JFK murder reexamined

[Augustine2004]

This part of this post is just to show what I did--nothing worth bothering about.
Reports of a through-and-through hole in the windshield of the Kennedy car--In those webpages (assassinationscience.com) a Ford Motor official said there was a hole 'created from the front.'
http://assassinationscience.com/golais.html
http://assassinationscience.com/fourth.html

On the other hand, those reports are disputed, for example
http://assassinationscience.com/john.../white-az.html


Warren Commission Exhibit 355 shows what purports to be a picture of the windshield with what may or may not be a hole. I can't tell from the photo whether the hole was made from the back or the front. And it does look like just a crack.





This youtube is interesting for 2 reasons: http://youtu.be/RMtdotTD8lY First, it shows a Secret Service agent riding with the Kennedy car. Second, it shows the Stemmons sign as one board (you remember Gjerde talking about highway signs coming in pieces).

[Augustine2004]

As part of my review (second reading) of the Gjerde article, I looked at the Wiegman film (Mobilecheese's youtube version ['one frame per second']), to see the view of the east part of Elm Street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xR0WBPo8I Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yemdkDE0c&NR=1 Part 2



I don't see why Gjerde cited the Wiegman film together with the Towner film for views down the east part of Elm Street. It may be that you can see it in Part 2, but the Wiegman film is just too blurry and underexposed for me to be sure I saw anything of the Purse building.



Here I want to give my opinion about an image in the Wiegman film (see part 1) of Lee Harvey Oswald in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository around the time shots were heard. I do recall an article that pointed out something of that nature before. I think it's possible that was him. On the other hand, claims have been made there was a double. Either way, that's evidence that can be advanced to support a theory of conspiracy. But I don't care to cite it, partly because, again, the film is just not that sharp.



And what about the claim of the absence of Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman from the pedestal where he was allegedly shooting the Zapruder film--see Part 1? The Wiegman film is just too blurry and poorly exposed for me to be confident that the claim is good. Indeed, often images appear that are alternately too blurry to be recognized and sharp enough to be seen fairly clearly.



Gjerde cited a photo taken by 'Mr. Flynn.' I searched the whole document & that's all--just this mention. Poor Flynns! Going extinct! This theory is further supported by the null result of a search of assassinationscience.com Tried googling using 'flynn JFK OR Kennedy assassination' [[[The things you sometimes find googling! Interested in a free HD-quality Meryl Streep movie? Doubt NOT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BkbPxnoUHA ]]]



Finally turned up a reference to Flynn here

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm

Johnny Flynn of Dallas Morning News (that's the newspaper that appealed for photos and films in a radio ad--remember the Towner film). Interesting webpage ('"Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll' by Jerry Organ). I think I will study it more, later.



Well, glad to know the great Flynn clan is perhaps not in danger of extinction. On to locate a good copy of Flynn's photo. Interesting webpage possibly worth later study:

http://acorn.net/jfkplace/.ms/.2pe.html [[-- appears to disprove Gjerde's theory about the Black Dog Man. That was actually a young black woman who stood up from a bench?? She wasn't filming or aiming a rifle. She had an orange soda.]]



Ho! http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/imag...e_26_large.jpg

The background is so washed out, but it does seem clear that the easternmost building seen in the Barnes photo and the Zapruder film is just not in the Flynn photo. The building on the left side is clearly the building at 601 Elm Street, across Houston Street from the Texas School Book Depository. Compare to Figure 1 in Gjerde's article. [[the article seems worth further study, later]]



The Flynn photo was not included in the Warren Commission Report, according to my internet search (history-matters.com)



So! Now we have on the one hand Barnes' photo and Zapruder's film and on the other hand several photographic depictions (Tina Towner, Johnny Flynn, and the aerial shots cited by Gjerde in Figure 1, page 4). The latter hand looks normal, but the former looks a bit out of kilter.



