JFK murder reexamined

[Augustine2004]

I fear Sparko may be far from doing all that can be done to sensitize people to photo fakery. Here is an exercise:

Ironically, the guy on the right was a prominent Southern politician, John C. Calhoun.

[Augustine2004]

I made a mistake, regarding Connally's look of pain in z297-306. That may not have been the first time he felt pain. If so, he may have been shot much earlier. Also, maybe he was really not in pain, appearance to the contrary?? But surely by then he had to have been hit??


The blur in z227 looks quite odd. The two nearby spectator men, who for some strange reason are not looking at the Kennedy car, appear blurry but not much more in previous pictures. Now, the blur is not just caused by a simple failure to pan the camera to follow the car. Notice the blur on the car's reflections of the sun is at an angle to the trajectory of the car. So won't the spectators appear blurry also? Now, Connally's face is simply unrecognizable, as far as determining its orientation goes at least. Much worse distortion than in previous pictures. Kennedy's face does appear blurry, but it's just not as bad as Connally's face. And, look: In z226 Connally is looking forward; in z227 my impression is he is looking a bit over his right shoulder, but that can't be right, that would have to be an awesome headsnap; in z228 he is looking forward also, but more to the left--another awesome headsnap, even much faster.


FWIW, he is moving the hat in his right hand in z228-234 in only six frames, about 0.055 seconds x 6 = 0.3 seconds. Suppose that was humanly possible, why do it that fast anyway?



I have been reading the review of Rodger Remington's Biting The Elephant by Jim DiEugenio, who is chairman of Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination

http://www.ctka.net/2010/bite-elephant.html

What intrigued me so much is DiEugenio thinks some of the Warren Commission witnesses were 'manufactured.' I am going to try to assess the review as much as I can, but that is going to take more time than this weekend, I'm afraid.

[Augustine2004]

Looking at the testimony of Amos Lee Euins

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/euins.htm

According to the Roberdeau graphic

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2...ated110110.gif

a part of the Dealey Park buildings blocked the view of Euins' claimed position by the north pool from Zapruder's filming position.

Mr. EUINS. I was standing here on the comer. And then the President come around the corner right here. And I was standing here. And I was waving, because there wasn't hardly no one on the corner right there but me. I was waving. He looked that way and he waved back at me.

In z145 Kennedy does seem to be looking to the left, though he'd agreed(?) to 'work' the right side while Jackie was supposed to do the left side. But I can't tell if he ever did wave to the left side. That may just be a mistaken recollection by Euins.

Euins said the rifleman that he saw in the sixth floor window had a 'bald spot on his head.' Not clear what that means, but I looked for a photograph of Malcolm Wallace, LBJ's alleged hitman.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

So full a head of hair, it's hard to believe Euins could see any bald spot. Perhaps Malcolm was wearing a yarmulke, though? Heh.

I wanted to have a clear idea of where Euins was, so I looked at the Dorman film

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/acoust...n_panning1.htm

No sign of him, though I did get glimpses of where Roberdeau indicated Euins' position on his graphic. He was a black person, but the film just doesn't permit identification of black persons, even if Euins was the only black near that corner. But that's not important; no person, whether white or black, was there by the 'north reflecting pool' as far as I can see.

In Euins' testimony he said he did some moving around, but it's not clear to me where he was or went.



Several incidental finds:

Robert Groden's paste-up film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqPNJDYmSEU



Claimed high quality version of the Zapruder film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CJvHUZcaS8



'Desperately Seeking Buddy McLain'

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/acoust...n_panning1.htm

--I investigated who McLain may be. See this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabe...ohn_F._Kennedy

looking for 'H.B. Mclain.'

What seems to have happened is that the HSCA misidentified Mclain's motorcycle as having the Dictabelt in question. I don't know if I will probe this thing any further.



Review titled 'Cherry-picking evidence of first shot'

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/12...irst-shot.html



I may or may not have more on Euins' testimony next time.

[Augustine2004]

I don't think we should put much reliance on Euins' testimony. He gave several different versions, and there is no way I know of to determine which is the most probable. None seems especially probable anyway. See
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01...lland-and.html
(you should please read the entire article; it's a good antidote IMO to the NatGeo doc, which in the early part of this thread got praise), and also note the caption of Figure 21. And as for the claim Euins was a 'manufactured' witness (
http://www.ctka.net/2010/bite-elephant.html
) we would need to sort out which is probably true and which false in the various Euins versions then determine which false parts would have aided a putative conspiracy. I will try, but I am not optimistic. ***I did find something. Read on to near the end.

