***If that is what Bugliosi believes, then i am on the side of the
kooks, as JFK was just beginning to reflexively react as he appeared
from behind the sign. JFK's instantaneous rapid arm motion indicated
that he was shot frames at most, prior to his arm movement. Z210 was
some 25 frames earlier, more than a second.
***Ron Judge
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1179458073....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, an Internet friend told me this the other day by private e-mail
(after that friend asked Vince directly at a book signing in NYC about his
odd SBT timing). Vince told my friend that he places the SBT "just after
Z210".
This is, indeed, odd and is something I completely disagree with VB about,
and I will say so in my tome of a review coming in a few weeks. But at
least VB realizes that an SBT frame IS on that film SOMEWHERE. There HAS
to be. The WC knew that and so did the HSCA (even though they, too, came
to different conclusions about the timing).
Odder still, IMO, is Vincent's picking "210", which is, number 1, a frame
that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST on the copies of the Z-Film we see today. Z210 is
one of the damage and removed frames that were damaged by Time-Life in
'63-'64.
And, number two, Z210 (if it WERE a part of the extant film) can't
possibly lead Vince to a conclusive "SBT" conclusion, because we can't
even SEE Kennedy's body at that point on the film. All but the top of his
head is behind the Stemmons sign.
I see, though, that Vince has gotten closer to the true SBT frame (which
is Z224, without a SPECK of a doubt, IMHO)....because VB had endorsed the
HSCA's ridiculously-early Z190 timeline back in 1986 at the Mock Trial of
LHO in London.
Very strange. But I'll wait and see what VB's full explanation is for this
odd 210 timeline when I read (fully) his book very soon. (My copy is
coming in a day or so.)
Perhaps Vince is doing a little "extrapolating" backward from Z224-225
(via some "expert" in the field of "reaction times" or something) to
arrive at his 210 SBT time. I don't know. But I'll know for certain soon.
(Or perhaps Tony Marsh will tell us more details, since he apparently has
read VB's SBT chapter.)
Gee, I thought you said Bugliosi was God? Is God dead now?
Maybe you can answer a question which Bugliosi can't.
How can it be scientifically sound that three different groups pick
widely different frame numbers for their SBTs and each claims that the
SBT works perfectly and ONLY at that particular frame each chose?
> Odder still, IMO, is Vincent's picking "210", which is, number 1, a frame
> that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST on the copies of the Z-Film we see today. Z210 is
> one of the damage and removed frames that were damaged by Time-Life in
> '63-'64.
>
Maybe not on the copies YOU look at, but some of us see Z-210 on the SS
copy.
> And, number two, Z210 (if it WERE a part of the extant film) can't
> possibly lead Vince to a conclusive "SBT" conclusion, because we can't
> even SEE Kennedy's body at that point on the film. All but the top of his
> head is behind the Stemmons sign.
>
That is the beauty of his picking Z-210. Don't you see his logic at
work? He can claim anything because we can't see Connally in Z-210.
> I see, though, that Vince has gotten closer to the true SBT frame (which
Closer? I guess you think closer is good enough for a WC defender.
> is Z224, without a SPECK of a doubt, IMHO)....because VB had endorsed the
> HSCA's ridiculously-early Z190 timeline back in 1986 at the Mock Trial of
> LHO in London.
>
Yeah, which illustrates my point.
Guess what? Picking Z-210 moves the head shot at Z-313 to the grassy knoll.
> Very strange. But I'll wait and see what VB's full explanation is for this
> odd 210 timeline when I read (fully) his book very soon. (My copy is
> coming in a day or so.)
>
Fully? Hey, we don't have 25 years to wait. He is due in Cambridge on
Tuesday. Guess who will be in the audience to call him a liar to his
face (and prove it)?
> Perhaps Vince is doing a little "extrapolating" backward from Z224-225
> (via some "expert" in the field of "reaction times" or something) to
> arrive at his 210 SBT time. I don't know. But I'll know for certain soon.
> (Or perhaps Tony Marsh will tell us more details, since he apparently has
> read VB's SBT chapter.)
>
No extrapolating. Just guesswork.
BTW, do you happen to know who else says that Kennedy was hit at Z-210?
Moi. Mainly because of the acoustical evidence.
Don't worry about the exact number of frames or exact number of seconds.
