Differing Perspectives on the Z film
markusp
with my JFK murder studies, I show them the Zapruder film. I preface each
showing by saying that they'll view a film clip that lasts only 26
seconds. I ask them to watch it carefully, and when done, I'll ask them a
simple question. I reassure them that there is no right or wrong answer.
Recently, a young man and his girlfriend watched it. My question at the
end is always the same --- I ask them to point to where the shooter was
located. Far and away, most viewers immediately point to the GK. Some have
indicated the shots came from behind, and a few have thought that it was
Kellerman or Greer.
But this young man was a first. He claimed that Jackie shot him. WOW! I
commended him on being the most unique answer to my question.
I offer this as a reminder that we can all look at the same piece of
film and see it quite differently.
Have a great holiday season, everyone!
Respectfully,
~Mark
Peter Fokes
Hi Mark,
Of course, most people say JFK was shot from the front.
Most people say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west too.
Horne has a fascinating idea about where a possible revolver shot came
from, and why people smelled smoke IN THE LIMO, and at PARKLAND.
At Parkland? Yup, at Parkland.
It is obvious why one might smell gunpowder in Dealey Plaza, but when
the smell is again EVIDENT at PARKLAND, consider the options.
Think clothes. Think Connally's jacket drycleaned ...
Think Clint Hill hearing sound of a revolver shot into a hard object.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>Respectfully,
>~Mark
bigdog
There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
the shots were fired from behind JFK.
John McAdams
wrote:
Oh, my.
Not Greer shooting JFK!!!???
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2009 18:37:43 -0500, markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Peter, you've been pulling everybody's leg about Horne, right?
You don't actually buy his craziness, right?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Herbert Blenner
> with my JFK murder studies, I show them the Zapruder film. I preface each
> showing by saying that they'll view a film clip that lasts only 26
> seconds. I ask them to watch it carefully, and when done, I'll ask them a
> simple question. I reassure them that there is no right or wrong answer.
>
> Recently, a young man and his girlfriend watched it. My question at the
> end is always the same --- I ask them to point to where the shooter was
> located. Far and away, most viewers immediately point to the GK. Some have
> indicated the shots came from behind, and a few have thought that it was
> Kellerman or Greer.
I ask viewers from which direction was President Kennedy shot in the
head and invariably am told the front. My purpose is to anticipate
what eyewitnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza should have seen
and reported. For these reasons, I find that WC statements or
testimonies of more than twenty head shot eyewitnesses highly
significant. Not one witness described the pronounced backward motion
of Kennedy. For details see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Herbert
WhiskyJoe
> Horne has a fascinating idea about
> where a possible revolver shot came
> from, and why people smelled smoke
> IN THE LIMO, and at PARKLAND.
> At Parkland? Yup, at Parkland.
> It is obvious why one might smell
> gunpowder in Dealey Plaza, but when
> the smell is again EVIDENT at PARKLAND,
> consider the options.
> Think clothes. Think Connally's jacket
> drycleaned ...
> Think Clint Hill hearing sound of a
> revolver shot into a hard object.
Now I see why the jacket would smell of
gunsmoke and had to be dry cleaned.
Of course. Us LNers were right about
the SBT all along, except the bullet
went in the opposite direction.
What better way to draw suspicion from
oneself, by hiding the gun under the
right lapel of the jacket and firing
through one's chest to hit JFK?
And Nellie didn't pull Connally down to
protect him. She was just trying to
prevent him from firing another shot.
Peter Fokes
>And Nellie didn't pull Connally down to
>protect him. She was just trying to
>prevent him from firing another shot.
Another LN who hasn't read Horne's book.
Oh well, tis a merry path they are on .... lets not disturb them.
It is fun watching them pretend to know what they are talking about!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since the forensic evidence is provided by one of the worst attempts
at an autopsy in history, the Z-film is the ONLY indication we have
that tells us from what direction the shot came from. This autopsy was
so bad that everyone is still arguing about where damage to the skull
really was. You reject the Z-film as evidence of the direction from
which the shot was fired because it does not fit with your little WC
fantasy.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
blood on the back of his jacket.
Anthony Marsh
Not quite. One clue is realizing that everyone lied about the evidence,
then figure out why they lied and there that the real evidence is the
opposite of the lie.
We also have the autopsy photos and X-rays which can be reexamined to find
clues overlooked on that night. The autopsy doctors did not even mention
the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone above the right eye. Why?
Perhaps they did in the original autopsy report and were ordered to remove
it from the second autopsy report. Because in the first autopsy report
they called it the entrance wound. Then someone told them that the
assassin was behind the President, so an entrance wound in the forehead
would mean conspiracy and that would mean WWIII. So for the good of the
country, they simply lied and changed all the evidence to fit in with a
lone assassin from behind. And as my paper pointed out the limousine was
the Best Witness and provides clues. Even Lifton could not explain the
dent of the chrome topping if all the shots came for the front. The hole
in the floorboard might explain the missed shot.
cdddraftsman
Question : Even if Rose had done the autopsy instead of Humes : What would
precise measurements gain when each persons anatomy is different and
unless you have the corpse in front of you it doesn't matter anyway ?
CTer's were determined from the get go to exonerate Oswald at any cost ,
quite harping on the clinical autopsy given JFK , the Kennedy family
didn't want a thoughall examination and interferred at every chance :
In the 1960 election, JFK concealed his Addison's disease and even stated
flatly to the press "I have never had Addison's disease." That was a lie,
of course. LBJ said Kennedy looked like "a spavined hunchback." A complete
autopsy would of ended RFK's career .
Live with it .
tl
cdddraftsman
> Then someone told them that the
> assassin was behind the President, so an entrance wound in the forehead
> would mean conspiracy and that would mean WWIII.
>
I don't believe you even said that .
Nobody could of started WWIII except LBJ .
The USSR wouldn't of attacked us we had a 20 to 1 megatonnage against
them .
Under no circumstances would / could US public opinion make LBJ give
orders to launch missiles .
Thats fantasy .
tl
John Blubaugh
He would have been given a professional autopsy in Houston. That would
probably have ended all of these years of speculation one way or another.
As it is, the family should allow the body to be exhumed to determine what
were entrance and exit wounds and exactly where they were.
JB
Anthony Marsh
No, it wouldn't. Dr. Rose would have covered it up. There were at lead 10
doctors before the assassination who personally knew about the Addison's
Disease and they all covered it up.
It may be possible to answer some questions without exhumation.
>
> JB
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 24, 1:27 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Then someone told them that the
>> assassin was behind the President, so an entrance wound in the forehead
>> would mean conspiracy and that would mean WWIII.
>>
>
> I don't believe you even said that .
>
> Nobody could of started WWIII except LBJ .
>
Nonsense. Curtis LeMay could have.
That was not my point. My point was that LBJ feared that public opinion
would cause WWIII.
> The USSR wouldn't of attacked us we had a 20 to 1 megatonnage against
> them .
>
Silly. That's like saying the North Vietnam would not fight us because
we have the nuclear bomb and they didn't. Or that a bunch of goatherders
in Afghanistan would never attack the US because we outnumber them 1
million to one.
> Under no circumstances would / could US public opinion make LBJ give
> orders to launch missiles .
>
I don't care what your opinion is. I am only telling you what Johnson
thought at the time.
> Thats fantasy .
>
It's not MY fantasy. It was Johnson's fear.
> tl
>
Anthony Marsh
Well, a real forensic pathologist might know the proper techniques to use.
> CTer's were determined from the get go to exonerate Oswald at any cost ,
> quite harping on the clinical autopsy given JFK , the Kennedy family
> didn't want a thoughall examination and interferred at every chance :
>
That is propaganda. The family did not interfere.
They agreed to a complete autopsy.
> In the 1960 election, JFK concealed his Addison's disease and even stated
> flatly to the press "I have never had Addison's disease." That was a lie,
> of course. LBJ said Kennedy looked like "a spavined hunchback." A complete
> autopsy would of ended RFK's career .
>
Well, guess what? Even doctors are arguing today about what the proper
diagnosis should be.
I didn't know that you were a forensic pathologist. Can you explain to use
laypeople how properly identifying the wound locations proves the person
has Addison's Disease?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone who has seen the medical evidence and is qualified to judge
it agrees that two bullets hit JFK from behind. There is some
disagreement as to the precise location but they agree that it is a
100 percent certainty a bullet his JFK in the back of the head. Add to
this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
bigdog
>
> > There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
> > Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
> > Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
> > the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>
> Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
> Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
been shot through from front to back?
