Do ballistics experts agree Oswald was the lone gunman?

By Don B. Thomas

In a telling passage in his recent piece in Politico Magazine, “Warren Commission staffers remain convinced today that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas, a view shared by ballistics experts who have studied the evidence,” reporter Phil Shenon traffics in half-truths. Whatever the Warren Commission staffers think, Shenon’s claim is inaccurate and untrue.

The back wounds

JFK Postcard

The FBI’s account of the gunfire that struck JFK, memorialized in this 1964 postcard, was disputed by the Warren Commission.

The FBI’s ballistic experts, in their summary report of December 1963, concluded that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by separate bullets. Yet the Warren Commission’s staff later decided that they had been struck by the same bullet –- the so-called “magic-bullet theory.” In a letter to the Commission, Director J. Edgar Hoover complained that this conclusion was contrary to the FBI laboratory’s findings. The magic-bullet theory, however, with or without evidence, was a construct necessary to the Oswald as lone gunman scenario.

Fifteen years later, the House Select Committee on Assassinations received testimony from an expert named Vincent Guinn who asserted that metallurgical evidence confirmed the magic-bullet theory. But Guinn’s data and conclusions, based on neutron activation analysis, were contrary to a study on the same bullets by the FBI laboratory.

Subsequently, the testing method itself, and Guinn’s conclusion, were thoroughly debunked in a study by Lawrence Livermore scientists Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, published in the Journal of Forensic Science in 2006.

Contrary to Shenon’s blithe assertion on the views of experts, the magic-bullet theory remains very much a matter of contention.

The head wound

Regarding the President’s head wound, a ballistic expert consulted by the Warren Commission, Dr. Alfred Olivier, of the U.S. Army’s Weapons Testing Branch, did agree that the ballistic evidence was consistent with the official “Oswald did-it” version. But Dr. Olivier was not allowed to examine the actual evidence. He had to rely on the official autopsy report that the President had a “through-and-through” bullet hole in the occipital bone of his skull. All subsequent expert panels that have been given access to the autopsy photographs and x-rays, have agreed that there was no “through-and-through” bullet-hole in the President’s occipital bone, or anywhere else in his skull for that matter.

JFK head wound

JFK’s head wound, as described by Parkland Hospital doctor Robert McClelland

Rather there is agreement that the top of the President’s cranium was massively disrupted; that there was a defect in the rear parietal area of the head that was caused by the passage of a bullet, and a defect in the frontal area of the head that was caused by the passage of a bullet. But as to which was the entrance and which was the exit, there is no agreement.The House Select Committee’s forensic pathology panel reached a split decision on the matter.

In reviewing the conflicting expert opinions, a deciding factor may be the Zapruder film which shows that the fatal bullet drove the President’s head backwards, which in any other case would seem to be prima facie evidence that the bullet originated from the front (the direction of the grassy knoll).

Dueling experts have variously invoked competing theories including a sudden muscular contraction, acceleration by the President’s limousine, and even a jet propulsion-like recoil to try to explain the backwards movement of the President’s head.Those theories, largely discredited, were designed to explain away the evidence rather than to fit the evidence, and all have their detractors.

Shenon’s statement is technically correct in the same sense that there are experts who have studied the evidence and share the view that global warming is a hoax, that there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer, and that evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell.

The truth is, there is no consensus among ballistic experts in support of the lone gunman theory.

 

623 comments

  1. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Here is an example of testimony from one so called “expert”, namely Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. Frazier testified to the Warren Commission that he and two fellow FBI colleagues test fired the assassination rifle at a range, using the telescopic sight mounted on the rifle to aim at their targets. At a range of 15 yards, Frazier reported the rifle to be shooting 2.5 inches high. At 100 yards, Frazier reported the rifle to be shooting 2.5-5 inches high. No adjustments were made to the scope during this time.