I don't think the authors know of assassinationscience.com's case that many films were "edited," but I will look for articles by Myers to see if he reviewed any articles in assassinationscience.com.

As any JFK assassination scholar worth his salt knows, there’s plenty of hard reality to eliminate the grassy knoll as the source of the fatal shot without resorting to the Mark Bell or Orville Nix films, neither of which move the argument one way or the other and whose only purpose seems to be to provide more gee-whiz to a rather slow moving documentary.

Good grief, I may not be worth my salt, I doubt the evidence is that decisive. Maybe one weekend I'll get around to looking for evidence and examining it.

The only person to offer any real proof about the source of the fatal head shot was wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan who appears momentarily on camera to say, “It’s obvious that any shot from here [behind the fence] particularly the head shot would have exited Kennedy’s head on the left and probably gone into Jackie or if it missed Jackie would have hit the car. None of those things happened.”

Now, whoa, there. What about evidence that the three bullets that some people think struck JFK didn't leave any exit wounds, evidence such as Xrays? Sure, the fatal "shot" resulted in "exploding" the head, but that seems to be the result of some kind of effect similar to resonance (which shatters glasses in videos) or crescedos (like tsunami). Remember the theory proffered by assassinationscience.com that two bullets struck JFK nearly simultaneously. First a bullet hit the skull from behind then second, very shortly after, a bullet entered the right temple. Both bullets created shockwaves that may have built a "crescendo" inside the weakened skull. So, maybe none of the bullets that hit JFK exited the body or head; they all were frangible, they all fragmented inside JFK. OK, maybe that's not what happened, but where is the refutatory evidence?

Of course, if you were serious about providing a definitive answer about the source of the fatal shot you would simply point out that the bullet fragments that passed through President Kennedy’s skull, and that were subsequently recovered from the floor of the presidential limousine, were scientifically proven to have been fired from Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet.
But, NatGeo doesn’t even mention the physical evidence.

Really!!?? I don't 100% clearly remember what I read before, but I do recall the evidence wasn't that clear; there are in fact some hints that the evidence was planted. I will have to go back and review.

Really? That’s not the way I remember it. Bootleg copies of the Zapruder (and other amateur films) fell into the hands of independent researchers beginning in the late 1960s providing them an opportunity to study the assassination sequence themselves without being restricted to just those frames (Z171-334) thought to be pertinent by the FBI’s Lyndal Shaneyfelt.

According to assassinationscience.com, to my recollection, the Zapruder film was made available to the public one year after the assassination. To be sure, maybe the access was highly restricted (why??--think about why) Oh, yeah, I think it was stated that the access was limited for a long time. I don't think I will specifically check that out, though. Let me say, though, it's somewhat curious Myers would study his bootleg copy and then not mention wondering why researchers would want and have to get bootleg copies.

We know from the evidence (the shell casings on the sixth floor, the recovered bullet and bullet fragments, the operating speed of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and the images of the event in the Zapruder film) that three shots were fired (two hits and one miss) and we also know what the general minimum cadence of the shots would have been.

Tsk! What evidence do we really have that the Carcano rifle was the murder weapon? The possibility that it was a plant has yet to be conclusively eliminated, yes? What about the possibility that there was more than one gunman?

The NatGeo doc goes on to discuss the Robert Hughes film. Now it's curious to me that there is simply no evidence of a gunman in the window this late, when the Kennedy car is passing under the alleged sniper's nest. I am not sure, but I think even professional snipers take around ten seconds to get ready. From the equivalent of z100 to z160 (60 frames x 0.055 seconds) is 3.3 seconds. Let's say, 4 seconds. I just don't find it credible that Oswald for one would allow himself less than 3 seconds to get into position. I will discuss this after this box:

Nevertheless, the NatGeo narrator tells us that, “Hughes stops filming just as the president’s limousine turns onto Elm Street. If Hughes had kept his camera on for just a few more seconds we might have seen a rifle emerge to fire Bullet A.”

Not really, since a shot this early would require Oswald to be standing with the barrel inside the window in order to acquire the necessary downward trajectory. Even Holland’s own re-staging of Oswald’s shooting position for NatGeo affirms that fact (as we’ll see in a moment).

3 or 4 seconds from that time would bring us to z160, and even 4 seconds might be called "few." Maybe just a careless writing; let's just go on. Now, the box seems to be saying that for the z160 shoot, Oswald would have to be standing up with the rifle barrel inside the window.