I did probably overstate the case when I said there was nothing in the
Z-film which gives us an indication of the shot direction. The visible
spray pattern of matter ejecting from JFK's head is forward and
upward. This is consistent for a shot from the rear but hardly
conclusive by itself.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
As if that would satisfy the CTs.
mucher1
Believe it or not, but, over at acjfk, one of the regulars theorized
that Nellie might be one of the shooters:
QUOTE ON
Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or
less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together
with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car.
Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet
from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to
have carried a gun strapped to his ankle.
Think about it.
QUOTE OFF
(Gil Jesus, newsgroup post, 15 Jul 07)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd783b571f900c24
QUOTE ON
When you put the locations of the wounds as described by the witnesses
together with Z-312, the source of the shot becomes one of the two
people in Nellie Connally's jump seat.
[...]
Add to this that it was "known" that John Connally carried a handgun
strapped to his ankle.
[...]
Was it John or Nellie Connally who pulled the trigger for the last
shot ?
QUOTE OFF
(Gil Jesus, newsgroup post, 30 Sep 07)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/572b6ccd1ad32c82
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone? More LN hyperbole and vast over statement. I'll tell you
what is LN fiction. A man is shot and is propelled back toward the
shooter. I would like to know who has seen that one? The process that
you discuss as matching the rifle is junk science and it has been
completely discredited and men have been released from prison that
were convicted on this so called evidence. The LN crowd can't even
agree where the wounds were so how can they determine direction with a
certainty?
JB
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Just viewing the Zapruder film at speed, the natural assumption is
that the shot came from the front right. Zapruder pointed at the
right side of his head when explaining the head wound and if i
remember correctly, referred to JFK's temple.
If i knew nothing about the JFK assassination and saw the film at play
speed, i would probably have said it looked like the shot came from
the front right.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 24, 11:42 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
>>> Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
>>> Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
>>> the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>>
>> Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
>> Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
>> blood on the back of his jacket.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
> been shot through from front to back?
Yes.
>
> I did probably overstate the case when I said there was nothing in the
> Z-film which gives us an indication of the shot direction. The visible
> spray pattern of matter ejecting from JFK's head is forward and
> upward. This is consistent for a shot from the rear but hardly
> conclusive by itself.
>
People use the word consistent when they can't prove something.
Anthony Marsh
So it doesn't matter to you exactly where the wounds were as long as
there were wounds. That doesn't exactly make you a forensic pathologist.
> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>
How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>
Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
John Blubaugh
That is odd that the people in the seat ahead of JFK evidently weren't hit
with that residue but agents behind the car were. Again, you state things
that are not in evidence. It looks to me as if some of the residue went on
the trunk of the limo. How is that forward? I know the car was moving
slowly forward but that doesn't account for all of it. I would say that
your statement that you overstated the case concerning the Z-Film is a
vast understatement about how mucf liberty you took. Of course, it would
have helped if the SS had not cleaned the limo removing the evidence that
might have proved something conclusively. Don't you wonder why they did
that? No, of course not, you don't think about anything if the WR said it
do you? Sell this fiction somewhere else the American public is never
going to buy it.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 12:58�pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 11:42�am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
>> > > Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
>> > > Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
>> > > the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>>
>> > Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
>> > Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
>> > blood on the back of his jacket.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
>> been shot through from front to back?
>>
>> I did probably overstate the case when I said there was nothing in the
>> Z-film which gives us an indication of the shot direction. The visible
>> spray pattern of matter ejecting from JFK's head is forward and
>> upward. This is consistent for a shot from the rear but hardly
>> conclusive by itself.
>
>That is odd that the people in the seat ahead of JFK evidently weren't hit
>with that residue but agents behind the car were.
Not true.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would have been a start and you are correct, CTs will question the
evidence and demand reasonable explanations. The WR didn't provide that
and Bugs and the LN crowd haven't answered the questions either. They just
say that eye or ear witnesses were either in error, unreliable or lying.
They have an excuse for every breech but no answers. Perhaps that is why
they are involved with the faction of our government that only says "no"
and never provides any answers about anything.
JB
John Blubaugh
> it agrees that two bullets hit JFK from behind. There is some
> disagreement as to the precise location but they agree that it is a
> 100 percent certainty a bullet his JFK in the back of the head. Add to
> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>
> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>
All, everyone, anyone with half a brain, any idiot could see and other
assorted LN overstatements of facts. Typical use of hyperbole.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you would be wrong.
bigdog
LOL!!! Just what are you calling junk science? Foresnic pathology or
ballistic fingerprinting? That is truely an amazingly bizarre declaration
by you considering that every court in the land accepts these as
legitimate forms of evidence. Would you care to name one or two people who
have been released from prison because it was determined that either the
forensic pathology or ballistic fingerprinting led to an erroneously
conclusion?
Here's a clue for you since you seem to be in need of one. Just because a
form of evidence does not lead to the conclusion the CTs desire does not
relegate that form of evidence to the status of junk science. I realize
when you are in the postition of having all the credible evidence against
your desired conclusion, you must resort to outlandish claims, but this
really goes off the rails.
Never underestimate the desperation of the CT crowd.
bigdog
> On 12/26/2009 12:58 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 11:42 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
> >>> Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
> >>> Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
> >>> the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>
> >> Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
> >> Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
> >> blood on the back of his jacket.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
> > been shot through from front to back?
>
> Yes.
>
Brilliant, Dr. Marsh. So according to you, only entrance wounds bleed. And
you think your more qualified to judge the medical evidence than the pros?
>
>
> > I did probably overstate the case when I said there was nothing in the
> > Z-film which gives us an indication of the shot direction. The visible
> > spray pattern of matter ejecting from JFK's head is forward and
> > upward. This is consistent for a shot from the rear but hardly
> > conclusive by itself.
>
> People use the word consistent when they can't prove something.
Stick to misinterpreting the medical evidence.
bigdog
You are the only one who has claimed to be a forensic pathologist even
though you have zero training or qualifications in that area. No it
doesn't matter to me exactly where the bullet hit. I am only concerned
with direction. The bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. That means the
shot came from behind him.
> > this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
> > found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
> > only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>
> How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
> fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
> got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
>
You're being silly. Again. My statement did not put a number on the
bullets but you make this ridiculous strawman argument. There were two
bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet. And don't give us this
nonsense about the fragmented bullet being more than one bullet. That
won't fit any shot pattern.
> > JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
> > frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
> > propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
> > bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>
> Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
You win $100 if you can point out any place in my post in which I said
"entire body".
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you name one qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the medical
evidence that doesn't believe that JFK was hit by two bullets from behind
him.
I will agree with you that people with half a brain and any idiot can
concoct all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. Not that I am saying that
about anyone on this forum.
bigdog
It is a certainty that eye and ear witnesses were wrong because they gave
conflicting accounts. It is not possible for them all to be right. To the
best of my knowledge, no one has accused any of the DP witnesses from
deliberately lying. I'm sure most, if not all the witnesses, reported what
they saw and heard to the best of their ability. People just don't
remember details perfectly.
bigdog
You are showing your ignorance. Connally has said on numerous
occasions that they were showered with pieces of brain tissue, some as
big as his thumb.
The SS agent did not scrub the entire limo. It was still a bloody mess
when it arrived in Washington. The splatter extended into the front
seat.
The only people who buy the WCR findings are those who want to know
the truth.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 26, 12:58 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 11:42 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
>>>> Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
>>>> Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
>>>> the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>>
>>> Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
>>> Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
>>> blood on the back of his jacket.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
>> been shot through from front to back?
>>
>> I did probably overstate the case when I said there was nothing in the
>> Z-film which gives us an indication of the shot direction. The visible
>> spray pattern of matter ejecting from JFK's head is forward and
>> upward. This is consistent for a shot from the rear but hardly
>> conclusive by itself.
>
> That is odd that the people in the seat ahead of JFK evidently weren't hit
> with that residue but agents behind the car were. Again, you state things
Curtjester, why do you state things that are the opposite of the facts?
The Connallys were showered with debris. Which agents in the car were
COVERED by debris?
Where is the blood spatter on the windshield of the SS follow-up car?
> that are not in evidence. It looks to me as if some of the residue went on
> the trunk of the limo. How is that forward? I know the car was moving
I guess you never heard of Newton and his laws of motion.