    Anyone who has ever sighted in a scope on a rifle will understand the absurdity of these claims. To prove this, I used the ballistics calculator at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html . I entered a muzzle velocity of 2165 feet/second (as measured by Frazier), bullet weight of 162 grains, sight height of 2 inches (estimated) and a ballistics coefficient of .275 (provided by Hornady Mfg. for their round nose 160 grain .267″ bullet specifically made for the 6.5mm Carcano).

    Using these numbers, it was necessary to experiment with the zeroed in range, in order to have this rifle shooting 2.5 inches high at 15 yards. I eventually determined that, if the rifle was zeroed to hit a target at 6.5 yards, it would be shooting 2.57 inches high at 15 yards.

    As the ballistics calculator shows, at 100 yards, this rifle would be shooting 24.97 inches high, not the 2.5-5 inches high as claimed by Frazier.

    Experts? Suuuuuure…..

    • Photon says:

      Bob, ever fire a Carcano? Ever held one? Ever been in the same room with a Carcano? Frazier did all of those things-and yet you are the expert? As I recall you weren’t even aware that JFK had a closed casket funeral-documented on this site.
      Thomas expects people to accept a rushed FBI report filed the month following the assassination as Gospel, without ever stating that the item never mentioned the autopsy report nor Connolly’s operative report-or Connolly at all. He ignores the fact that JFK’s head moved forward between frames 312 and 313-yet uses the Zapruder film to bolster his claim of a shot from the front. As his expertise is invertebrates his is not competent to comment on the neuromuscular reflexes of higher animals. His “source” quoted to discredit the ” jet effect” has no documented evidence of ever having seen a bullet strike human tissue, having ever dissected a human body, having seen any human bullet wounds. As such he appears to be totally ignorant of what a FMJ rifle round can do to a human skull, while likewise ignorant of the effect of frangible rounds on a human skull-even if they penetrate the skull, which is not a given when encountering a hard spherical object.

      • Charles says:

        photon, so which kind of bullet was it, a fmj or a frangible?

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        However, LHO was an “expert shot” and yet, somehow, the first shot, according to the WO, missed EVERYTHING related to the assassination and wound up nicking Tague on the cheek. How could an “expert shot” skilled with a 12.00 piece of World War 2 junk, miss a shot that anyone on the 6th floor with a full bladder could have easily tinkled on JFK’s head? LHO supposedly takes the easiest shot of the three and misses everything, yet he picks his head quite easily on the fatal head shot. Oh wait, I know! The “expert shot” was about to “cross the Rubicon” and he must have realized the “enormity of the moment.” Do I have your words correct, Photon?

        I have stood in the 6th floor window, well the one next to it, on four separate occasions—I have an Apple made calendar to PROVE it—and I can assure you that a baseball dropped from the 6th floor would have hit SOMETHING in the limousine!

        As far as Frazier being an “expert,” I am assuming that we are using that term very loosely, correct? Because anyone under J.Edgar “wait, I forgot my panty hose” Hoover and his decree to “settle this thing quickly” is highly suspect.

        • Paul Turner says:

          You say a baseball dropped from the 6th floor of the TSBD would have hit something in the limo. I haven’t been to the TSBD, but it would appear to me that if you DROP a baseball from the sniper’s nest window, it would hit the ground directly below the window, thus not anywhere near the limo.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Paul,

            Unlike most of the commenters that say this or that, I have been to the TSBD on four separate occasions. And, unlike the Warren Omission and all of their experts, I actually have proof of that FACT. Since you have never been there, you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge. I was speaking tongue in cheek. As the limo rounds the corner, it would not take ANY effort to drop anything into the limo. But, the “expert marksman” and “skilled Marine” missed everything. Oh yes, I know. His bullet must have hit something and then ricocheted off of something!

            I would suggest, Paul, that you actually visit Dealey Plaza, and then we can talk.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Paul,

            You see, unlike the WO members and their lapdog “investigators,” I have taken as much time as a working person can to ACTUALLY visit the crime scene, from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theatre. Have you? Have you called out the “investigators” that took the word of the CIA and FBI, who, now, after 50 plus years, say they were “misled” and “duped” by both organizations?