I have no plausible explanation why the Zapruder film was edited that way. Presumably the Barnes photo was edited so as to match the film in depiciting the east portion of Elm Street.



Now, several indications exist that the FBI took control of the photographic evidence and the government did have the resources to make alterations to it. My judgment now is that Sparko would have to struggle mightly to show an plausible alternative to any theory of USFG conspiracy, at least as far as alterations of photographic evidence is concerned, and still be unsuccessful.



______________________________________

I checked the Wiegman film to see if the 'missing tree' is indeed shown there. It is there at 6.25 seconds in Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yemdkDE0c&NR=1

It's more obvious than in Gjerde's cropped version in Figure 2, page 6.



Curiously, the far background of the Zapruder film and that of the Wiegman film differ markedly--it's not just that in one film the tree is not there and in the other film the tree is there. I checked the Barnes photo also (Gjerde Figure 1B, page 4). Same as the Zapruder film. Now look at Figures 1E and 1F. It seems clear to me that the Barnes and the Zapruder frames were altered by 'moving' the building on the east side of Houston Street to the south and maybe 'stretching' wider the gap between that building and the County Records Building (the building on the left). It seems to be yet another instance of alteration that cannot be denied.

[Augustine2004]

Why oh why didn't I think of it before!? Google maps! Your guide is almighty incompetent and needs to be replaced by someone else. Not Sparko, though.

Certainly someone who could manipulate Google Maps better than I can. This is the best I could achieve
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dealey...id=po-51184388
The viewpoint happens to be the Black Dog position. You remember the Flynn photo. As in, In Like Flynn. I was going to say, Out Like Flynn, but the Flynn clan doesn't seem to be flying up, after all. Or have flown the coop.

Surprisingly, the 'missing' tree looks very much present. A fast growing tree, perhaps? Or was the original tree ever removed at all? I'll leave that to some historian. How about it, Sparko, want to be the tree historian? Or, perhaps the historian of the two trees. Whatever.

The match of the far backgrounds between the Wiegman shot and the Google Maps one seems good enough, you agree?

Now, the pedestal shot--shouldn't be difficult, surely someone would have thought of that.
Not yet--surprisingly difficult to find the right place. But look at this
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dealey...id=po-32394989
Check the tree that is the northernmost of the three trees that are behind the white wall. This time it appears in front of the blue garage doors or whatever those are. That is not like the previous Google pic, in which the tree appears considerably to the left of the doors. That's the parallax effect! If you don't know what that is, look at the diagrams and illustrations here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

I rather doubt Zapruder's pedestal is that far off the line from Wiegman's position to the tree to make that big a difference, but grrr why can't I locate the pedestal position!?

I don't know if this is it
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dealey...-25265905&z=19
But you can see that one of the northernmost trees on the south side of Elm Street almost appears behind the tree that is the one closer to Elm Street than the other. I think that explains why the 'missing' tree didn't show up in the Barnes pic. It just happens to be occluded by the other tree.

Looks like Gjerde fell for the parallax effect.

But there's a remaining puzzle: Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0253a.htm
I still don't think this is evidence that strongly supports any conspiracy theory. Maybe just a coincidence that the tree was removed for some reason, perhaps it had a disease that could spread to other trees.

One more thing, I think rechecking the google links will show you the appearance of the east part of Elm Street differs markedly from in the Barnes photo and the Zapruder film.

Just going to skip the remaining sections up to 'The Deceivers,' page 68.
I believe Gjerde is correct that copies are not as good as the original film for detail. Moreover, just projecting from the original doesn't necessarily show all details that can be discerned from the original. Examination of the original over a good even light with a magnifier would be best. Of course preliminary examinations could be made off projections of copies; afterwards detail work could be done. (Of course nowadays, film could be digitalized, but that was long before the PC era.)

As the primary investigative agency, the FBI should have had access to the original at all times, though Life could retain ownership. I don't . . . later

[Sparko]

auggie, your conspiracy theories have bored me. You are not worth the time to argue with.