At the sheriff’s office, the youngster [Euins] told authorities, “…I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waved at him and he waved back.

Let's look at the Tina Towner movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1GTqlR9FCs ; I see no evidence JFK ever looked to his left at the crowd on the southwest corner of the Elm-Houston intersection as his car was entering into and making the turn onto Elm Street. I see nothing like a wave to the southwest corner crowd at all.
I could say more about Euins' testimony (all those versions), but isn't that enough now? But let me state my suspicion Euins was told to specify the easternmost south-facing window on the sixth floor. No specific proof, just an impression after reading all the Euins rigmarole.

We don’t know exactly what Lee Harvey Oswald did in 1963,” Howlett says. “There was a box about where I am sitting right now that had his fingerprints on them. And from this box, if he leans forward, he can look out and see the Main and Houston intersection where the motorcade was making its turn.

Perhaps Howlett meant the Elm-Houston intersection?


Hey! Look at Figure 27!! Notice the marksman's left hand!! NOT outside the window. Well INSIDE the window. Moreover, that box on the window bottom hides the hand from outside scrutiny. Euins must have lied about seeing the sniper's hand on the rifle stock. Also, so little of the rifle barrel sticks out of the window that I have some doubt anyone would have really noticed it against the background inside the widow as viewed from the outside. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do mean it's not something that can be seen right off if you are looking in the general vicinity of the building from a distance. One has to be looking in just the right direction, precisely.

Arriving on the scene just as the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, Tague was standing on Commerce Street near the mouth of the Triple Underpass when the shooting erupted

Actually, Tague was standing on the divide between Main and Commerce. I think the Roberdeau graphic http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2...ated110110.gif
correctly shows the position.

The Tague injury, if it is real and really did occur during the assassination, presents a problem to the position taken by assassinationscience.com, especially if Tague is correct that the first bullet, which supposedly got "lost," wasn't the one that eventually injured Tague's cheek. However consider this
http://assassinationscience.com/sixsec.html
(the most recent year appearing therein is 1970). I guess I have to fully explore the Tague injury problem next time. http://www.assassinationscience.com/absurd.html (it does not say which bullet). But that shouldn't be too hard. 4 bullets hit JFK; another hit Connally; and there was at least one miss. Maybe that was what caused the Tague injury.

More Tague http://assassinationscience.com/Reas...ssinations.pdf
More later.

[Xru]

All very interesting.

Ever since Ruby gunned down Oswald I figured there was some kind of cover up by some one somewhere.

All this evidence just makes me more of a believer in the principle of disinformation. Keep issuing contradictory information to keep everyone running around all over trying to figure out what happened. I know what happened.

Oswald was set up somehow as a patsy (whether or not he fired any shots or not) he was played like a fiddle, Ruby greased Oswald out of some kind of misplaced loyalty, or duty, or just getting payed a payoff of a 100 grand to keep his family in style while he chilled in prison. Everyone who knows anything is now dead or too scared of being dead to talk. AND critical evidence has been either lost or mishandled. Classic gangland tactics.

Oh well.

[Augustine2004]

I have written before about Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis of the extant Zapruder film. Luis Alvarez is the Nobel Prize winner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Walter_Alvarez
but M.D. Mantik not only was unable to reproduce Alvarez' results, Mantik produced a different analysis that was strikingly more regular
http://assassinationscience.com/v5n1fetzer.pdf
So, my speculations based on Alvarez' analysis should be disregarded until I can see how to resolve the disagreement.



And that leads to this warning: Everything in Roberdeau's graphic must be checked out thoroughly.



I myself goofed. Recall JFK received two bullets, one to the back and to the throat. Neither caused the violent reaction that occurred after z313. Indeed, momentum analysis that assumes the bullet lost all its momentum in the body or head, shows that the body should only show slight movement as a result. In other words, bullets not much faster than Carcano-fired bullets just aren't that powerful.

So why such a violent backward reaction? One Mr. Sturdivan testifying to the Warren Commission explained that the shock waves of the bullet in the head may have generated nerve impulses that traveled down the spinal cord and thence through probably every motor nerve, activating every muscle below the head. The back muscles are much more powerful than the front-torso muscles, so the former muscles overcame the action of the latter ones, thus producing the powerful backward reaction. Given the damage done by the bullet, it wouldn't have mattered in which direction it was traveling.

[Augustine2004]

French connection: de Gaulle was to be assassinated in the summer of 1963, if Fredrick Forsyth's tale (The Day of the Jackal) is to be believed. The would-be assassin was given three mercury bullets for the job.