            I would guess the answer is no. You have probably read the WO report, and since it is the government and good ol’ LBJ, you have taken their word as gospel. I believe that to be foolish, unless you believe that LBJ was an honest and decent man. In case you think that, please reference the Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

        • Photon says:

          Steve, when is the last time that you have shot at a human being?
          When is the last time that you have shot at ANYTHING?
          Where do you get that every first shot is guaranteed to hit its target? Do you have any quote, any documented evidence that a first shot always hits its target-particularly if it is moving, particularly if it is a human being?
          You don’t even know when the first shot was fired. You don’t even know wihether it hit a street pole.Yet you assure us that it had to hit JFK.
          Give one example of a credible study that every fired first shot hits its target-even something as controlled as match shooting events at stationary targets.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Nope. Not going to play your game of “give me one example.” You said LHO was an “expert marksman” and a “skilled Marine.” I am assuming one must hit the target fairly regularly to achieve that rank, correct? But the easiest of the three shots missed. That is a FACT from your beloved WO. I have been to Dealey Plaza. I have stood in the 6th floor window on four different occasions, unlike most of the WO members. Have you, Photon? Do you know how ridiculously easy the first shot would have been for a “marksman” that you claim LHO was? And yes, the sight on the rifle that was bent—you said it was bent when LHO dropped it on his way off the 6th floor.

            You see, Photon, unlike the lapdog members of the WO, I actually have taken the time to travel to Dallas and walk the routes and travel the same places as the major players did in 63. Have you? On FOUR separate occasions. I have actual PROOF of my visits, which your beloved CIA could not produce of LHO in Mexico City when asked to in 63.

            So, nope, no “one example” crap for me. Unless you would like to express the same indignation towards the CIA goons and Hoover’s buffoons that you express towards the conspiracy nuts, as you call them.

            Care to comment?

          • Photon says:

            How do you know the first shot was the easiest? When was it fired?
            It is just as likely the first shot was the most difficult-particularly if it was just after the turn onto Elm street, when Oswald would have exposed himself the most to get an optimal shot.
            But I do agree it was an easy shot from the Sixth Floor-particularly as the car traveled down toward the Triple Overpass with no lateral movement. I think that it is quite telling that you have no evidence to back up your claim that Oswald had to have made his first shot.It is a faulty assumption that betrays your ignorance of shooting, marksmanship and basic human psychology. Apparently you have never heard of Buck Fever.
            Yes , I have been to Dallas, Dealey Plaza and the Sixth Floor.The most impressive thing is how small the distances are-and how misrepresented those distances have been by the conspiracy community. The fact that even you have come to the conclusion that Oswald would have had an easy shot from the Sixth Floor reinforces the conclusions of the Warren Commision and the multiple official government investigative bodies that have confirmed those conclusions. Unfortunately too often conspiracy theorists make simply erroneous claims-Oswald couldn’t make the shot, the Carcano was inaccurate and a piece of junk, he couldn’t operate the bolt fast enough, the single bullet couldn’t do all it did without being deformed,,etc. -all falsehoods repeatedly disproved by serious researchers.

          • Career Objective says:

            Photon- the first shot would have been the easiest for Oswald due to proximity and how slow the limousine was moving. Oswald deliberately missed that shot, as well as the next two he took.

          • Mark Spitz says:

            Hello all…I’m new here after just finishing the book, “The Devil’s Chessboard”. I have to comment here in regards to LHO missing the first shot and relate it to a book I read about the Tarawa Landings by the US Marines. this is a quote, but not exact, but from memory. written by a reporter imbedded with them

            “As the first of the enemy scampered from the bunker the Marines I was with all fired on him, and all missed. When the second emerged from the bunker, the Marines calmed down, held their breath as they aimed, and he was cut to pieces.”

          • Photon says:

            Mark. I am sure that Steve will say that you are all wet.