We understand your point. Some of us agree about Kennedy. But his SBT
includes Connally and almost all WC defenders now say that the so-called
lapel flip proves that Connally was hit at exactly Z-224. What does
Bugliosi say about that?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179462253.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote.
Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at
Z-210.
Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
"No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor
Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was somewhere within a
split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional overhead rendering
of Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the limousine at
approximately frame 210, with te single bullet's trajectory."
> Z210 is a spot that JFK can't be fully evaluated for any clear
> reaction. I'm surprised that VB did
> select this point for a first shot.....hit or miss.
>
Not first shot. Can't you pay attention? Bugliosi says it is the second
shot and is his SBT. He can't very well have a first shot at 210 and then
a SBT at 224/225. Even HE is not that stupid.
> jko
>
>
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net <mailto:doc...@netzero.net>>
> wrote in message news:464d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> From the Endnotes...
>
> Did I miss something about Z210?
>
> Chad
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net
> <mailto:anthon...@comcast.net>> wrote in message
> news:wu-dnc6bL4dIQdbb...@comcast.com...
WTF???
And...
Huh???!!!
I gotta hear Tony's wondrous & logical explanation that allows him to
arrive at the above crazy assertion.
Give it a shot, Tone.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:K8k3i.107527$NK5....@newsfe23.lga...
I did not fully understand if in fact VB meant the SBT happened at Z210. I can't
pick up RH until this Weds so I have not read his book
> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>
> "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor Connally were hit by Oswald's second
> bullet, but it was somewhere within a split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional overhead rendering of
> Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the limousine at approximately frame 210, with te single bullet's
> trajectory."
>
>> Z210 is a spot that JFK can't be fully evaluated for any clear reaction. I'm surprised that VB did
>> select this point for a first shot.....hit or miss.
>>
>
> Not first shot. Can't you pay attention? Bugliosi says it is the second shot and is his SBT. He can't very well have a
> first shot at 210 and then a SBT at 224/225. Even HE is not that stupid.
Even a second shot at Z210 is a surprize that he selected that point. Did special X-ray glasses
come with the book to see thru the sign?
jko
I think this "Tone" slipped thru........sort of the same problem as "Babs" was years ago. I fear with the
release of VB's book name calling maybe a issue you guys will need to be on the look out for.
This book will be the subject of hundreds of posts in the near future as more get their copies.
jko
But not available on the best digital version of the Z-Film (to
date)....the 1998 MPI DVD version.
Yes, I have the Groden DVD, which (as you said) does include the
unspliced film....but it's a really crappy-looking version, and is
hardly in good enough shape to make any definite "JFK WAS SHOT HERE!"
determinations. (IMO anyway.)
Well, guess who else says that Kennedy was hit at Z-210? I do. Mainly
because of my match-up of the acoustical evidence. Which then places the
shot at Z-313 coming from the grassy knoll.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
The question you have to ask is why would Bugliosi have chosen Z-210? The
answer is because he could get away with it as Connally can not be seen. I
already showed the fallacy of any SBT at Z-224 because we can see
Connally. And seeing Kennedy at Z-225 proves a SBT at Z-224 is physically
impossible.
Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
apart.
4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
yet.
Michael
And I know Vince is an advocate for a first-shot miss at Z160. So this
info is good news (IMO), because I think it's 100% right. Thanks
Michael. ....
Shot 1 -- Z160 (a miss).
Shot 2 -- Z224 (SBT shot).
Shot 3 -- Z313 (head shot).
>
>"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or
>>> missed shot considerations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi
>> is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at Z-210.
>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>
>
>Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
>little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
>one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
>
>On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
>shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
>apart.
>
>4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
>frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
>Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
>yet.
Hi Michael,
Indeed he spells it out on page 463 where he states:
"It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer ...."
The * goes to this footnote:
"Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
He's got another honey on that page too!
Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
Barb :-)
Although you're off the mark at Zf210, Anthony, while you are asking VB
questions IF there is a question and answer opportunity after his
presentation, ask Vincent why he named his JFK assassination tome
"Revising History." What history is he revising the LNer position? I
don't think so. His revisings are squarely focused on the CT group because
he is an "official findings" and WC supporter by his own admission.
Regards, Jim
He didn't name it that. Better look again. It's called "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" -- not "revising".
The book went through three titles in 21 years' time, btw.....
"FINAL VERDICT: THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY";
then....