Sparko might contend that Oswald was also given mercury bullets to pump into Kennedy's body. Dr. Mantik, however, might demur. Anyway, read for yourself
http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf
That concerned much more evidence than the bright spots in JFK X-rays that may possibly be mercury droplets scattered from bullets that penetrated JFK's head.

[Augustine2004]

I searched assassinationscience.com and I couldn't figure out why the folks there think the 'missing bullet' was the one that injured Tague's cheek--you know, 4 bullets hit JFK, one hit Connally, and the missing one, supposedly. I suspect that the folks figure that either the bullets are not supposed to fragment or if they did fragment, they were really mercury bullets. Mercury is liquid at room temperatures; actually, would still be liquid in Dallas, November 22, 1963. Could a mercury droplet cause Tague's injury

So, after I've overcome my laughing fit, yeah I'm still bothered by Tague's injury. I'm also unsure why it would put the Warren Commission in such a swivet. At first the government line was, three bullets hit JFK and Connally. But after the Tague imbroglio hit the news wire, the story became, one bullet to JFK's back, the famous magic bullet, and a miss. The temporal relationship of the miss is still argued over. But eminences such as Boo-liosi (Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007)) say that the first bullet was the "missing" bullet.

Incidentally, while searching for info on the Tague matter, I happened to find a list of witnesses who were asked where they thought shots were fired: the knoll, the depositary, elsewhere. I'm surprised more witnesses thought the knoll was the place than the depositary. http://www.history-matters.com/analy...216Witness.htm

Back to Tague. This piece
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague.htm
contradicts another piece
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_criti...ith/Tague.html
The first piece said that Tague's right cheek got in the way of a--well, something, contrary to what the latter piece said.



I think the latter piece does make it rather clear the Warren Commission could hardly deny that a bullet or bullet fragment hit a curb near Tague and a result was the wound to his cheek. For one thing, the Dillard photographs of the curb damage are just too damning.

Incidentally, while looking for Dillard curb photographs, I found this piece
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html
Many photographs, and here's this:

Another complication crept into the Commission's connivance. One of the bystanders at Dealey Plaza that day was a man named James Tague. He was hit by a fragment of concrete knocked off the curb by a bullet that had hit a curbstone near where he stood. He reported his injury to a hospital. [caption for photograph (not shown)] NUMBER 2.* James Tague, on the far right, with cut on face after he was hit by a fragment of concrete that was knocked off the curb by errant bullet. (photo by Allen.)

No photo of the curb gouge, though. Anyway I think I'll review that piece by and by.

[Augustine2004]

20120317Top o'morn to ye. I am so very sorry I could not get kelly green, so this could only be fake irish, just as the Kennedy clan was not originally irish, begorrah.

[Augustine2004]

I've decided to review the Prouty piece ("The Guns of Dallas"), which was re-published in a "ratville" post
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html
because of many statements about the curb nick and Tague's cheek wound.

First some background. Amazon.com has second editions of not only The Secret Team but JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, both published last year.

Now the review.

How was the Warren Commission kept
from investigating and seeing evidence?
This is the real issue.
This is a crime to top the crime.

Prouty seems here to think that the members of the Warren Commission were ignorant naïve dupes. Phooey. On the contrary, they probably knew the Commission was meant to jam up the wheels of justice. For one thing if Kennedy was a nobody, his murder would have been handled according to Texan law; the Dallas Police Department would have handled the investigation primarily. Instead, the federal government ("national" is the more accurate term) took over, and the Warren Commission was one of the ways that was effected. Partly as a result of the assassination, our "federal" government is far more national than before, in my view. Prouty does seem to be close to thinking so, if not actually:

They were able to . . . transfer jurisdiction of the murder from Texas and then to effectively control the outcome of the Warren Commission review.

[Penn Jones, editor of Midlothian, Texas, Mirror] has a list of some eighty-five people who, because they knew too much or got too close, have died sudden and unnatural deaths since the JFK murder.

I've seen such a list; you may have yourself. On that basis I'd say Prouty overstated things here: Many deaths were only suspicious.

This great cabal had seen to it that Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was in the Kennedy procession, and they saw to it that he heard those hired guns, that he saw Kennedy die, and that he lived through that terrible nightmare of the trip back to Washington on Air Force One. From that day on, LBJ never again was that self-confident, swash-buckling, free-wheeling Texan. Before he died, LBJ told his old friend Tom Janos that he knew Oswald had not killed JFK alone.

Phooey, my current theory, admittedly far from being proven, is that LBJ was in on the plot, as was J. Edgar Hoover.