> slowly forward but that doesn't account for all of it. I would say that
All of it? You don't even know the extent of it.
> your statement that you overstated the case concerning the Z-Film is a
> vast understatement about how mucf liberty you took. Of course, it would
> have helped if the SS had not cleaned the limo removing the evidence that
> might have proved something conclusively. Don't you wonder why they did
> that? No, of course not, you don't think about anything if the WR said it
> do you? Sell this fiction somewhere else the American public is never
> going to buy it.
>
Maybe because you've never had any real life experience you don't know
how much drying blood stinks.
> JB
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 23, 3:37 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For my own purposes, when I have a visitor to my home that is unfamiliar
>> with my JFK murder studies, I show them the Zapruder film. I preface each
>> showing by saying that they'll view a film clip that lasts only 26
>> seconds. I ask them to watch it carefully, and when done, I'll ask them a
>> simple question. I reassure them that there is no right or wrong answer.
>>
>> Recently, a young man and his girlfriend watched it. My question at the
>> end is always the same --- I ask them to point to where the shooter was
>> located. Far and away, most viewers immediately point to the GK. Some have
>> indicated the shots came from behind, and a few have thought that it was
>> Kellerman or Greer.
>>
>> But this young man was a first. He claimed that Jackie shot him. WOW! I
>> commended him on being the most unique answer to my question.
>>
>> I offer this as a reminder that we can all look at the same piece of
>> film and see it quite differently.
>> Have a great holiday season, everyone!
>> Respectfully,
>> ~Mark
>
>
> ***Just viewing the Zapruder film at speed, the natural assumption is
> that the shot came from the front right. Zapruder pointed at the
> right side of his head when explaining the head wound and if i
> remember correctly, referred to JFK's temple.
That is where he saw the head explode.
Kilduff points to his right temple when he describes how Kennedy was
shot in the head.
jas
Never ceases to amaze me how one-dimensional someone can be when they
maintain it can be conclusively determined what direction the head shot
came from solely by Kennedy's movement in the Z-film, without taking into
consideration ALL the evidence.
A total ignoring of
1) No evidence of any shooter or shots from the GK except for some
confused and unreliable witnesses who thought the noise came from that
direction.
2) No forensic evidence of any bullet entering from the front and
traversing to the rear,
3) A spray of blood and brain matter traveling upwards and forwards
CLEARLY seen at Z-313,
4) The SN with all the evidence of the weapon that was used found in a
building BEHIND Kennedy
5) Howard Brennan actually seeing a man firing a rifle from that building,
not to mention the subsequent piecing together of Oswald's movements and
actions before and after the assassination.
This type of "thinking" is akin to someone watching the 9/11 attacks
maintaining they can conclusively determine who flew the planes, what
airports they originated from, and how many passengers were on them solely
by watching a tape of their flying into the WTC towers.
Simply amazing...
John Blubaugh
>
You can see when the mass goes up that it didn't send a big cloud forward.
The WCR is the biggest lie ever foisted on the Amerian People until the
lie about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As far as I
can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
believe all of the lies from WCR. Weigh that against millions who don't
believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
anymore.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Can you name one board-certified forensic pathologist who has seen ALL
the medical evidence and examined the brain? No, I didn't think so.
Anthony Marsh
So McAdams allow you to call another poster ignorant, but forbids me from
calling you stupid. More moderator bias at work.
> The SS agent did not scrub the entire limo. It was still a bloody mess
> when it arrived in Washington. The splatter extended into the front
> seat.
>
He doesn't have to scrub the entire limo to accidentally remove some
evidence. Look at the very tiny fragments they found in the back seat
compartment floor ONLY by lifting up the jump seat. There were probably
many more on the floor which were accidentally wiped up.
Anthony Marsh
Well, finally we have a direct admission from a WC defender. Now, are you
going to be like Harris and log on months later denying this admission
that you just made and demanding that I quote it verbatim? You don't care
where the wounds were. Then why bother doing an autopsy and why would the
WC waste the effort in lying about them?
> with direction. The bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. That means the
> shot came from behind him.
>
>>> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
>>> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
>>> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>>
>> How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
>> fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
>> got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
>>
>
> You're being silly. Again. My statement did not put a number on the
> bullets but you make this ridiculous strawman argument. There were two
No, we've been through this before. You made the same mistake before by
saying bullets plural when all we have is one bullet and some fragments.
> bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet. And don't give us this
> nonsense about the fragmented bullet being more than one bullet. That
> won't fit any shot pattern.
>
>>> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
>>> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
>>> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
>>> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>>
>> Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
>
> You win $100 if you can point out any place in my post in which I said
> "entire body".
>
You said "a man." That means the entire body. You forgot to specify
upper torso.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 27, 12:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/26/2009 12:58 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 11:42 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
>>>>> Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
>>>>> Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
>>>>> the shots were fired from behind JFK.
>>
>>>> Well, not quite. The Zapruder film gives us a very strong clue that
>>>> Connally was hit in the back because we can actually see the pool of
>>>> blood on the back of his jacket.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Are you saying that pool of blood would not have been there if he had
>>> been shot through from front to back?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> Brilliant, Dr. Marsh. So according to you, only entrance wounds bleed. And
> you think your more qualified to judge the medical evidence than the pros?
>
Well, I know this is too complicated for you, but we have two wounds on
Connally's torso. The one is the front is a jagged oval hole about 3 cm
wide. The one on his back where we see the blood is much smaller. Most
bullets of that type produce a small entrance wound and a large exit
wound. We do not see a large pool of blood on the back.
Anthony Marsh
He seems to be confusing NAA with ballistics matching.
>
> Here's a clue for you since you seem to be in need of one. Just because a
> form of evidence does not lead to the conclusion the CTs desire does not
> relegate that form of evidence to the status of junk science. I realize
I could say the same think about your dismissal of the acoustical
evidence.
bigdog
No one said a BIG cloud. There was a cloud and it was definitely forward.
The Connallys sitting in front of the Kennedys were showered with brain
tissue. How much more do you need to figure out that the explosion of
tissue was forward?
> The WCR is the biggest lie ever foisted on the Amerian People until the
> lie about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The lie about WMDs in Iraq became obvious in a very short amount of time.
The WCR remains rock solid after 45 years because it is the truth.
> As far as I
> can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
> believe all of the lies from WCR.
Yes, I believe all the lies of the WCR. All zero of them.
> Weigh that against millions who don't
> believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
> anymore.
>
Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost no one is interested in the JFK
case any more, regardless of what they believe.
bigdog
And since we don't have that brain exam from a board certified forensic
pathologist, you feel free to make wildly speculative theories which fly
in the face of the ample medical evidence we do have. Evidence which board
certified forensic pathologists have unanimously concluded indicate the
shots came from behind.
John Blubaugh
I am happy that you and the other LN fanatics here are amazed. The Z film
is the evidence for a shot from the front. There is evidence of an
entrance wound near the temple area. Every other eye and ear witness is
discarded as unreliable or lying but you bring up Brennan because it
bolsters your opinions. You assume because someone believes there was
conspiracty and a second shooter that we believe no shots were fired from
the TSBD. The spray of blood and matter should have all been directed to
the front. It wasn't. People following behind were hit with matter. The
autopsy was such a sham that we will never know for certain the path of
any bullet through the brain.
As long as people see the Z-film and the violent movement back and to the
left, you won't find any buyers of your nonsense. You can put you head
back in the sand now.
JB
markusp
> On Dec 23, 6:37 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > For my own purposes, when I have a visitor to my home that is unfamiliar
> > with my JFK murder studies, I show them the Zapruder film. I preface each
> > showing by saying that they'll view a film clip that lasts only 26
> > seconds. I ask them to watch it carefully, and when done, I'll ask them a
> > simple question. I reassure them that there is no right or wrong answer.
>
> > Recently, a young man and his girlfriend watched it. My question at the
> > end is always the same --- I ask them to point to where the shooter was
> > located. Far and away, most viewers immediately point to the GK. Some have
> > indicated the shots came from behind, and a few have thought that it was
> > Kellerman or Greer.
>
> > But this young man was a first. He claimed that Jackie shot him. WOW! I
> > commended him on being the most unique answer to my question.
>
> > I offer this as a reminder that we can all look at the same piece of
> > film and see it quite differently.
> > Have a great holiday season, everyone!