[Augustine2004]

Roughly 10 views per reply in this thread. I don't know what that means, but some people are still reading? I'll check the view count again next weekend to see if the ratio has changed substantially. Rogue06, any comment?

[Augustine2004]

My Gjerde review is complete. The only thing I'd consider using in my case for a government conspiracy from the Gjerde work is the odd view of the east part of Elm Street in the Barnes photo and the Zapruder film.



Now, 'Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination'

by Josiah Thompson

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde..._Assassination


I wish I had started this thread with Figure 33 --click here to see animated gif-- in

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...dence_-_part_3



Many things in the gif to look at::

1. The flame-like appearance of Kennedy's red head wound--I am not referring to the mist. I just don't think the wound is realistic as shown in the film.

2. The red mist that dissipated so quickly. Also, the assassinationscience.com group said that when z313 was shown to Hollywood special effects experts, they said it looked fake.

3. Observe the guy's head in the front passenger seat. The head moves forward as though the car is being braked hard. Also, it seems to me that Jackie's hair seems to me to 'fluff'' out, as if the braking of the car moved her hair out.

Yet the extant film running at regular speed does not show any obvious deceleration.

5. Kennedy's body--not just his head--initially moves forward probably because of the car braking. Then the head suddenly pivots down (the chin becomes closer to his throat, for one thing) and next moment just as suddenly jerks backwards. It seems to me that first a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the back, causing the sudden forward pivoting of the head. Then a bullet from the front hit the head, causing it to snap backwards as shown in the gif.

6. The driver's impossible head-turning speed. Frame to frame speed is about 1/40 seconds. In frame 316, the driver is turning from looking back at Kennedy to looking forward. At that time, his head is about oh, say, 20 degrees looking back. In frame 317, he is looking forward oh, say, 30 degrees or more. That is turning the head more than 50 degrees in just 1/40 second. Jim Fetzer and others say that's an impossible human feat. I'll discuss the implication of that later.

7. The odd white object that appears in frame 313 and is last seen in frame 339 (note, the gif only shows frames 308 to 317). I don't know what that is. Maybe just a piece of trash, but it still looks odd. I will henceforth ignore it, because I don't see what relevance it has to any conspiracy theory that depends on editing of the original Zapruder film.

Possibly more 'funny' things to see, but that's a lot already



Now, a review of 'Bedrock Evidence . . . ', starting from the beginning. Oh-oh! This article makes it evident that I need much background study before I can begin to sort out all the conflicting claims http://assassinationscience.com/john...x/lifton1.html



I don't know when I'll post here again.

[Augustine2004]

Toni Foster is the woman who was running-walking toward the Kennedy car in white moccasins; first her shadow appears in z293; then she herself appears in z296; her last appearance is in z325. I discovered an account of an interview with her
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/toni.pdf

Here are some points that I gleaned from the account plus some comments or tentative inferences:

1. Until the 2000 (or 1996-2000, it's not clear exactly when) interview she claimed she'd never been interviewed. Amazing.

2. The first shots she heard were like 'click-click.' If I understand her correctly and what she said about those shots are correct, that alone exonerates Oswald. Not the greatest Carcano expert could operate an unmodified Carcano rifle that fast.

3. She counted 4 shots in all, again exonerating Oswald or contradicting the Warren Commission report.

4. The fourth shot did cause Kennedy's head to explode (very likely in concert with the third shot). Foster said the ejecta went to the rear or most of it did. Yet another exoneration of Oswald. (Note that she was understandably mistaken about the fourth shot hitting in the rear. Very nearly all the time bullet entrances are rather small, not much bigger than the bullet itself if that big.)

She mentioned blood on Clint Hill's face. You remember the Secret Service agent who ran towards the car and got on it and pushed Jackie back. She thought it was from blood on Jackie's hands. Actually, I think, rather, Clint had to run through that cloud of bullet ejecta to get to the car. She also mentioned a motorcycle cop riding on the left and rear who came out 'blood all over him.' Exaggeration, of course, but still . . .