          • sszorin says:

            Excuse me disrupting this nice dialog but I find you. Mr. Photon, a little ignorant on how a US army evaluates its soldiers. A marine sharpshooter is somebody who does not suffer from “buck fever”, that’s why he is a ‘sharpshooter’. Psychology of expert marksmen is deifferent from people like you. In a war the first shot counts the most, one’s life depends on it. In Dallas in November 22, 1963 the first shot missed not only JFK, it miraculously MISSED THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE from a spitting distance.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            sszorin
            November 12, 2015 at 12:41 pm

            Excuse me disrupting this nice dialog but I find you. Mr. Photon, a little ignorant on how a US army evaluates its soldiers. A marine sharpshooter is somebody who does not suffer from “buck fever”, that’s why he is a ‘sharpshooter’.

            BC. The evaluation being the score the soldier makes shooting a paper target; not a person. I’ve never know a person to miss a paper target from “buck fever”. I have seen numerous people miss a buck deer due to “buck fever”.

            Psychology of expert marksmen is deifferent from people like you.

            BC. Not really. A true sniper perhaps but not an every day soldier that happened to shoot Sharpshooter.

      • jeffc says:

        I realize there’s a rule somewhere that any discussion of the assassination must include a Photon or two, but still its fun to point out that this particular Photon’s arguments consist largely of partisan challenges to people’s credentials, and rarely on the actual content of the discussion itself. In this particular instance, he has nothing to say of Olivier – a third-string expert at best – or Dr Guinn, whose totally incorrect assertions were so loudly trumpeted by the likes of Posner and Bugliosi.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          Challenging people’s credentials is what Photon/Paul May always does, while often claiming his own expertise on marksmanship, the law, the practice of medicine (particularly that practiced on gunshot victims in emergency room settings, indeed any and all subjects. He’s apparently the son of that “World’s Greatest Authority on Everything” that Sid Caesar used to play on his old TV show. OTOH, no Warren Report skeptic, no matter how illustrious his or her credentials might be, no anything about the subject they specialize in — especially no compared to Photon/Phil. BTW, any WWII Italian Army veteran knows just how awful a rifle the Carcano was, even when brand spanking new, which the firearm Oswald allegedly used was not.

          • sszorin says:

            I read about this rifle being derisively desribed as a ‘humane weapon’, designed to reduce probability of being killed or maimed by it.

      • Clarence Carlson says:

        “a rushed FBI report filed the month following”
        Rushed? A month later?? How long would “unrushed”?

        “without ever stating that the item never mentioned the autopsy report”
        There were two FBI agents at the autopsy table who recorded comments by the prosector. Before he burned his notes.

        “or Connolly at all”.
        The governor and his wife always said he was hit by a separate bullet. How would that help the SBT?

        “JFK’s head moved forward between frames 312 and 313”
        Yes, just before it moves backwards and to the left.

        “not competent to comment on the neuromuscular reflexes of higher animals”
        You apparently have no understanding of the requirements for a PhD in the biological sciences.

        “His “source” quoted to discredit the ” jet effect” has no documented evidence of ever having seen a bullet strike human tissue, having ever dissected a human body”
        The inventor of the jet effect was a physicist. They don’t require dissection in their course of study either.

        “totally ignorant of what a FMJ rifle round can do to a human skull”
        Rhetoric.

        “ignorant of the effect of frangible rounds on a human skull”
        Ok, which is it?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Frazier told the Warren Commission things that were physically impossible with a rifle, Paul. You simply cannot have a rifle shooting 2.5 inches high at 15 yards and 2.5 – 5 inches high at 100 yards.

        You can ramble on all day about who has done what or who knows what but, the fact remains I have forgotten more about rifles than you will ever know, and Frazier told some very big fibs to the Warren Commission; as did many FBI agents.

      • sszorin says:

        What is the physical force of a bullet shot from a short distence on a human head ?…how big is it ?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Bob, I’m not understanding this and I’m not sure why. I used your calculator and numbers and for a zero of 100 yards. I got what I expected. At zero range we had the bullet 2 inches below the line of sight because of the scope height. Somewhere between 40 and 50 yards the bullet goes from below the line of sight to above the line of sight. At 100 yards the bullet hits the bull’s eye (Zero). The bullet drops 4.38 inches total from zero range to the zero at 100 yards.

