’11 Seconds in Dallas’: Max Holland comes under fire for his JFK theory

In a huffy blog post,Ballistics and the TruthDale Meyers and Todd Vaughan unload on Max Holland’s reinterpretation of Abraham Zapruder’s film, accusing him of “irrational logic, mockery, and distain (sic) for the truth “

Max Holland

Under fire for his JFK forensic analysis

The shaky orthography and effortless condescension, all too familiar in the JFK arena, tends to obscure Meyers and Vaughn’s strongest argument:

The accounts of most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses do not corroborate Holland’s timing of the first shot at JFK’s limousine.

One person I want to hear from is Luke Haag

“Indeed, late last month, a few weeks after Holland’s Sixth Floor Museum presentation, ballistic expert Luke Haag showed over 450 forensic scientists attending a conference in Dallas his peer-reviewed ballistic investigation into Holland’s theory which demonstrated that each and every one of Holland’s assertions about the potential deflection of one Oswald’s bullets by the traffic mast pole was physically impossible. It didn’t happen. It couldn’t have happened.

Has anybody seen Haag’s presentation? Know about his background?

JFK Files: Holland’s Deflection: Ballistics and the Truth

6 comments

  1. leslie sharp says:

    Jeff, Patrick McNertney, former prosecutor for the NM Securities and Regulations Licensing Division is a good friend of ours. He is friends with the Haags. What do you want to know?

    • jeffmorley says:

      What does Haag think of Max Holland’s 11 second scenario?

      • leslie sharp says:

        I don’t have the answer. Would you like for me to facilitate an introduction? I’m sure they (father and son) would recognize your name and take your call anyway, but the offer is on the table. my email: lesliemsharp63@gmail.com

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Jeff – I wrote a comment on June 4 in relation to Max Holland & his re-interpretation of the Zapruder film – it is still awaiting moderation – why is that?

        This forum is an excellent site but there comes a point where if you accept the findings of Dino Brugioni & Doug Horne in relation to the Zapruder film not being authentic(as well as the 12/5/63 FBI statement of Zapruder himself) – how can Max Holland be taken seriously?

        Also – if there was no INITIAL consensus of shots from the front by doctors, nurses, eye witnesses, press reports, & films showing bystanders & police running to the knoll – why do we continue to study the case.

        The Warren Commission was formed because of this very reason “Rumors & Speculation” of shots from the front. If we as researchers of the JFK assassination cannot agree that at least SOME shots originated from the front – then theories about LBJ, the Mafia, CIA, why Ruby killed Oswald & whomever is a moot point.

  2. pat speer says:

    In a weird way, Max has done a great thing. His theory is so off-base and unsupported by the evidence that conspiracy theorists and single-assassin theorists alike have denounced it, with equal fervor. At one point I was asked to write a detailed article on his theory, and its awfulness, beyond what I’d already written. But I realized it was unnecessary, as Todd Vaughn and Dale Myers had already covered it in their well-written articles explaining its awfulness.

    They also made a major mistake, however. They wrote: “The lamppost that Allman is referring to is located at the former location of the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign. Gee, what a coincidence. Allman places the limousine at the same location indicated by Holland’s two other star witnesses – Amos Euins and Patricia Ann Donaldson; the moment after the limousine passed under the traffic light mast pole but before it passed under the Live Oak tree branches.”

    Yes, that’s right. They used Allman to push their own pet theory–that, from the perspective of the sniper’s nest, the limo hadn’t even reached the oak tree at the time of the first shot. Presumably, they assume that when Almman said the limo was passing the lamp post at the time of the shot, he meant from his perspective. As he was behind the limo at this time, they then place the limo far behind the lamp post, and nearby Thornton Freeway sign, on the street. Well, the problem with this is that the people standing near the sign have also been interviewed. And they have stated that the limo was directly in front of them or had already passed them at the time of the first shot. It follows, then, that when Allam said the limo was passing the lamp post, he meant passing it on the sreet, and not from his perspective, and that the limo was 10 yards or so further down Elm Street than even Vaughn and Myers want us to believe.

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      Very interesting!

      Let’s see if either Dale Myers or Todd Vaughan can offer an explanation for your important point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more