5. She corroborated my impression given in the last post that the third shot caused Kennedy's head to pivot forward and down toward the chest.

6. She said the car stopped. That is not what the Zapruder film shows.

[Augustine2004]

I have decided not to do a full and thorough review of 'Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination' by Josiah Thompson. First, he selected matters that are of doubtful importance. Either Fetzer's gang allowed it did make mistakes or Thompson just didn't go far to overturn the gang's case, despite his introductory remarks. Indeed, he didn't touch John Costella's 'simple' introduction to the 'JFK Assassination Film Hoax' at all. Second, the 'full frame-left' dispute (to be discussed later) needs more scientific study according to Costella (or Fetzer??).

Thompson's first matter is about what happens when the camera is restarted. Will the initial frame be overexposed because the camera's motor needs time to come up to speed, or because the shutter is left open (I think??)? That is not in Costella's introduction; and I did a search of assassinationscience.com using the keyphrase 'site:assassinationscience.com overexposure'--nothing!

Second, 'full flush-left penetration.' Lifton's response to Thompson's attack
here). I will not attempt to sort out the conflict. What Lifton says about the left margin going beyond 'full flush-left' is intriguing, though (Lifton's points 5 to 8 plus Costella???'s own response [do a find in the link above]

In Thompson's Part 2, let's skip to the argument over where Mary Moorman was when she was taking a certain picture. Let me point out a possible error by Thompson. Accounts says that Moorman held her camera in the landscape position--tilt the camera so that one of its sides is horizontal. So, what business does Thompson have with Mary holding the camera up to her eye?? Anyway, unfortunately, the controversy of where Mary was, off the grass on the street or not, still rages, and Costella does admit he made mistakes. So let me leave it here.

Now, the Stemmons sign passage. Thompson quotes Costella as announcing, 'Ahah, proof of alteration!' Where!? not in assiassinationscience.com anyway. I do remember Costella himself cited the parallax effect when discussing the position of a certain street lamp.

Later on Thompson writes, 'All the Bureau did was ask the Kodak lab to enclose with returned film or photos a request asking the photographer to get in touch with the FBI if the film or photos concerned the assassination.' Of course I'm quoting that out of context, but it sure looks like Thompson is trying to fool people.

IMO Part 3 is the best part, but Thompson is simply wrong when he said that the movement of the Kennedy head forward caused by the impact of the third bullet was only illusory. I can't believe he would make such an idiotic error. As I understand, the gif was made by creating a camera viewpoint so that the car is stationary in the field of view. (To be sure, the car does appear to move about slightly, so the gif is not perfect, but IMO that does not affect my conclusions too much.) So, any movement of any body part seen in the gif had to be relative to the car! Anyway, in z313 Kennedy's chin is clearly closer to his throat than in z312.

In conclusion, I'm not sure what Thompson's purposes were in creating the essay, but it now seems tendentious to me. Take, for example this passage:

Most recently, John Costella, Ph.D...... the Australian high school teacher who claimed to have discovered "listening devices" in Dealey Plaza which later turned out to be controls for sprinklers...... this John Costella, Ph.D., offered a "breakthrough" that was roundly applauded by the converted.

Let Costella reply to that himself (find 'listen') http://assassinationscience.com/john...costella1.html

[Augustine2004]

I neglected to record the 'views' count for this thread last week. Anyway, IIRC the count was <1500 then. I think now that we need page 9 to fill up before I again note the count, then wait again until page 10 fills up, if ever. That is, wait (again) until page 11 starts, and then I will look at the views count.



Recall how Abraham Lincoln's body reacted to J. W. Booth's shot. It was as though Lincoln had suddenly fallen asleep, his head pitching forward and down until his chin almost rested on his chest. I don't know, though, that effect is the same as when the shot from the rear hit Kennedy's head.