      If I plug in a 15 yard zero then the bullet would be 7.82 higher at 100 yards (not the 24 or 25 inches as reported) with the total bullet drop at 4.38 again.

      Any help would be appreciated.

      • “Any help would be appreciated.”~Bill Clarke

        Sure Bill, glad to help!The “magic bullet — CE 399, was never fired in Dealey Plaza. It is likely a recovered gelatin or water tank shot. It is a planted bullet. So all of this argument over trajectory from the book depository, who fired it from where, what the obstacles were is moot. The ballistics as proven by Sherry Fiester show it was fired from the left side [as the limo goes]of Dealey near the triple underpass. Likely from a high powered modern weapon using a frangible bullet. Look to science, not conjecture.
        [see, my other post on chain of custody on this thread]
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Thanks Willy. I’ll file this with the rest of your stuff.

        • Michael Tyrrell says:

          He was shot in the head from the South Knoll.

        • Michael Tyrrell says:

          (I agree, Willy, and reassert the suggestion that smoke and sound from the North Grassy Knoll was a subterfuge just as Umbrella Man and DCM were in place to distract police/security from observing an assassin positioned behind the Post Office. Perhaps the Box Truck on Commercial Street was an added foil when the shots were fired. We may never know, but that’s what it looks like in the Z film).

        • Michael Tyrrell says:

          I will add, Willy, that if not mistaken, the Post Office was also the main militarily recruiting office for Dallas at the time..

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Of course you did not understand it, Bill. What would be the purpose of your being here if you did understand it?

        Frazier said the rifle shot 2.5 inches high at 15 yards so, obviously the rifle was not zeroed at 15 yards. By experimentation, I found the crossover point, just out from the muzzle of the rifle, had to be at 6.5 yards, in order for the bullet to impact 2.57 inches above the line of sight at 15 yards.

        It was not actually fair to say the rifle would be “zeroed” at 6.5 yards, as this is actually the point at which the bullet crosses the line of sight. In reality, a bullet crossing the line of sight at 6.5 yards, and 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, would be travelling a rather large parabola, and would not cross the line of sight again (at the zero point) until it had travelled about 500 yards.

        I felt that by trying to explain how a bullet crosses the line of sight twice in its journey would complicate things too much for this audience. My apologies.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Of course you did not understand it, Bill. What would be the purpose of your being here if you did understand it?

          My purpose for being here is that I have a interest in rifles and ballistics and The Kennedy Foreign Policy especially concerning Vietnam and the Assassination. I have long ago tired of the sophomoric battle between the CT bunch and the LN guys.

          The reason I replied to your post is because I couldn’t duplicate your results. I assume this is because I’m not understanding you properly. So I asked for help from you but your recent reply didn’t help me that much. What distance did you put in the calculator for zero? 100 yards? 6.5 Yards?

          “I felt that by trying to explain how a bullet crosses the line of sight twice in its journey would complicate things too much for this audience. My apologies.”

          No apology required. I’ve been trying to teach a fellow over in the McAdams group this principal for over a decade. Not one iota of progress.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Okay, think of it this way, Bill. It is necessary to sight the rifle in (zero it) at a range that will have that rifle’s bullets impacting a target 2.5 inches high at 15 yards. In this case, that range will be just under 500 yards, meaning that a bullet aimed at a 500 yard should impact quite close to the point of aim. with the barrel being below the line of sight of the scope, and the barrel pointing slightly upward in relation to the line of sight, the path of the bullet must cross the line of sight somewhere just out from the muzzle of the barrel.