> > Respectfully,
> > ~Mark
>
> There's only one problem with your experiment. There is nothing in the
> Z-film that gives any indication from which direction the shots came from.
> Only the forensic evidence can tell us that and it tells us conclusively
> the shots were fired from behind JFK.
I agree in part. Yes, there is forensic evidence that is itself
questionable. When doing my little experiment with persons unfamiliar
with the JFK issues, they ALWAYS focus on JFK's movements at the point
of the headshot. I briefly explain to them that this is perhaps the
most contentious portion of the film, and that we can definitely
determine that at least one shot from the rear hit his head.
However, I do believe that the Z-film definitely shows JFK receiving a
bullet to his back at precisely Z230, causing his upper torso and head
to be thrust forward and upward. Some researchers that subscribe to
the SBT expect me to believe that his motion at frame 230 is some
fanciful neuromuscular delayed reaction. But yet we see Connally
physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
that JFK had already been hit somewhere between Z210 and up to his
emergence from behind the Stemmons sign, then we have an even longer
alleged neuromuscular delay exhibited by JFK at Z230.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI
Respectfully,
~Mark
bigdog
> On 12/27/2009 3:36 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > You are the only one who has claimed to be a forensic pathologist even
> > though you have zero training or qualifications in that area. No it
> > doesn't matter to me exactly where the bullet hit. I am only concerned
>
> Well, finally we have a direct admission from a WC defender. Now, are you
> going to be like Harris and log on months later denying this admission
> that you just made and demanding that I quote it verbatim? You don't care
> where the wounds were. Then why bother doing an autopsy and why would the
> WC waste the effort in lying about them?
>
again. Whether the head shot struck at the cowlick or the EOP is not
terribly important. Whichever is correct, the shot was fired by
Oswald, with his Carcano rifle, from the TSBD. Those are the important
points. If one group pathologists said the bullet hit the EOP and
another said it hit in the right temple, that would be tremendously
significant. The fact they both agree the shot came from behind is
what matters to me. I do not have access to the medical evidence and I
lack any expertise to judge it so it is pointless for me to try to
figure out which group of pathologists correctly placed the location
of the entrance.
> > with direction. The bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. That means the
> > shot came from behind him.
>
> >>> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
> >>> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
> >>> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>
> >> How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
> >> fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
> >> got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
>
> > You're being silly. Again. My statement did not put a number on the
> > bullets but you make this ridiculous strawman argument. There were two
>
> No, we've been through this before. You made the same mistake before by
> saying bullets plural when all we have is one bullet and some fragments.
>
One whole bullet plus bullet fragments establish the number of bullets
is plural. The mistake is yours, not mine. You went even further by
implying that I argued for 3 to 5 bullets. I have never argued for any
more than two because that is the only correct answer.
> > bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet. And don't give us this
> > nonsense about the fragmented bullet being more than one bullet. That
> > won't fit any shot pattern.
>
> >>> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
> >>> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
> >>> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
> >>> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>
> >> Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
>
> > You win $100 if you can point out any place in my post in which I said
> > "entire body".
>
> You said "a man." That means the entire body. You forgot to specify
> upper torso.
I didn't think that was necessary because most people are aware of the
fact that the lower half of JFK's body did not move forward or
backward.
Anthony Marsh
No, there is not. SHOW me the entrance wound near the temple area.
Anthony Marsh
How would they know if they didn't see the brain?
How would they know if they didn't section the brain.
bigdog
quite a bit different from stupidity. If you don't appreciate the
difference, take it up with McAdams.
> > The SS agent did not scrub the entire limo. It was still a bloody mess
> > when it arrived in Washington. The splatter extended into the front
> > seat.
>
> He doesn't have to scrub the entire limo to accidentally remove some
> evidence. Look at the very tiny fragments they found in the back seat
> compartment floor ONLY by lifting up the jump seat. There were probably
> many more on the floor which were accidentally wiped up.
>
By scrubbing any of the blood splatter evidence from the interior of
the limo, the SS agent would have been removing evidence of a shot
from the rear. How does that fit in with a conspiratorial scenario?
Anthony Marsh
What, like two days? How about 8 years? The HSCA exposed the WC lies 15
years later. Not two days later. And still certain WC defenders here
deny that the CIA and Bush/Cheney lied about the WMDs in Iraq. To this
day McAdams really believes they are still there and we just haven't
been lucky enough to find them.
> The WCR remains rock solid after 45 years because it is the truth.
>
The WCR is a crock of shit and everyone knows it.
>> As far as I
>> can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
>> believe all of the lies from WCR.
>
> Yes, I believe all the lies of the WCR. All zero of them.
>
>> Weigh that against millions who don't
>> believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
>> anymore.
>>
> Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost no one is interested in the JFK
> case any more, regardless of what they believe.
>
Yeah, that's why the CIA allocates billions of our tax dollars to cover
it up and why HBO will spend millions of dollars to try to reverse
public opinion. Because the last surge of public opinion caused the
formation of the ARRB and FORCED the CIA to release many damaging documents.
bigdog
How many times are the CTs going to repeat the nonsense JFK moved back
and to the left. He moved straight back. He hit the seat back on the
far right side of the car. If you want to stick to this ridiculous
Costner/Garrison mantra, explain how someone can move back and to the
left and end up on the right.
Whatever the cause of JFK's movement was, we know what it was not. It
was not from the force of a frontal shot. A bullet could not have
thrown him back with such force. I would like you or anyone else who
believes this to show any experimental evidence which indicates a
bullet can move an object the size and weight of JFK's head and torso
backward with the force we see in the Z-film. It is not possible.
Mythbusters has done and experiment in which a dummy fixed with a
steel plate to insure it absorbed all the energy of the bullet. It was
shot with a .50 caliber rifle. The dummy barely budged. That was with
the most powerful rifle in the world. A rifle that powerful would have
obliterated JFK's head. So how could a less powerful rifle have moved
JFK the distance we saw him move?
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I defer to your greater knowledge. I thought there was a wound there
that had a circular edge that indicated it was an entry wound. Sorry.
JB
jas
It's so funny when CTers make their argument up as they go along and
only disagree because they enjoy disagreeing.
I suppose this can be understood when the facts obliterate their
arguments and there's nothing left for them to do.
Simply amazing...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b3826a5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Well, I know this is too complicated for you, but we have two wounds on
> Connally's torso. The one is the front is a jagged oval hole about 3 cm
> wide. The one on his back where we see the blood is much smaller. Most
> bullets of that type produce a small entrance wound and a large exit
> wound. We do not see a large pool of blood on the back.
> >
Ass-Backwards Marsh !
JBC's back wound was Oblong, indicative of an Exit wound.
JBC's chest wound was Round, Indicative of an Entrance wound.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
Anthony Marsh
Well, thanks for clearing that up. So you say it is ok for me to call you
ignorant. We'll have to test that out and see how many times McAdams
rejects my messages to protect you.
>
>>> The SS agent did not scrub the entire limo. It was still a bloody mess
>>> when it arrived in Washington. The splatter extended into the front
>>> seat.
>>
>> He doesn't have to scrub the entire limo to accidentally remove some
>> evidence. Look at the very tiny fragments they found in the back seat
>> compartment floor ONLY by lifting up the jump seat. There were probably
>> many more on the floor which were accidentally wiped up.
>>
> By scrubbing any of the blood splatter evidence from the interior of
> the limo, the SS agent would have been removing evidence of a shot
> from the rear. How does that fit in with a conspiratorial scenario?
>
Blood on the rear seat does not tell you where the shot came from.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 27, 11:56 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 3:36 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> You are the only one who has claimed to be a forensic pathologist even
>>> though you have zero training or qualifications in that area. No it
>>> doesn't matter to me exactly where the bullet hit. I am only concerned
>>
>> Well, finally we have a direct admission from a WC defender. Now, are you
>> going to be like Harris and log on months later denying this admission
>> that you just made and demanding that I quote it verbatim? You don't care
>> where the wounds were. Then why bother doing an autopsy and why would the
>> WC waste the effort in lying about them?
>>
> I have made that "admission" before and I will be happy to make it
> again. Whether the head shot struck at the cowlick or the EOP is not
> terribly important. Whichever is correct, the shot was fired by
> Oswald, with his Carcano rifle, from the TSBD. Those are the important
Everytime you make these admissions you bring shame to the WC defenders.