According to the Warren Commission Report, the shot that supposedly exited Kennedy's throat also hit John Connally, producing his multiple wounds. Anyway, note Zapruder frame 221 to z288; z221 is when Connally reappears from behind the Stemmons sign. There is no obvious sign of a Connally hit yet [[I think my opinion will change, see a few paragraphs below]]. In z230 he is still holding his hat. Indeed, for the hat to be visible, he had to have moved it up before. Remember, he was hit in the right wrist; he was holding the hat in his right hand. In z237, he seems to be starting to turn around clockwise (toward the right side) so that he could observe what was happening behind him. By then Kennedy was clearly hit many frames ago. In z289 Connally seems to be beginning to turn back (counterclockwise, to the left). Thereafter, his movements could be explained as simply trying to duck down. He and his wife did testify that she grabbed him and dragged him down, something like that, though.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm is a defense of the 'magic' bullet theory. I now review it. 'The Betzner photograph'?? On this webpage, I see three Betzner photographs that is relevant, B1, B2, and B3 http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.c...ls.php?album=3
B3 must be ignored, Kennedy and Connally are not visible in it. Jackie is in B2, but I can't make out Connally and Kennedy. I think I see Kennedy and Connally in B1, but I just don't see how Thomas Canning could deduce his findings from that! However, it appears from this transcript of his testimony that I am wrong http://www.historymatters.com/archiv..._3_Canning.pdf
I will review that later.


[This is still on the single-bullet-theory webpage] 'More recent work has pinpointed the time of the hit to Zapruder frame 223.' No reference is given. Anyway, I had another look at that frame and neighboring ones. Oh, turns out that z223 is one of the frames that show the Stemmons sign blocking Zapruder's view of Kennedy. But Connally is now visible. Well, he does look a bit odd, kinda stiff with the back arched in a bit. Hardly conclusive; also, that was during a long series of turning around and back, as described above; furthermore, he may have been just reacting to sounds of gunshots [[see below]].


The Exponent webpage link is wrong -- I think this is the one http://www.exponent.com/oswald/
Unfortunately, maybe they changed the animation. I never got a good idea of why the single-bullet theory is well grounded on facts. Indeed, Connally didn't seem to be involved at all. Maybe it was included just because it looked cool.


Neither the 'from the Sniper's Nest' jpg file http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
nor 'from the right front of the limo' jpg file http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1119.jpg
show why the single-bullet theory is tenable. As for laying out money to buy the video http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...nnedyassassina
I think most people will not, and I don't want them to buy it anyway, because it's too likely to be a put-up job. So, I'm going to skip it, because people would not be able to follow my discussion if ever I did get around to discussing it.


This seems initially promising http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm The 3D video showing Kennedy and Connally reacting to a postulated [[AND testified to by Connally]] sound of a gunshot at around z157 is quite convincing, but when I looked at the Zapruder frames around z157, I discovered that the faces were quite blurry. Nothing as sharply defined and detailed as in the 3D video. I think the Costella edit of the Zapruder film--what I have on my hard disk--is digital all the way to the extant film's highest resolution possible, so zooming in should show all the resolution that we're ever going to get out of the extant film. I did zoom in--no detail becomes visible. So, I'm baffled how Myers could possibly know enough of the Zapruder film to put out that video. In fact, I'm distrustful now. To be fair, I do think I see Kennedy clasping his hands together that way; but that's not relevant.


Now the depiction of z223 to z224. Kennedy is still out of view behind the Stemmons sign, but z225-228 do seem to show Connally's reaction to being hit, in accordance with his testimony to the Warren Commission. [[Now, the webpage says, 'in the 1/18th seconds between' z223 and z224 . . . Based on the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film each frame in the Zapruder camera was allotted an average of 0.0545 seconds [[calculated by taking the inverse of 18.3 frames per second. The last number is calculated from the fact that there were 343 frames taken in 18.7 seconds.]] Moreover, assassinationscience.com said the shutter was closed about half of the time. So I say there is about 1/40 seconds between the end of a frame in time and the start of the next frame in time.]]


