >
> > > How many bullet marks on concrete had he ever seen before? Any? You
> > > still haven't told me how you know a bullet is even capable of gouging a
> > > long line in concrete. Take a look at some sidewalks tomorrow, Mike. You
> > > may find a few gouges and marks that nobody notices -- unless there's a
> > > shooting nearby and people start looking around for "bullet marks."
> Of course--anything but an extra bullet. Foster wasn't the only one who
> thought the concrete mark was made by a bullet, by the way, as I observe in my
> article.
And how many bulletmarks in concrete had -they- ever seen before? You
-still- haven't told me how you know a bullet is capable of gouging this line.
Also, I see that you wrote:
> * Officer Foster also reported that a bullet struck the
> concrete part of the abovementioned manhole cover. It is not
> known if this was the same missile that made the dug-out hole in
> the grass a few feet from the manhole cover. The bullet might
> have skipped off the manhole cover and then imbedded itself in
> the grass. Or, the mark on the concrete could have been made by
> a separate bullet, and thus would represent another miss fired
> from the same approximate location. The sewer cover and the hole
> in the turf were about 3-5 feet apart, and the latter was farther
> down the side of Elm Street (that is, it was slightly farther
> away from the TSBD than was the sewer cover).
Foster clearly believed that the same bullet that hit the concrete
caused the mark in the turf. See his testimony -- or I can quote it for you.
> Researchers have noted that the photo of the mark indicates
> it did NOT come from the TSBD. The mark can be seen on the
> twelfth photo page in the second set of photographs in Harrison
> Livingstone and Robert Groden's book HIGH TREASON. One can
> readily see that the angle of the mark does not line up with the
> Book Depository, but that it does line up with the County Records
> Building. It might be worth recalling that a 30.06 rifle shell
> casing was later found on the roof of the County Records
> Building.
The photo in High Treason was obviously taken years after 1963 --
check the new highway sign stretching across Elm near
Houston St. A photo in TKOAP [p. 41] may've been taken earlier, and
the mark is not visible there, at least to me, though I assume there was
one, since several people mentioned it.
Jean
Fathom
Thank you, Jean, for assembling all the contradictory versions of this item.
Jean Davison
> Thank you, Jean, for assembling all the contradictory versions of this item.
You're welcome.<g> Jean
Who Killed JFK?
I have a problem with the missed bullet across the street near the manhole
cover. On my many visits to Dealy Plaza, I can't see how any "assasin" could
be such a crappy shot as to hit that from the Dal Tex building without
purposely aiming for a crap. I'm a zero-quality shooter, but i tell you what
... I'd have to be high and drunk to miss that badly when the other guys in
my team are so good that they don't put Mrs. Kennedy in the mourgue.
Jean Davison wrote in message
<01bd14d9$28389ee0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
jerrymac
Jean Davison wrote in message
<01bd14d9$28389ee0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
>MTGriffith <mtgri...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19971224000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>> > > Evidently not all bystanders were kept away, since the bottom
photo on
>> > > p. 68, TKOAP, shows an African-American man in khaki work clothes
bending
>> > > over this site while the other men seem to ignore him.
>>
>> In other photos this man has a hat on and seems to be in some kind of
uniform.
>> He might have been one of those who was supposed to help keep people
away.
>
> In the picture in TKOAP, it looks like an ordinary cap with a visor,
like a
>baseball cap. What kind of uniform did you have in mind? Surely not a
police
>uniform, not a FBI or Secret Service suit. What's left?
>
Hello Gang,
I'm posting these two photos (both from Cover-Up) for your examination. One
shows a better picture of the man's hat, and the shows a couple of other
Afro-American men in a similar looking uniform.
jerrymac
begin 666 khaki man.jpg
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
begin 666 uniforms.jpg
<encoded_portion_removed>
end