Incidental find, while searching for evidence for the claimed November 1963 report by the Secret Service that only three bullets were fired
http://thesecretservicejournal.blogs...dered-jfk.html
This is a report on the numerous departures from normal Secret Service protocol or rules.

Perhaps this is good enough evidence that initially the FBI and Secret Service reported three bullets, two of which hit Kennedy and the other hit Connally
http://ahabit.com/document/
Search "Hoover tells Johnson three shots were fired. Johnson asks 'if any were fired at him [sic? "you"?].'" That question seems odd to me. Surely LBJ knew that no bullet hit near him, within the length of the car he was in? One is told three bullets were fired, two of which hit JFK and the other hit Connally, more than a half-car length away, and witlessly asks if any was fired at me. I could imagine LBJ was trying to throw off suspicion by asking that question.

I don't think I will look for any more evidence. I'll just rely on the word Jim Fetzer of assassinationscience.com and assassinationresearch.com.

According to the Warren Commission, the first shot, the "miracle bullet" designed and dreamed up by one of its lawyers (Arlen Specter), is one of the most fascinating contrivances of our generation. Forced to account for a series of unrelated events, Arlen Specter came up with a weird solution. He says the first bullet hit JFK, passed through the muscle of his upper back exited from his lower throat, traveled a few feet in the air, changed course, and entered Connally's back, plunged through his body, broke about five inches of one of his right rib bones, came out again, and then slammed into his right wrist, where it broke two more bones, exited again, and then pierced his thigh and ended its strange journey embedded in his thigh bone.

I can't believe Specter actually presented the magic bullet theory that way. Ye gods, another fruitless search for confirmation. Indeed Note 1 in the wikipedia article on the single bullet theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_...ry#cite_ref-72

differs considerably.



Well, let's look at the WC Report itself
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0052a.htm
Phooey! The report describes the CE 399 bullet (the one that allegedly fell out of John Connally's stretcher in the Parkland Hospital) as nearly whole, so the fragments that were listed cannot be from the CE 399 bullet?? We should bear that in mind as we evaluate the report.

I forgot! In an earlier post, I pointed out a webpage that said photographs of the CE 399 bullet show that it could not be from the alleged (Carcano) rifle because the number of rifling spirals on the bullet is wrong for Carcano bullets. However, that does not disprove the SBT by itself; the SB could be some other bullet.

However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets.

?? Neither of the fragments was from the same bullet? Either but not both came from CE 399. I don't know what is going on here. If the fragments were small, then maybe they were too small to analyze to obtain much information anyway. But it seems possible that the fragments are large enough so that it can be determined neither could have come from CE 399.

After examination of the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Depositary, Frazier and Nicol concluded that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

I think that has been demonstrated to be untrue before. One of the cartridge cases was found to have a dent that could not have been caused by being fired in the rifle, and the dent would have prevented proper functioning of the rifle.
The report eventually got around to the question of whether the neck wound was one of entrance or exit (page 85 in
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0055a.htm ). Jim Fetzer (assassinationscience.com) says entrance, quoting doctors on that. However this webpage says that Kennedy's shirt collar and tie could have kept the wound small so that autopsy people could not be sure
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid5.htm
I am still inclined to the entrance verdict on the supposition that Kennedy would not have worn his collar and tie tight and the Lattimer pork collar tie experiments were with collar or tie that were too tight. Also, the Parkland doctors were quite experienced.

However, it appears the SBT can't be really disposed of on that ground.

I don't think the report ever got into the question of mercury bullets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6bk - intriguing theory JFK was trying to cough up bullet.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/throat.htm - this is what led me to the above. I haven't studied it yet. Next time.

[Augustine2004]

I'm reviewing the entire thread.

In post #3 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...50#post3310050
I seem to have made a wrong link http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=E9it1QpbuYk

But let's for now look at the Muchmore film youtube that was linked above. I don't see any direct sign that Kennedy's head had "exploded." People in the background do seem to be reacting, though, as if they had just seen a terrifying thing. But notice the coats that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are wearing, how they flare out in the wind. You recall that John Connally's coat "ballooned" out in a frame or a few frames; people interpreted it as the bullet that hit his chest also hit his coat label, making it flap out. But maybe it was the wind.



accidental find: Jesse Ventura tries to duplicate Oswald's shooting sequence http://youtu.be/qSWSgcuYqDo
Interesting, but no other comment.