Anyway, regarding Connally's coat label billowing up. Someone supposed it was the result of a bullet hitting the label, making it billow up. Actually, Marrion Baker testified that a sudden gust came from the south so strong that he almost fell off his motorcycle, around that time. Might not it be far more probable that the billowing out was due to the gust?


This is not clear: 'JBC's torso pitches forward 7.5 degrees and begins a sharp rotation to the left, while his head pitches rearward 3.2 degrees.' If someone is traveling in a moving car and a bullet from the rear of the car hits him in the back, physics would indeed dictate that the body pitches forward relative to the car, but the head will initially be at rest relative to the car. The rotation to the left could indeed be caused by the impact of the bullet, if it hits the right side of the back.


No comment on the rest of the webpage except to note that it is based on the assumption that the Warren Commission report is correct. Or the single-bullet theory is correct. Nothing really wrong with that, but if the theory really can't explain something . . . note this passage:

Since the change in position at Z312-313 is clearly due to the impact of a bullet, it can be inferred that the change in position at Z314-316 is due to some lesser force. The exact nature of that force is open to debate.

Then you have to look for a better theory.


On to the next conclusion http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm Well, this relies on evidence that is disputed--see http://assassinationscience.com/specter.html Let me note Arlen Specter has not demonstrated that he is anything but a typical slimy Washington pol in his career since acting as Warren Commission lawyer.


But I will assume for now that the first three paragraphs are OK. The fourth paragraph simply strains my credulity to the breaking point, based on what I know. IIRC (this was discussed before) the Parkland doctors didn't dissect the body to see where the bullet had traveled through it. Actually, it was a frangible bullet. Indeed X-rays were said to be taken showing numerous fragments. Now, if we have two bullets, one in the back and the other in the throat, then there would be no exit wounds, just numerous fragments left in the body. 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.


The next paragraph is based on the theory that Kennedy's shirt had bunched up on his back. That would explain why the bullet hole in the shirt is so low. But, come on, 4-5 inches upwards? Besides, if the shirt did hike up that far, won't there be a fold or more? If a fold forms above the collar, won't it show in photographs? Won't Jackie notice? If more than one fold, maybe Kennedy would come out with the Hunchback of Notre Dame look, heh.


Now regarding Connally's wounds. Now at long last we have doctors who can tell which wounds are entrance wounds and others are exit wounds [sarcasm].


I do not dispute that, if Kennedy's and Connally's wounds are as given, the projection from them is to the infamous sniper's nest. The problem is, the theory that a conspirator or conspirators (especially Specter and Gerald Ford) 'changed' the position of Kennedy's back wound to support the single-bullet theory remains tenable.


Now, the next page http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm

By matching the speed of the limousine model to the actual limousine seen in the Zapruder film, these potential errors are further reduced. The film's multiple frame count provides a "sample rate" that assures a close alignment. At any given frame, the limousine model is calculated to be within 4 inches of its real world counterpart. The error associated with this figure would be negligible on any trajectory analysis.

On the basis of the assumption that the Zapruder film is a true record of the Kennedy assassination insofar as an amateur like Zapruder holding a home movie camera can record accurately, the quotation above is not exceptionable. However, the truthfulness of the film as we've seen is disputed.


As for the trajectory cones, I looked at an anatomy website http://www.healthline.com/human-body...male-chest#3/9 As far as I can tell, given that Kennedy was sitting upright, a straight line drawn from the back wound as specified in the Warren Commission report to the throat wound as I've seen in a photograph (the space approximately between the two clavicles)would have roughly a downward slope of 2 in 6 or 1 in 3. That corresponds to a downward angle of around 18degrees. That agrees somewhat with an estimate I've seen elsewhere. However, the Warren Commission location of the throat wound is actually about level with the Warren Commission location of the back wound, as Gerald Ford put it. Someone will have to help me out with this large discrepancy.