"FINAL VERDICT: THE SIMPLE TRUTH IN THE KILLING OF JFK";
and finally:
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (with this final one being by far the best title among the
three choices, IMO).
***3 agents were turned to the rear in the altgens photo. 2 of them
stated that they responded to the first shot by turning to the rear,
from where they heard the sound. During the time from Z160 to where
they disappeared from the sprockets of the Zfilm, they are not seen
turning around to the rear.
Zapruder said that he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump over to his
left, then heard one or two more shots.
I believe Zapruder was correct when he indicated that the first shot
struck Kennedy.
***Ron Judge
The official history is that there was a conspiracy. That was the last
investigation and it has not been overturned by a subsequent
investigation. Get used to it. We won, you lost. So Bugliosi is trying to
revise that official history.
Hey, you could figure out all by yourself with no help that Bugliosi is a
WC supporter? I bet your fellow WC defenders disagree with that and call
him a seeker of truth.
You're absolutely correct, Ron. In anticipation of Bugliosi's shoddy
analysis, I went to Bugliosi-like lengths to demonstrate why we should
conclude that the first shot miss is a myth. At patspeer.com, in chapters
5 through 8, I go through the statements of over 200 Dealey Plaza
witnesses and demonstrate just how little support there is for a first
shot miss. There's almost none. IMO, both HOLLAND and BUGLIOSI have
exposed themselves as second-rate analysts with their blind acceptance of
a first shot miss.
You're absolutely correct, Ron. In anticipation of Bugliosi's shoddy
Can you explain why he would depict a SBT trajectory at Z-210 if he
thought it happened at Z-224?
OK, so this is a new excuse for him. Maybe I'll ask him what happened.
Your theory is that the publisher wrote the wrong caption? But how do you
explain the drawing which is supposed to show their alignment at Z-210?
You claim it was actually Z-224? Or do you claim that they remained in
exactly the same positions from Z-210 to Z-224? Remember, I mean to say
SURPRISES. As in a David Letterman Top Ten list.
> On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
> shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
> apart.
>
> 4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
> frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
> Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
> yet.
>
So you're saying that Bugliosi is not even sure what he is saying?
You can't look at any specific frame and say that JFK was shot here, or
even Connally was shot here, except the head shot at Z-313.
Of course you can.
Z-223.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Tony, the only thing I'm doing is telling you the FACT of what the book
says. I'm not making any claims at all.
I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
just looking at the pictures.
Michael
Then you disagree with Bugliosi. :-)
Barb :-)
I agree with Bugliosi. He is not claiming that the shot was fired at
exactly 210.
His take is that "we can reasonably assume that the second shot was
fired somewhere bewteen frames 207 andd 222 of the Zapruder film."
There is 3D overhead that depicts frame 210 & the positions of JFK and
Connally along with lines for the SB.
Part of the caption reads...
Quote On...
No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
Quote Off
I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
You really should read his book Barb, or at least the portions that
interest you. I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD. Just curious, did he at
least send you a copy? If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
Glenn Sarlitto
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >.John
>
> >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
:)
When did I ever say VB thought it happened at Z224? I didn't say that.
Ever.
It DID happen at Z224, of course. But I never said Vince said that.
VB is wrong re. the exact SBT timing...but he's just playing it
safe...like the WC with its 210-225 "range".
But you are ever MORE wrong with your anti-SBT stance. Obviously,
Vince isn't silly enough to abandon the SBT. Why would anyone who's
looked at the evidence in this case be that silly, I ask you?
Hahaha... I assume that is a joke, John ?
Mike :-)
Well, we never know, because you guys keep changing frame numbers.
Then why do all his diagrams and map show the hit at frame 210?
Is 224 a split second after 210?
> I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
> just looking at the pictures.
>
As I said before the pictures are the second thing I look at when I see
a new book. Then if I spot something strange I try to find the text
about it.
In the text he says that the bullet hit within a split second of frame
210. He did not say 224.
> Michael
All of his diagrams show a shot at 210.
How can Kennedy and Connally always be lined up for a SBT in all those
frames from 207 to 224 when Connally said he was in the process of
turning around in his seat?
> Part of the caption reads...
>
> Quote On...
>
> No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
> Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
> somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>
>
> Quote Off
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
> course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
> opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
> SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>
Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
Earlier in this thread, I responded to Michael with quotes from the
book ... exactly what Bugliosi said about the timeframe of the SB. I
guess you missed it. :-) Here is my reply in full:
QUOTE
Hi Michael,
Indeed he spells it out on page 463 where he states:
"It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer ...."