You confirm everything that I have been saying. That you don't care
about the evidence as long as you have your biased conclusion.
> points. If one group pathologists said the bullet hit the EOP and
> another said it hit in the right temple, that would be tremendously
> significant. The fact they both agree the shot came from behind is
Again confirming that the 4 inch difference means nothing to you. When you
have a wacky theory the data points do not matter. If the wounds point
back to the sniper's nest with an entrance at the EOP and then the actual
wound was 4 inches higher, all you do is claim that the trajectory is
exactly the same. No matter where on the head you just say the trajectory
is the same and points back to the sniper's nest. Even if the wound was in
the right temple you would say that is exactly the same trajectory and
would point back to the sniper's nest. You've made your bias perfectly
clear.
> what matters to me. I do not have access to the medical evidence and I
> lack any expertise to judge it so it is pointless for me to try to
> figure out which group of pathologists correctly placed the location
> of the entrance.
>
So why are you pretending to discuss it? You know nothing. You don't
want to learn anything. So go down to the bar and get drunk. At least
that's doing something useless for society.
>>> with direction. The bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. That means the
>>> shot came from behind him.
>>
>>>>> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
>>>>> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
>>>>> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>>
>>>> How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
>>>> fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
>>>> got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
>>
>>> You're being silly. Again. My statement did not put a number on the
>>> bullets but you make this ridiculous strawman argument. There were two
>>
>> No, we've been through this before. You made the same mistake before by
>> saying bullets plural when all we have is one bullet and some fragments.
>>
> One whole bullet plus bullet fragments establish the number of bullets
> is plural. The mistake is yours, not mine. You went even further by
> implying that I argued for 3 to 5 bullets. I have never argued for any
> more than two because that is the only correct answer.
>
No, It didn't imply that you argued for 3 to 5 bullets. I was making fun
of your mistake.
>>> bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet. And don't give us this
>>> nonsense about the fragmented bullet being more than one bullet. That
>>> won't fit any shot pattern.
>>
>>>>> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
>>>>> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
>>>>> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
>>>>> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>>
>>>> Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
>>
>>> You win $100 if you can point out any place in my post in which I said
>>> "entire body".
>>
>> You said "a man." That means the entire body. You forgot to specify
>> upper torso.
>
> I didn't think that was necessary because most people are aware of the
> fact that the lower half of JFK's body did not move forward or
> backward.
>
Oh really? Prove it.
Again, you change the conditions to make it seem more impossible. Instead
of just the head, you add in the upper torso. And then compare that to
Hollywood movies which show the WHOLE body being knocked backwards with
special effects. Could be because you have never seen any person shot in
the head. Lucky you.
Let me ask you this simple question.
You know when the Nazis shot their victims next to a mass grave? Which way
did the victims fall, backwards into the pit or forwards into the pit? Is
that why they lined them up behind the pit?
You seem to think that the reason why they tie a victim to a pole when
executing him is so that he doesn't come flying back at the firing squad
at 200 MPH!
Anthony Marsh
You may have the distinction of being the first person to propose that JFK
was not hit until Z-230. So explain why his hands are up in front of his
throat and he is clearly distressed? Bad piece of bacon at breakfast? How
does the bullet exit his throat and not hit his hands?
> physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
> than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
> Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
McCarthy's testimony.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, who could argue with science like that? Absurd. Back and to the
left no matter what you say.
JB
John Blubaugh
It really isn't too hard to amaze you. I suspect that a good stiff breeze
would do it.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did you get the idea that JFK did not react until Z230? His reaction
begins at Z226, one frame after he reappears from behind the sign. This is
exactly the same frame that Connally reacted. They both bring their arms
up at precisely the same frame. We see evidence of a strike at Z224 with
the bulging of Connally's coat which probably came about 2 frames after
the bullet hit. Your interpretation of the reactions of the two men
differs from what most believed for years and many still believe, that
Kennedy reacted first and Connally a fraction of a second later. Because
Kennedy's reaction occurs just one frame after he reappears, to the naked
eye it seems he was already reacting. I believed that for many years.
However we can see that the reaction came one frame after he reappeared.
We know this because in Z224 we can see his right hand which was being
lowered from a wave he was making just before he disappeared. The hand
continues to lower at Z225 when we first see his head and torso but at
Z226 his had reverses direction and he rapidly brings both hands up in
front of his throat. Many people have believed that JBC did not react
until the Z230s when he turns hard to his right and dips his shoulder, but
this is a secondary reaction. His initial reaction was the sudden raising
of his right arm which flips up in the air and then back down in a matter
of 9 frames, one half second. This reaction begins at precisely the same
frame JFK's arms went up. While it is hard to prove the exact frame the
bullet struck the two men, it is my belief that taking all factors into
account, the single bullet hit at or about Z222, followed two frames later
by the bulging of JBC's coat, and four frames after the strike, both men
began reacting.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
They would know that by the nature of the bullet holes in the wall of
the skull. Inward beveling in the back of the head and outward
beveling in the temple. Pretty basic stuff. Something even I as a
layman can understand but apparently you can't.
bigdog
Why would you assume that WC defenders are also Bush/Cheney defenders. It
is two seperate groups of people with some overlap. It is possible to be
one without being the other. I know many Bush/Cheney defenders who don't
believe the WCR.
> > The WCR remains rock solid after 45 years because it is the truth.
>
> The WCR is a crock of shit and everyone knows it.
>
That is a ridiculous statement because most surveys indicate that about
30% of the people believe Oswald acted alone. That means 70% believe there
was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. 70% is not everyone. Not even close.
> >> As far as I
> >> can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
> >> believe all of the lies from WCR.
>
> > Yes, I believe all the lies of the WCR. All zero of them.
>
> >> Weigh that against millions who don't
> >> believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
> >> anymore.
>
> > Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost no one is interested in the JFK
> > case any more, regardless of what they believe.
>
> Yeah, that's why the CIA allocates billions of our tax dollars to cover
> it up and why HBO will spend millions of dollars to try to reverse
> public opinion. Because the last surge of public opinion caused the
> formation of the ARRB and FORCED the CIA to release many damaging documents.
>
OMG, this is hysterical. The CIA doesn't give a shit about the JFK
assassination, just like most of the country. Do you really think they
care what a few dozen hard core JFK buffs who argue on these boards
believe?
bigdog
You defer to Tony Marsh? You must be an army of one. Tony thinks that
semi-circular defect is above JFK's right eye. Is this really the guy you
want to defer to? Tony does have a vast knowledge of the facts of the
assassination but unfortunately his analysis is only half vast.
bigdog
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Just when you think it can't get more bizarre. Rossley, thinks JBC was
shot through the chest from the front. Since the back wound was above the
chest wound, Rossley apparently believes Connally was shot from between
the front seats of the limo. So who was the triggerman, Tom? Greer or
Kellerman?
bigdog
opinion.
>
>
> >>> The SS agent did not scrub the entire limo. It was still a bloody mess
> >>> when it arrived in Washington. The splatter extended into the front
> >>> seat.
>
> >> He doesn't have to scrub the entire limo to accidentally remove some
> >> evidence. Look at the very tiny fragments they found in the back seat
> >> compartment floor ONLY by lifting up the jump seat. There were probably
> >> many more on the floor which were accidentally wiped up.
>
> > By scrubbing any of the blood splatter evidence from the interior of
> > the limo, the SS agent would have been removing evidence of a shot
> > from the rear. How does that fit in with a conspiratorial scenario?
>
> Blood on the rear seat does not tell you where the shot came from.
No it doesn't but blood splatter in the interior in front of the rear
seat would.
bigdog
> On 12/28/2009 4:06 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:56 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2009 3:36 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>> You are the only one who has claimed to be a forensic pathologist even
> >>> though you have zero training or qualifications in that area. No it
> >>> doesn't matter to me exactly where the bullet hit. I am only concerned
>
> >> Well, finally we have a direct admission from a WC defender. Now, are you
> >> going to be like Harris and log on months later denying this admission
> >> that you just made and demanding that I quote it verbatim? You don't care
> >> where the wounds were. Then why bother doing an autopsy and why would the
> >> WC waste the effort in lying about them?
>
> > I have made that "admission" before and I will be happy to make it
> > again. Whether the head shot struck at the cowlick or the EOP is not
> > terribly important. Whichever is correct, the shot was fired by
> > Oswald, with his Carcano rifle, from the TSBD. Those are the important
>
> Everytime you make these admissions you bring shame to the WC defenders.