Still on those darn cones. If the throat wound was in fact an entrance wound, there were at least two bullets. The cone projection would then be rubbish. Same goes for the back wound, if it did hit at a much lower spot. The probability of the bullet proceeding from that to the throat place and then to Connally's back wound place is just about zero. Any attempt to project back to the sniper's nest would be very problematic, to say the least. Note that the diagram of Kennedy and Connally in the car with the red cones 'painted on' actually shows positions that are roughly where I said they were. What gives!?

. . . other facts (in particular, the firearms evidence which proves that the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally were fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons) exempt it as a source of the gunfire.

I'd say the author is out to lunch, or is he part of the conspiracy, too?


I'll look at conclusion 3 next time.

[Sparko]

Jack Chick did it because JFK was trying to create a vaccine that made people become Catholics and reject the King James Bible.

[Augustine2004]

Jack Chick did it because JFK was trying to create a vaccine that made people become Catholics and reject the King James Bible.

Facts? E.g., Jack Chick was seen in or near Dealey Plaza, documents exist that show JFK tried to get a vaccine developed, you need especially to show that at least a few scientists thought such a vaccine as you claim was feasible, . . .

[pancreasman]

Now, now, it was obviously our reptilian overlords.

[Augustine2004]

I said in the last post that I would review conclusion 3
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
However, that involved Thomas Canning's testimony to the the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). So, in this post that's what I'll review next, instead.


____________________________________________________________________________

Canning IMO was incorrect here:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. So that the two basic ways to characterize the trajectory then I take it are by slope and direction.

Mr. CANNING. That is correct.

I am quibbling, but slope and direction does not suffice to single out anyone of an infinite number of trajectories. A set of three frame-of-reference coordinates must be known for any point in the trajectory in addition to the slope and direction.



This shows some assumptions on which Canning's analysis are based:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many [bullet] trajectories did you attempt to determine for the committee?

Mr. CANNING. Three.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. My understanding is, at least according to the present record, only two bullets struck the President and the Governor, one striking the Governor, two striking the President.

Why is it that you determined three trajectories?

Mr. CANNING. We determined three trajectories in order to examine the validity of the single bullet theory that has received so much attention.

If Canning did not accept the Warren Commission single-bullet theory (one bullet allegedly struck both JFK and JBC), why didn't he say so?

If any of the assumptions is or are false, Canning's analysis is wrong.



Continuing . . .

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What specific trajectories did you attempt to construct?

Mr. CANNING. A trajectory based on the two head wounds in the President, a second trajectory based on the two wounds, one in his upper back and the other near the center of his neck, and the third trajectory was based on the hypothesis that the projectile which came out of Mr. Kennedy's neck passed into the back of Governor Connally.

What Canning meant: One bullet coming in from the rear caused the two head wounds (first in entering and second in exiting the head). We will have to read on what Canning meant by his later words. Now, here it should be pointed out that accounts of the examination and diagnosis by several Parkland doctors of Kennedy's wounds contradict the HSCA forensic autopsy panel's findings. For one thing, the wound on the front of the neck is really an entrance hole, as James Fetzer asserts here http://assassinationscience.com/critique.html (do a search for 'Perry' and take the second match).

to be continued.

[Sparko]

Facts? E.g., Jack Chick was seen in or near Dealey Plaza, documents exist that show JFK tried to get a vaccine developed, you need especially to show that at least a few scientists thought such a vaccine as you claim was feasible, . . .

hold on a while and I will create some proof for you with my photoshop skillz. Then you will have no choice but to believe!!!

[Sparko]

OK Here you go. Proof!!! This is a photo of JFK threatening to turn Soviet Premier Khrushchev into a Catholic and brandishing a hypo with the Catholic vaccine at him while Jack Chick watches from the background, gloating.

jfk.jpg