The * goes to this footnote:
"Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
He's got another honey on that page too!
Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
Barb :-)
END QUOTE
This was 2 or 3 days ago.
>I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
>exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD.
I haven't looked yet. Something to do with an e-mail exchange I had
with Epstein on the Files thing, I've been told.
>Just curious, did he at
>least send you a copy?
Nope! But he did spell my name wrong in the index. :-)
> If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
>mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
>a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
It weighs 5.5 pounds on our scale. Definitely too big and clunky to
hunker down qith comfortably without breaking a rib.<g>
So, you think Connally is "seen reacting to a bullet" in 222? So much
for the lapel flip, completing his turn and being forward facing
before getting hit, the hat/hand jerk, and pretty much the whole
enchilada of LN arguments post lapel-flip discovery. Back to the WC
and their "delayed reaction", I guess ... save Bugliosi removes that
delay and his him in the throes of racting at 222. What will y'all
argue now?<g>
Barb :-)
Tony,
>
> All of his diagrams show a shot at 210.
Yep! They do.
> How can Kennedy and Connally always be lined up for a SBT in all those
> frames from 207 to 224 when Connally said he was in the process of
> turning around in his seat?
>
You are looking for absolute when absolute is unachieveable and not
needed to resolve the case in this instance. Sometimes you gotta go
with the little ya got and RECONCILE the data. Heck, Tony. You should
know this yourself. You sure don't have much when it comes to your
Grassy Knoll Shooter.
>
> > Part of the caption reads...
>
> > Quote On...
>
> > No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
> > Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
> > somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>
> > Quote Off
>
> > I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
> > course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
> > opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
> > SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>
> Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
>
Bugliosi has a theory as to when Oswald's second shot from the 6th
floor was fired. Somewhere between frames 207 and 222.
And speakin' about "NOT MUCH OF A THEORY".....
Kinda like your Grassy Knoll Shooter. Not much of a theory when you
have no physical evidence of any kind and no eyewitnesses regarding
the weapon or shooter.
FORE!
GS
>
> > You really should read his book Barb, or at least the portions that
> > interest you. I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
> > exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD. Just curious, did he at
> > least send you a copy? If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
> > mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
> > a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
>
> > Glenn Sarlitto
>
> >> Barb :-)
>
> >>> .John
> >>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
But you SHOULD have made that claim anyway, as a good little WC
defender. Maybe if you could actually read his book sometime within the
next century you would find where he claims the shot was at 223-224.
Nope? Then maybe I'd better do it for you.
39 Connally blurts out: Governor Connally’s recollection is that he
didn’t utter this
cry until after he had been hit by the second bullet (4 H 133; 1 HSCA
46), although
he once wavered in his recollection in 1978 (1 HSCA 43). In this
instance, however,
the governor’s recollection is at odds with that of two other witnesses
and a
film of the event. Mrs. Connally testified that her husband cried, “Oh
no, no, no!”
immediately after the first shot and prior to the second (4 H 147; 1
HSCA 43). Mrs.
Kennedy’s testimony also agrees with Nellie Connally’s. Mrs. Kennedy
recalled
that she was looking to the left side of the car when the governor’s cry
caused her
to turn to her right (5 H 180). The Zapruder film supports the
recollection of both
women, showing Mrs. Kennedy’s left-right turn (Z167–193) occurring
immediately
after the governor turns to look over his right shoulder (Z162–170).
According
to the Zapruder film, and consistent with Mrs. Connally’s recollection, both
of these events occur prior to the second shot (Z223–224), which is
believed to
have been the bullet that simultaneously struck both the president and
the governor,
the first time that either of them was wounded.
> VB is wrong re. the exact SBT timing...but he's just playing it
> safe...like the WC with its 210-225 "range".
>
What do you mean he's wrong? He can't be wrong according to your worship
of him as God. All knowing, all seeing.
He's not only playing it safe, he's not even sure of what the Hell he's
talking about.
> But you are ever MORE wrong with your anti-SBT stance. Obviously,
> Vince isn't silly enough to abandon the SBT. Why would anyone who's
> looked at the evidence in this case be that silly, I ask you?
>
Only a WC defender like Furhman would dare to abandon the SBT. YOU guys
know that without a SBT it means giving in to conspiracy, like
acquiescing to Dracula.