> You confirm everything that I have been saying. That you don't care
> about the evidence as long as you have your biased conclusion.
>
Right, Tony. I'm sure all the other WC defenders on this board are
cringing with embarassment. What you term admissions are simply my
recognition of the fact that we can't be 100% certain about every element
of the case in order to reach a logical conclusion. We don't have to know
whether the bullet hit JFK in the EOP or the cowlick to know that it was
fired by Oswald from the TSBD with his Carcano rifle. We have ample other
evidence that tells us this. We don't have to know whether the scope on
the rifle was misalligned at the time of the shooting because we know that
the Carcano delivered the bullets on target so he found a way to work
around any problems that might have been there. We don't have to know when
Oswald discovered the opportunity he was being dealt. We don't even have
to know why he did it. We know by his actions that he reached his decision
by Thursday evening when he prepared his rifle for transport to the TSBD
the next day.
> > points. If one group pathologists said the bullet hit the EOP and
> > another said it hit in the right temple, that would be tremendously
> > significant. The fact they both agree the shot came from behind is
>
> Again confirming that the 4 inch difference means nothing to you. When you
> have a wacky theory the data points do not matter. If the wounds point
> back to the sniper's nest with an entrance at the EOP and then the actual
> wound was 4 inches higher, all you do is claim that the trajectory is
> exactly the same. No matter where on the head you just say the trajectory
> is the same and points back to the sniper's nest. Even if the wound was in
> the right temple you would say that is exactly the same trajectory and
> would point back to the sniper's nest. You've made your bias perfectly
> clear.
>
Welcome back, Mr. Strawman. A temple entry wound would have been very
significant and proof that the bullet was not fired by Oswald because he
couldn't have done anything but his JFK with a grazing shot from the TSBD.
A cowlick entry or a EOP entry both work for Oswald as the shooter.
> > what matters to me. I do not have access to the medical evidence and I
> > lack any expertise to judge it so it is pointless for me to try to
> > figure out which group of pathologists correctly placed the location
> > of the entrance.
>
> So why are you pretending to discuss it? You know nothing. You don't
> want to learn anything. So go down to the bar and get drunk. At least
> that's doing something useless for society.
>
As opposed to you sitting at your computer and doing something useless
for society.
>
>
>
>
> >>> with direction. The bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. That means the
> >>> shot came from behind him.
>
> >>>>> this the fact that the only recovered bullets matched a rifle that was
> >>>>> found in a location behind JFK and your claim that the Z-film is the
> >>>>> only indication for the direction of the shots becomes ludicrous.
>
> >>>> How many bullets do you think were recovered? We have CE 399 and some
> >>>> fragments. So which additional bullets do you know about? How many you
> >>>> got, maybe 3 or 5 extras?
>
> >>> You're being silly. Again. My statement did not put a number on the
> >>> bullets but you make this ridiculous strawman argument. There were two
>
> >> No, we've been through this before. You made the same mistake before by
> >> saying bullets plural when all we have is one bullet and some fragments.
>
> > One whole bullet plus bullet fragments establish the number of bullets
> > is plural. The mistake is yours, not mine. You went even further by
> > implying that I argued for 3 to 5 bullets. I have never argued for any
> > more than two because that is the only correct answer.
>
> No, It didn't imply that you argued for 3 to 5 bullets. I was making fun
> of your mistake.
>
And in the process, you made fun of yourself.
>
>
>
>
> >>> bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet. And don't give us this
> >>> nonsense about the fragmented bullet being more than one bullet. That
> >>> won't fit any shot pattern.
>
> >>>>> JFK's backward movement following the head shot is not evidence of a
> >>>>> frontal shot. A bullet cannot move a man to the degree we see JFK
> >>>>> propelled backward following the head shot. Bullets do not throw
> >>>>> bodies. That is Hollywood fiction.
>
> >>>> Your description is fiction. No one said a bullet moved an entire body.
>
> >>> You win $100 if you can point out any place in my post in which I said
> >>> "entire body".
>
> >> You said "a man." That means the entire body. You forgot to specify
> >> upper torso.
>
> > I didn't think that was necessary because most people are aware of the
> > fact that the lower half of JFK's body did not move forward or
> > backward.
>
> Oh really? Prove it.
>
> Again, you change the conditions to make it seem more impossible. Instead
> of just the head, you add in the upper torso. And then compare that to
> Hollywood movies which show the WHOLE body being knocked backwards with
> special effects. Could be because you have never seen any person shot in
> the head. Lucky you.
>
I added in the upper torso? So you don't think the upper torso moved
back?
> Let me ask you this simple question.
>
> You know when the Nazis shot their victims next to a mass grave? Which way
> did the victims fall, backwards into the pit or forwards into the pit? Is
> that why they lined them up behind the pit?
>
Since I didn't see them all being shot, I can't tell you which way
they all fell. I would be surprised if they all fell the same way.
> You seem to think that the reason why they tie a victim to a pole when
> executing him is so that he doesn't come flying back at the firing squad
> at 200 MPH!
No, I think they tie them to a pole to make them a stationary target.
Of course, some firing squads don't bother tying them to anything.
bigdog
No, Jim Moore proposed that in Conspiracy of One and he was not the
first.
> > physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
> > than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
> > Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
>
> JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
> McCarthy's testimony.
>
JFK was not even visible at Z220 so how can you tell if he was
reacting or not?
>
>
> > that JFK had already been hit somewhere between Z210 and up to his
> > emergence from behind the Stemmons sign, then we have an even longer
> > alleged neuromuscular delay exhibited by JFK at Z230.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI
>
> > Respectfully,
> > ~Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
Obviously you can't argue with it because you have no rebuttal. But don't
feel bad. I have asked that question dozens of times on this forum and not
once has anyone been able to come up with a ratiional answer. There is no
logical way to argue that JFK moved back and to the left and ended up on
the right. It is physically impossible. And it ain't science. It's simple
common sense. CT's should try using theirs once in a while.
jas
No stiff breeze -- just your hot air.
As I read through this continually expanding thread I find it also quite
amazing how bigdog can consistently blow you and Marsh's points out of the
arena, but yet you both come staggering back for more.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and
to the left. Remember when Dan Rather reported that JFK jerked violently
forward when hit with the head shot and then the Z-film was released and
low and behold back and to the left. Back and to the left. Open your
damned eyes. Back and to the left.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, it appears to me that Tony is the premier intellect here and he
eats your lunch on every issue.
JB
jas
> Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and
> to the left. Remember when Dan Rather reported that JFK jerked violently
> forward when hit with the head shot and then the Z-film was released and
> low and behold back and to the left. Back and to the left. Open your
> damned eyes. Back and to the left.
>
> JB
I knew it!!
Yes, folks, it's Oliver Stone in disguise.
claviger
Yes, the movie "JFK" in an extreme close-up of the Z-film clearly shows
the head does go forward first, then backward. This is why Cyril Wecht
proposed the double head shot theory from two directions simultaneously.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e40d6ea8-d8d9-4f58...@l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 6:54 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b3826a5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > Well, I know this is too complicated for you, but we have two wounds on
> > Connally's torso. The one is the front is a jagged oval hole about 3 cm
> > wide. The one on his back where we see the blood is much smaller. Most
> > bullets of that type produce a small entrance wound and a large exit
> > wound. We do not see a large pool of blood on the back.
>
> Ass-Backwards Marsh !
>
> JBC's back wound was Oblong, indicative of an Exit wound.
> JBC's chest wound was Round, Indicative of an Entrance wound.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;
Just when you think it can't get more bizarre. Rossley, thinks JBC was
shot through the chest from the front. Since the back wound was above the
chest wound, Rossley apparently believes Connally was shot from between
the front seats of the limo. So who was the triggerman, Tom? Greer or
Kellerman?
I write;
AGAIN:
JBC's back wound was Oblong, indicative of an Exit wound.
JBC's chest wound was Round, Indicative of an Entrance wound.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
bigdog RUNS from his own official evidence/testimony.
Anthony Marsh
I missed that. Can you cite the page and quote the sentence?
>>> physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
>>> than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
>>> Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
>>
>> JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
>> McCarthy's testimony.
>>
>
> JFK was not even visible at Z220 so how can you tell if he was
> reacting or not?