This stablized Zapruder film youtube is not what I meant to link to in post #3 but it is more interesting http://youtu.be/mX_uxmA_rmU
As soon as Jean Hill comes into view, look at the way her coat does NOT flare out in the wind. I don't know if that can be taken to be an indication the Zapruder film is fabricated, though.



In post #26 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...34#post3318134
I wrote, " . . . LBJ had many people murdered." Two things wrong with that. First, I don't know of any murder by LBJ or under his order. Second, even if he did murder anyone, "many" seems inadvisable.



Xru's post, #34 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...46#post3318146 This is an answer to that post: No, the bullet parts allegedly found in the car were not whole bullets. Perhaps you confused those with the 'pristine' bullet (the one tagged C 399 by the Warren Commission) found in Parkland Hospital and made the principal of the single-bullet theory.



I am putting this item here for later reference Remember the famous 'stretcher' bullet, which was found on John Connally's stretcher? When discovered, SIX grooves, at least according to the Warren Commission report. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...32#post3321832



In post 126 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...04#post3344604
I linked to an animated gif file http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/imag...8-317AnimF.gif
I commented in that post that the front seat passenger moves forward as though the car is braking hard. Well the flowers that Nellie Connally is holding show forward movement like that, too.


In the next post, #127, I wrote, "As I understand, the gif was made by creating a camera viewpoint so that the car is stationary in the field of view." Well, the car does move in the gif, a little.



In post #129 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...54#post3348954
I reviewed a defense of the single bullet theory. This sentence (mine) is probably wrong: "Had someone nevertheless gone ahead and dissected the entrance wound on the back, he would soon have to give up, because it would soon become obvious that the bullet had fragmented into many bits inside the body." One familiar with wounds inflicted by mercury bullets would be able to diagnose them??

____________________________

I have decided to do something about the single bullet theory rather than what I said I'd do in my last post. Dale K. Myers is a former conspiracy "nut" converted to the Oswald-is-the-sole-assassin side. He did a pretty good job of exploding the National Geographic teledocumentary, and he often charges his critics as making wrong criticisms (see, for example,
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm ). To be sure, many anti-SBT folks may have made many mistakes. So, I think I need to do a more thorough job of weighing the evidence for and against the SBT than I have so far. Myers is formidable, so his opinion must be examined with care. If he's right that critics of the SBT made errors, then we need to re-examine it with care.


Against the SBT, there is Mantik's evidence for the use of mercury bullets (note when I say "evidence for something" I do not mean the evidence could not be for something else). A characterstic of mercury bullets is that they may create entry wounds but not always exit wounds. We except here the possibility that the two head bullets arriving nearly simultaneously and creating conditions for the head to "explode," of course. And I think the location of the entry of the bullet that hit Kennedy's back as claimed by assassinationscience.com

[ http://assassinationscience.com/Arle...agicBullet.pdf ] 5 1/2 inches below the collar

pretty well settles the SBT hash.

Furthermore, perhaps we can establish that the Kennedy hits and the Connally hits (all apparently caused by a single bullet--I do not mean to include the Kennedy hits here) cannot possibly have caused the Tague injury curb damage; so that would be the result of a miss.

[Augustine2004]

clarification: (the quotation was changed to make the quoted passage more clear)

Myers is formidable, so his opinion must be examined with care. If he's right that critics of the SBT made errors, then we need to re-examine it the SBT with care.

[Augustine2004]

Dale Myers, who did a computer reconstruction of the fatal motorcade in Dealey Plaza, November 21, 1963, said he based the reconstruction on the HSCA findings. So, that's what I am now looking at. Let's start our examination with page 43 of this page image http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0036b.htm (This is confusing--

* the webpage URL has the number 36b [I think "a" designates the left hand page and "b" the rh page];

* the copy of the page bears the number 43;

* the index near the top of the webpage that is a row of numbers indicates 73.)



I decided to use the PDF copy http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ort_1A_LHO.pdf instead. Let's start with page 41.



Ok, so the Warren Commission would not allow anyone to look at the autopsy X rays. The reason why not--the privacy of the Kennedy family--seems contrived. The HSCA report said two other Government panels had appointed impartial and honest panels of "independent" medical experts to look at the Xrays and other photographic material that the autopsy is supposed to have created. All those panels, including the Warren Commission, agreed that the SBT is OK. The HSCA report admitted that considerable doubts still remained, though, partly because the panel findings were not thoroughly explained with supporting evidence shown or accessed unstintingly.



Wow! Here on page 95 of the HSCA document http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Conspiracy.pdf

is the headline

C. THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO IT, THAT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS PROBABLY ASSASSINATED, AS A RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY.