>
I have a tough question for you. Maybe you'll need to ask the WC
defenders to help you figure it out. Theoretically is frame 223 or frame
224 within that range of frames 210 to 222?
In the endnotes Bugliosi says that the bullet hit both men at frame
223-224. So, is 224 the same thing as 222, or is it just close enough
for a WC defender?
> The * goes to this footnote:
>
> "Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
> 222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
> ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
> section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
>
> He's got another honey on that page too!
>
> Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
>
> Barb :-)
> END QUOTE
>
> This was 2 or 3 days ago.
>
>> I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
>> exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD.
>
> I haven't looked yet. Something to do with an e-mail exchange I had
> with Epstein on the Files thing, I've been told.
>
He only mentions that you were the recipient of Epstein's message.
919 “Files’ story . . . is the most believable and persuasive”: In 2001,
Bob Vernon,
the producer of the videotape showing the interview of Jim Files by Joe
West,
actually got NBC to the point where it was seriously considering doing a
documentary
on Files’s story. Fortunately, NBC hired assassination researcher and Warren
Commission critic Edward Epstein to check Files’s story before it proceeded
any further with the show. Epstein in turn hired the Jules Kroll
detective firm,
which established from telephone records that Files was in Chicago, not
Dallas, on
November 22, 1963. In an April 24, 2001, e-mail, posted on the Internet,
to one
Barb Junkkarin, Epstein says he “placed a call to Files from Dick
Clark’s office
[Clark was to be the producer of the NBC show] and I interviewed Files
about the
Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about . .
.. and who
he murdered after November 22 . . . His wife, however, said there was no
twin, and
Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files
invented
the story for the money it would earn him.” Files would later say that
the twinbrother
story was concocted by Files’s lawyer, Julius Echeles, Files’s first
wife, and
possibly his older daughter, in an effort to derail the investigative
efforts of Robert
Vernon and stop the showing of his confession to killing Kennedy on
television.
(Dankbaar, Files on JFK, p.80)
>> Just curious, did he at
>> least send you a copy?
>
> Nope! But he did spell my name wrong in the index. :-)
>
>> If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
>> mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
>> a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
>
> It weighs 5.5 pounds on our scale. Definitely too big and clunky to
> hunker down qith comfortably without breaking a rib.<g>
>
> So, you think Connally is "seen reacting to a bullet" in 222? So much
> for the lapel flip, completing his turn and being forward facing
> before getting hit, the hat/hand jerk, and pretty much the whole
> enchilada of LN arguments post lapel-flip discovery. Back to the WC
> and their "delayed reaction", I guess ... save Bugliosi removes that
> delay and his him in the throes of racting at 222. What will y'all
> argue now?<g>
>
Bugliosi seems to think that the lapel flip is bunk. So I guess that
makes him a kook according to the WC defenders here.
Obviously you've never bothered to read his book. Too big for you? So you
appear to be relying on disinformation fed to you by someone else. There
is no text like that on page 40 of his book. Do I really need to scan in
page 40 just for you so that you can see that someone lied to you, time
and again?
> 4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
> frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
> Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
> yet.
>
Good enough guess for a WC defender. In his endnotes he says that a shot
hit both men at Z-223/224. So, which is it? He doesn't know.
> Michael
>
>> "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor
>> Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was somewhere within a
In that case then don't even try to make ANY claims about any SBT.
>>> Part of the caption reads...
>>> Quote On...
>>> No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
>>> Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
>>> somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>>> Quote Off
>>> I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
>>> course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
>>> opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
>>> SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>> Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
>>
>
> Bugliosi has a theory as to when Oswald's second shot from the 6th
> floor was fired. Somewhere between frames 207 and 222.
>
Close enough for a WC defender. His inconsistency doesn't bother you at
all naturally.
> And speakin' about "NOT MUCH OF A THEORY".....
> Kinda like your Grassy Knoll Shooter. Not much of a theory when you
> have no physical evidence of any kind and no eyewitnesses regarding
> the weapon or shooter.
>
Nor did any eyewitness report seeing the Black Dog Man, out there in
plain sight and suspected by some crackpots as being a shooter.
Have you even read his book? His book says frame 210. His endnotes say
223-224. He is confused.
> I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
> just looking at the pictures.
>
I think most people understand that when an author captions a picture he
is making some type of claim about the facts.
> Michael