>
The fact that you can see his reaction in Z-224 means that he started
reacting by at least four frames earlier. Why do I have to explain the
simplest things to you?
Anthony Marsh
Prove it.
Anthony Marsh
Dr. Lawrence Angel diagrammed the semi-circular defect as being on the
frontal bone above the right eye.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/angelray.gif
Are you calling Dr. Angel a liar?
Or are you more expert than he is?
Anthony Marsh
It is certainly possible, but exceedingly rare and almost impossible here.
I did specify "certain" not all.
>>> The WCR remains rock solid after 45 years because it is the truth.
>>
>> The WCR is a crock of shit and everyone knows it.
>>
>
> That is a ridiculous statement because most surveys indicate that about
> 30% of the people believe Oswald acted alone. That means 70% believe there
> was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. 70% is not everyone. Not even close.
>
Wrong survey. Some people can think that Oswald did it alone, but
realize that the WCR is still a crock of shit.
And when I said everyone I meant every being in THIS universe.
>>>> As far as I
>>>> can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
>>>> believe all of the lies from WCR.
>>
>>> Yes, I believe all the lies of the WCR. All zero of them.
>>
>>>> Weigh that against millions who don't
>>>> believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
>>>> anymore.
>>
>>> Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost no one is interested in the JFK
>>> case any more, regardless of what they believe.
>>
>> Yeah, that's why the CIA allocates billions of our tax dollars to cover
>> it up and why HBO will spend millions of dollars to try to reverse
>> public opinion. Because the last surge of public opinion caused the
>> formation of the ARRB and FORCED the CIA to release many damaging documents.
>>
>
> OMG, this is hysterical. The CIA doesn't give a shit about the JFK
> assassination, just like most of the country. Do you really think they
> care what a few dozen hard core JFK buffs who argue on these boards
> believe?
>
>
So much so that they send out an alert to all their stations telling
them how to attack WC critics. So much so that they continue to break
the law every day to withhold documents.
Anthony Marsh
You know absolutely nothing about ballistics. An elongated wound does not
indicate exit. A wound much larger than the caliber rarely indicates
entrance unless it is a contact wound.
bigdog
What the hell does what Dan Rather's report have to do with what
happened? If he wants to that report defended, he'll have to come on
this forum and do it himself.
You can repeat the mantra "back and to the left" all you want and it
won't make it true because it didn't happen. You still are stumped for
an explaination for how JFK went back and to the left and ended up on
the far right side of the seat. You tell me to open my eyes but
apparently you are unable to see that at Z320, JFK's back is against
the seat and he is still on the far right side of the car. I know
"back and to the left" has been taken as an article of faith by the
CTs since Costner did that ridiculous courtroom demonstration in the
movie JFK. All he did was prove how gullible some people will be when
they desperately want to believe something. They'll accept just about
anything without giving it a thought. Apparently, he was preaching to
the choir.
bigdog
> On 12/28/2009 9:34 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> McCarthy's testimony.
>
> > JFK was not even visible at Z220 so how can you tell if he was
> > reacting or not?
>
> The fact that you can see his reaction in Z-224 means that he started
> reacting by at least four frames earlier. Why do I have to explain the
> simplest things to you?
>
we can see of JFK at Z224 is his right hand so how is that and
indication of a reaction. When he disappeared behind the sign, he had
just begun to lower his right hand from a wave. The position of his
right hand at Z225 is lower than it was at Z224, so at the instant he
reappears, he was not yet reacting. It is at Z226 that his right hand
changes directions and suddenly and rapidly begins to rise up in front
of his throat. This is the beginning of his reaction, the same frame
we see JBC reacting when his right arm also rises suddenly and
rapidly. According to your own Dr. McCarthy who proposed a reaction 4
frames following the bullet strike, that would put the strike at Z222,
which is where I believe it occured.
Even if you were correct that JFK is seen reacting at Z224, how could
you possibly conclude that reaction started 4 frames earlier. How do
you know Z224 isn't the beginning of his reaction. That would put the
bullet strike at Z220, not the reaction to the strike at Z220. Once
again, you demonstrate a knowledge of the facts but you mangle the
analysis.
markusp
> You may have the distinction of being the first person to propose that JFK
> was not hit until Z-230.
Sorry to confuse you.
>So explain why his hands are up in front of his
> throat and he is clearly distressed?
Because someone shot him.
>Bad piece of bacon at breakfast?
I am not familiar with what he had eaten that day.
>How does the bullet exit his throat and not hit his hands?
Because the throat wound may have been an entry wound, just like Dr.
Perry observed.
> > physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
> > than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
> > Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
>
> JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
> McCarthy's testimony.
I can accept that. If Connally's lapel has been acted upon by ejecta
beginning at Z-224, then Connally must have been hit during the
camera's blanking interval between 223 and 224. This separates the
shot that hit JFK while behind the sign, and the shot resulting in
Connally's chest wounds. Then we still have the visible event by JFK
from frames 230 to 234, inclusive. Thanks!
Respectfully,
~Mark
bigdog
Frankly, I'm not surprised you believe that. You'll believe just about
anything, except of course, the truth. Maybe your idol can help you out
and explain how if JFK went back and to the left, he ended up on the
right.
bigdog
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
While Tom runs from defending his own statements. He has made a ridiculous
claim and when asked to explain it, he does what he always does. He points
to some irrelevant webpage that doesn't even begin to address the question
that was asked. I'll try again, Tom. Do you have any explaination for how
your proposed back exit wound was higher than your proposed front entrance
wound. An exit wound above and to the right of the entrance wound would
indicate the shot was fired from below and to the left of Connally. Where
would that put your shooter? I realize it is pointless to ask Tom a
logical question and expect a logical answer. Insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So call me
crazy.
bigdog
Are you calling everyone else a liar. Can you name one person at Parkland
who reported a bullet wound above the right eye? Can you name anyone who
saw JFK's body who reported a bullet wound above the right eye. Can you
name one other qualified medical professional who believes there being a
bullet wound above the right eye. I've seen the autopsy photos that became
public and they clearly show there is no bullet wound in JFK's forehead.
bigdog
Thank you. It's always nice to start my day with a good belly laugh. The
central finding of the WCR is that Oswald alone killed JFK. Now you are
telling us that people who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK think "the
WCR is still a crock of shit." That is comical.
>
>
>
>
> >>>> As far as I
> >>>> can see there is a hard core group here of maybe 30 people or less who
> >>>> believe all of the lies from WCR.
>
> >>> Yes, I believe all the lies of the WCR. All zero of them.
>
> >>>> Weigh that against millions who don't
> >>>> believe it. You can repeat the lies all you want but no one is listening
> >>>> anymore.
>
> >>> Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost no one is interested in the JFK
> >>> case any more, regardless of what they believe.
>
> >> Yeah, that's why the CIA allocates billions of our tax dollars to cover
> >> it up and why HBO will spend millions of dollars to try to reverse
> >> public opinion. Because the last surge of public opinion caused the
> >> formation of the ARRB and FORCED the CIA to release many damaging documents.
>
> > OMG, this is hysterical. The CIA doesn't give a shit about the JFK
> > assassination, just like most of the country. Do you really think they
> > care what a few dozen hard core JFK buffs who argue on these boards
> > believe?
>
> So much so that they send out an alert to all their stations telling
> them how to attack WC critics. So much so that they continue to break
> the law every day to withhold documents.
Could you quote from one of these alerts? I'm sure you aren't just making
this charge up out of thin air. Surely, you have evidence that backs up
this claim.
markusp
> Where did you get the idea that JFK did not react until Z230?
The physical motion of JFK's upper torso that begins at Z-230 is his
second reaction that I observe in the film. His first reaction is the
drawing of his arms to his throat, which happens sooner. JFK's third
reaction in the film happens at Z-313, where he develops a serious
headache.
~Mark
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e40d6ea8-d8d9-4f58...@l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You may have the distinction of being the first person to propose that JFK
>> was not hit until Z-230.
>
> Sorry to confuse you.
>
>> So explain why his hands are up in front of his
>> throat and he is clearly distressed?
>
> Because someone shot him.
Yes, BEFORE Z-230.
>
>> Bad piece of bacon at breakfast?
>
> I am not familiar with what he had eaten that day.
What else could account for his reaction at Z-224?
>
>> How does the bullet exit his throat and not hit his hands?
>
> Because the throat wound may have been an entry wound, just like Dr.