Also, the commission thought a second gunman was probable, though Oswald was still believed to have fired all the bullet hits.



Another wow! Here in this summary http://www.history-matters.com/archi...-testimony.htm is this passage

What was discovered with the release of the HSCA files in the early 1990s was a host of medical interviews, conducted by staff members Andy Purdy and Mark Flanagan, which were in major disagreement with the HSCA's conclusions and contained many very disturbing observations and allegations. Furthermore, it appears that the medical panel was aware of few of these interviews, as Andy Purdy told the ARRB in the mid 1990s. Also, two key interviews conducted by the medical panel itself were not published along with the report.

The summary also said not all HSCA matters have been put in the History Matters archive. So I'm afraid we are not going to get a full picture, and it now appears the HSCA findings may not be all reliable. Maybe Mantick is more reliable?


I want to do some more thinking. Any comments or suggestions?

[Augustine2004]

This webpage article by assassinationscience.com http://www.assassinationscience.com/lonenutter.html
seems to do a good job of laying out the case against the SBT. Note the two citations of New York Times articles, especially the report of Gerald Ford getting caught in the act of altering the Warren Commission report on the location of Kennedy's back wound.



Now I am puzzled by what happened to the bullet that struck Connally. Let us accept that his bullets wounds, including the tiny fragment that struck his right thigh, all were caused by that one bullet. The problem is that the bullet fragments left inside Connally had a total mass of only grains. I very much doubt that the bullet on entering Connally the first time massed only grains. It must have been much more substantial, 100 or 1000 times. So what happened to the bullet after it left behind all those fragments?

a. It eventually left the area of the Kennedy car.

b. It stayed inside the area.

How on earth could it wind up on Connally's hospital stretcher the way the CE399 bullet did?

Wrong question, if this article http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
is to be believed. The CE 399 bullet really had nothing to do with the Dealey Plaza affair. If I understand correctly, the Connally bullet or the main fragment partially embedded itself in his right thigh and fell out when he was in initial surgery. (Apparently a bullet reportedly recovered from a gurney is, as noted above, irrelevant, if not planted.)



A separate note--According to Connally's wife, Nellie, he held his hat all the way to the hospital, even though his wrist broke http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_09.html

If so, conspirationalists should not cite the broken wrist as evidence against the SBT. I will not in the future.



If 1) a shot from the alleged murder gun sounded around z160 and 2) working the bolt on that Mannlicher-Carcano required a minimum of 2.3 seconds, then the next shot from that rifle couldn't happen until around z203 or after. Kennedy was clearly hit before z225; for one thing, Jackie seems to be looking at him askance then. Connally said he was shot around z234, and many people thought that he had to be shot before z241. The Carcano bolt couldn't be worked that fast.

A problem here is that a bullet that hit Connally apparently would have to go through Kennedy before??

[Augustine2004]

dead JFK rising from his seat ...(?) by GerdaDunckel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDCJ3...feature=relmfu
I've confirmed that in my hard-disk copy of the Costella combined edit of the Zapruder film (an image of JFK in more than two Zapruder frames near the end). I suspect three things:
* A sick joke by the Zapruder fabricators,
* Sabotage by them -- a sneaky way to tell the world that the extant Zapruder film is fake.
* Some kind of childish wishful thinking. (You know a child wants her dead mom back, so she draws a picture of her. I would concede this is far-fetched, though.)


I made a blowsy blunder! Let me start with Jean Hill, the Red Coat Lady. She first appears in the Zapruder film at frame z287. Then the wind obviously is not strong enough to make her coat flag open to her right, just as I'd said before. Then Mary Moorman appears in z290. Still no sign the wind has become strong enough to make either Hill's coat or Moorman's flag open (possibly in z292 to 296 the wind is beginning to get strong enough). In z297, though, Moorman's coat does open up enough to show most of the right half of her pants. In z303, the coat opens even wider, but it's not clear what's happening to Hill's coat. However, z307 finally does show Hill's coat at maximum flag. That is shortly before Kennedy gets shot in the head.

If the wind was from northwest, it may have pushed the expelled brain contents so hard one of the motorcycle escort people on the left of the Kennedy car testified later that he was hit so hard by some of the brain stuff he thought he was going to die.

Was it the same wind that Marrion Baker testified to when he described the wind as so strong, "[I] almost lost my balance" on his motorcycle. He later said the wind was due North. He then said he was 60-80 feet north into Houston (past the middle of the County Courts Building) when he heard the first shot.