> Perry observed.
>
No. His hands would likewise be in the way of a bullet hitting his
throat from the front at Z-230.
>>> physically reacting at frame 224, a full one-third of a second sooner
>>> than JFK. If this missile allegedly passed through JFK first, and then
>>> Connally, why does Connally react first? Add to this the speculation
>>
>> JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
>> McCarthy's testimony.
>
> I can accept that. If Connally's lapel has been acted upon by ejecta
> beginning at Z-224, then Connally must have been hit during the
> camera's blanking interval between 223 and 224. This separates the
> shot that hit JFK while behind the sign, and the shot resulting in
> Connally's chest wounds. Then we still have the visible event by JFK
> from frames 230 to 234, inclusive. Thanks!
> Respectfully,
> ~Mark
>
>
Thanks? I totally destroy your wacky theory and you pretend that I
proved it for you?
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 28, 11:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 9:34 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 9:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> JFK was already reacting for at least 4 frames before Z-224. See Dr.
>>>> McCarthy's testimony.
>>
>>> JFK was not even visible at Z220 so how can you tell if he was
>>> reacting or not?
>>
>> The fact that you can see his reaction in Z-224 means that he started
>> reacting by at least four frames earlier. Why do I have to explain the
>> simplest things to you?
>>
> Because what you call a simple thing is simply wrong. The only thing
> we can see of JFK at Z224 is his right hand so how is that and
> indication of a reaction. When he disappeared behind the sign, he had
Well, obviously you did not see Dr. McCarthy's testimony. JFK did not
start with his hands up in front of his throat at the beginning of the
motorcade. They were down or wave or doing other things. The position of
his hand at Z-224 indicates an involuntary reflex action to having just
been struck by a bullet. Dr. McCarthy estimated that it would take at
least 4 Zapruder frames for his hand to rise to that position.
> just begun to lower his right hand from a wave. The position of his
> right hand at Z225 is lower than it was at Z224, so at the instant he
> reappears, he was not yet reacting. It is at Z226 that his right hand
Again, JFK's hands clutched into fists in front of his throat was not a
natural position and you can't see it anywhere earlier in the motorcade.
It is a reaction to having just been shot.
> changes directions and suddenly and rapidly begins to rise up in front
> of his throat. This is the beginning of his reaction, the same frame
> we see JBC reacting when his right arm also rises suddenly and
> rapidly. According to your own Dr. McCarthy who proposed a reaction 4
> frames following the bullet strike, that would put the strike at Z222,
> which is where I believe it occured.
>
Well, why don't you keep moving the frame back farther and farther until
it fits ALL the evidence. That's the best thing to do when you invent a
wacky theory. Keep changing the details when everyone proves you wrong.
> Even if you were correct that JFK is seen reacting at Z224, how could
> you possibly conclude that reaction started 4 frames earlier. How do
That's how long it takes him to react.
> you know Z224 isn't the beginning of his reaction. That would put the
Because his hands were not balled up into fists when we see him
disappear behind the sign. That was a reflex reaction to a bullet.
> bullet strike at Z220, not the reaction to the strike at Z220. Once
> again, you demonstrate a knowledge of the facts but you mangle the
> analysis.
>
OK, fine. So now you've moved the SBT to Z-220. Great theory you have
there where you can change the frame number every hour. Is that how
Einstein proved his theory when they took those famous photos of the
eclipse? "No, I didn't mean 1.75 seconds of arc, I meant 3.6 seconds of
arc. Oh, the test shows 0.65 seconds of arc, that's what I meant. Ok, the
latest test shows 7 seconds of arc, that makes sense."
Anthony Marsh
Great, so now you have a theory of Kennedy being hit 3 times? You named
your frames for the second and third shots, but not the first. You got a
guess for that one? Z-220 maybe? Which shot do you think hit him in the
back? I assume you need the other shot to hit his throat. What frame
number?
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say alerts plural. I said "an" alert. "An" means one. It just
so happens that I was the guy who converted it into a text file.
DISPATCH CLASSIFICATION PROCESSING
ACTION
TOP SECRET MARKED FOR
INDEXING
TO Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases X NO INDEXING
REQUIRED
INFO ONLY
QUALIFIED DESK
CAN JUDGE
INDEXING
FROM The Director of Central Intelligence MICROFILM
SUBJECT Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
ACTION REQUIRED - REFERENCES
PSYCH
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination
on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.
Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report
(which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now
had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new
pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and
articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics
have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often
they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as
a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a
public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did
not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled
thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless
polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S.
government, including our organization. The members of the Warren
Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and
prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff
were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of
the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and
wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.
Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President
Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited,
was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such
seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole
reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is
directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the
investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our
organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald
worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for
countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as
to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background
information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of
unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the
assassination ques- tion be initiated where it is not already taking
place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested:
DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER DATE
9 attachments h/w 4/1/67
1 - classified secret CLASSIFICATION HQS FILE NUMBER
8 - Unclassified TOP SECRET DESTROY WHEN
NO LONGER
NEEDED
CONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL
AND NUMBER
DISPATCH TOP SECRET
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite
contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the
Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible,
that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that
further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the
opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be
deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their
influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the
critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate
for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should
provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should
point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories
adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii)
financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or
(v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of
the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out
Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article
and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much
less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by
knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a
whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer,
or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following
arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not
consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim
Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that
case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence,
no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no
agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one,
might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians
(Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der
Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or
Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the
latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis
were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They
tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual
eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence
offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and
photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records
will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out
of context, or were discarded by the Commis- sion for good and sufficient
reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to
con- ceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to
receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General
at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to
overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out,
Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake
of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every
political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice
Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a
shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his con- trol: the
route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the
assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have
arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride:
they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the
Commis- sion because it did not always answer every question with a flat
decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission
and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any
one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into
certainties.
CLASSIFICATION
PAGE NO.
FORM TOP SECRET
TWO
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION. X CONTINUED
CONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL
AND NUMBER
DISPATCH TOP SECRET
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-
conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and
an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged
three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that
the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to
the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases
coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now
putting out new criticism.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died
mysteri- ously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g.,
the indi- viduals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes;
the Com- mission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far
more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a
large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn
Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, ap-
peared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were
from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a
bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the
Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be
impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the
Com- mission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add
to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they
found it far superior to the work of its critics.
CLASSIFICATION
PAGE NO.
FORM TOP SECRET
THREE
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION. CONTINUED
(40)
Document Number 1035-960
for FOIA Review on SEP 1976
Anthony Marsh
They couldn't see it. It is only apparent when you reflect the scalp to
remove the brain.
No one at Parkland saw the bullet hole on JFK's back. So according to
your logic this proves that there was no hole there.
> saw JFK's body who reported a bullet wound above the right eye. Can you
> name one other qualified medical professional who believes there being a
> bullet wound above the right eye. I've seen the autopsy photos that became
> public and they clearly show there is no bullet wound in JFK's forehead.
>
One other? I don't need no damn stinkin one other.
You confirm that you can't even see the semi-circular defect.
bigdog
Pointing out a secondary reaction at Z230 shoots down your original
argument that JFK received a bullet in his back at Z230. If he makes a
secondary reaction at Z230, he could not have been hit at Z230. You were
nearly correct in stating that JBC was hit at Z224 when we see his coat
bulge. The bullet probably hit at Z222. The bulge occured after the bullet
passed. Dr. Lattimer's experiments indicated the bulge would occur about
1/10 of a second, approximately 2 Z-frames before the bulge. However, the
bulging of the coat is not a reaction by Connally. We see Connally's first
reaction at exactly the same frame we see JFK's first reaction, Z226.
That's when we see both JFK's arms fly up in front of his throat wound and
JBC's injured right arm fly up in perfect unison with JFK's right arm. It
is completely unnecessary to argue that either JFK or JBC had a delayed
reaction to make the SBT work. The SBT works because they reacted at
precisely the same frame.
John Blubaugh
Nothing wrong with Oliver Stone, he makes great movies.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
That slow movement forward matches the same forward movement of everyone
else in the limo. Does that mean that they were all reacting to head
wounds? They were reacting to the car braking..... The violent movement
back and to the left stands on its own. Tony made a great analogy with
those Nazi executions. Not one person lurched back toward the shooter.
They all fell in the pit.
JB