I think we have to infer from all those things that the wind was gusting fitfully throughout the motorcade. About Marrion's estimate the wind was from the North, that's to be expected considering where he was. Along Houston Street in front of Dealey Plaza are three skyscrapers. Such a row would cause a northwest wind to split into a west wind and a north wind. I don't know what wind patterns like that do to sounds, but I guess it's a big factor in aural testimonies. I remember an account of a Civil War battle in which many soldiers were unaware it was being fought even though they were near enough to hear it clearly in normal atmospheric conditions. Possibly that's why Clint Hill reported hearing only two shots, even though Jean Hill and Mary Moorman both reported hearing more than three shots??


JFK Assassination Nix Film Rotated Stabilized & Slowed Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYHH...eature=related


Clint Hill's Run Marie Muchmore Headshot Film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=E9it1QpbuYk
In this connection, I urge you to read or re-read this essay
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011...t-hill-or.html (Interesting note: Bill Lovelady's testimony was cited here. He is the one fingered as an Oswald looklike a few times.)


Serendip find: Peter Jennings report that used Dale Myers' animation work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...BXW1-VGmM&NR=1
Unfortunately someone accused Myers of using a model of Connally that is less tall and more small than the model of JFK, as though Myers did some fiddling with the animation to make the SBT seem to work
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread788298/pg4 and search 'taller and bigger'
Someone named Bob Harris also pointed out more errors--in the link above, search 'Bob Harris'


In post #193
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...22#post3383722
I said I wanted to do more thinking about Mantick v. the HSCA handling of the autopsy documents. Now here's some guy's take:
http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blo...ead-wound.html
This is my review.
In the first place the author (Martin Hay) clearly accepts the notion that a bullet's momentum could cause such a violent reaction as JFK's body's backward motion evident in the Zapruder frames 315-321. As we should realize by now, that is quite mistaken.

Another apparent mistake is the misinterpretion of the 'cloud of bullet fragments' at the top of the head as being the result of a fragmenting bullet entering the right temple quite close to the top of the skull and taking a curving path to the left of the path (in golf terms,
http://www.tydaniels.com/hook-slice-fade/
a hook or a draw made by a right-hand golfer). I prefer Mantik's suspicion that a mercury bullet or more were used.

Still determined to uphold the official story, both panels moved the wound four inches up the head (!) to the approximate location of a large round fragment that it was later claimed was a cross-section of the bullet that had shaved off on impact.

Unsure what is being discussed here. Perhaps the picture that is the fifth one below ("the anterior X-ray"), which shows a white dot behind the right eye socket overlain by some sort of "debris". Maybe that is what is meant by "a large round fragment." Mantik, you'll recall, maintains that the dot was a deliberate double exposure.

Note that Mantik and not the author found it odd that the picture bearing the label "APPROXIMATE PATH OF 'MISSILE DUST' (the first picture below) was so white on the left side but so dark on the right side. You recall Mantik explained the blackness as probably indicating the absence of brain matter. And the whiteness is an anomaly, like created by applying a patch to the skull before the X-ray was taken.

Otherwise, as far as I know the section ". . . revealed!" is OK, except for this

One cannot help thinking that Dr. Humes was fully cognizant of the problems with relying solely on beveling which is why he lied and said that he had found a through-and-through hole. The fact is, as observers of the autopsy have confirmed, the autopsy doctors were confused by the evidence in front of them and, in reaching their conclusions, relied on reports coming in from Dallas that a lone assassin had fired on the President from above and behind.

Mantik explains the findings of the autopsy as at-least partially the result of threats made by the conspirers to harm the autopsy makers. Coerced or heavily influenced testimony.

Another thing about the anterior X-ray alluded to above. Again the author sees no significance in the asymmetry of the dark areas and the light areas?

The last paragraph I find to be bizarre. You agree?


Recall Bjorn K. Gjerde's find that the view east of the Purse building in z002 must have been faked? Compare that with the logo picture in the webpage I'd critiqued just above. It is true that much change must have occured since the assassination until the picture's taking, but aren't you just a teensy weensy suspicious?


News item about Tague, complete with a picture of the curb showing the notch where a chip is knocked off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/w...00/3223926.stm


Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the ARRB, has second thoughts about what made the government change its three-hit theory to a two-hit theory then yet another version of the two-hit possibility.
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/5262.html
Well, it sure would help to know which shot caused the curb damage and which caused Connally's injuries.


Correction: John Connally's left thigh, not the right, is what received the bullet that struck his right side.