            Because of the high parabola or “arc” a bullet with the ballistics coefficient, round nose design and muzzle velocity of the 6.5mm Carcano must travel to be zeroed in at just under 500 yards, this “crossover” point has to be very close to the muzzle of the barrel; in this case, 6.5 yards. And, if this rifle’s bullet is crossing the line of sight at 6.5 yards AND just under 500 yards, it will also be 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, as it climbs from the muzzle in an arc.

            So, in essence, it is actually not untrue to say you can zero a rifle in at two distances, and have that rifle shoot accurately at both of those distances. As the calculator I am using does not provide very many intervals at close range, when used at the 500 yard zero range, it was easier to determine the crossover point, just out from the barrel, as the first “zero” point, and using that to determine at what range this rifle was shooting 2.5 inches high at.

            If you know anything about “bore sighting” a rifle on the bench, I am basically using the same principle, only with a much greater degree of accuracy.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Yes Bob, they trained us to bore sight the main tube on the M60A1 tank and the Sheridan armored vehicle. Thanks for the link.

            I plugged in a 500 yard zero and got numbers close enough to yours to satisfy my curiosity. As you have spoke of, the trajectory for a 500 yard zero is rather severe, more like a rocket trajectory than a shoulder rifle.

            Thanks for the discussion.

        • sszorin says:

          This is quite incomprehensible, why would an assasin shooting at a target at a distance of from about 50 ft to about 150 ft set the rifle scope for 500 ft ? Surely a marksman like Oswald planning an assasination would prepare himself and visit the place beforehand and calculate the distances.

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Bob, This is just another example of you thumping your chest and looking like a fool in the process. The primary purpose of the tests was to see how fast the rifle could be fired. Accuracy was secondary. The 15 yard test was performed on Nov 27, 1963, presumably in Washington. The 100 yard test was performed on March 16,1964 at Quantico. Contrary to what you’ve claimed, adjustments were made to the scope prior to that test at Quantico.

  2. I would like to point out that the illustration with this blurb under it, “JFK’s head wound, as described by Parkland Hospital doctor Robert McClelland” – has not been verified as having been seen by even McClelland himself nor any of the other emergency doctors from Parkland. It also conflicts with the statements placing the wound in the “Occipital-Parietal” – not at the level of the occipital protrusion as is illustrated here. And further that it conflicts with the earliest photos of the the hand placement of these doctors.
    The actual wound was a trough from the right temple to the to the right occipital parietal reagion, with massive fracturing of the skull from that trajectory to the upper skull.
    Also see; Sherry Fiester; outline here:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/
    \\][//

  3. Charles says:

    Of course there is no concensus and to assert otherwise is a bald attempt to maintain doubts in the weak minded and promote obscurification of the larger questions.

    For me the magic bullet theory is itself another almost pointless distraction. Anyone who has any experience with firearms or hunting KNOWS that CE 399 could not have hit a box of kleenex and sustained so little damage. I have NO option but to conclude that bullet was planted evidence. The purpose and organization required to do that is obvious.

    • bogman says:

      Here, here.

    • Career Objective says:

      This a tricky thing. The single bullet theory is for the most part correct- you can see Connally’s chest puff out at the same time JFK is hit around 224. Oswald did not make that head shot though.

    • Photon says:

      Perhaps a Kleenex box has special characteristics..However, on Nov. 13, 2013 PBS on national television demonstrated that the Carcano round could be fired into pine boards, penetrate 36 inches and be recovered undamaged. That is a fact.
      Your assertion is not a fact. It is a typical conspiracy myth that has been disproven on multiple occasions, including firing the same type of round into a cadaver’s wrist at the same velocity as the round that struck Connolly’s wrist-leaving the round undamaged.
      Even so-called expert Bob Prudhomme has posted on this site that the stability of the round was sufficient to be used to hunt elephants.I’m sorry Charles, but you betrayed your ignorance of the ballistic properties of the Carcano round by resorting to discredited and obsolete information.

      • Charles says:

        VERY presumptious mr. photon… the firing of a round into a great depth of wood is a flawed demonstation as the density of the wood itself actually helps to maintain the shape and trajectory of the bullet as it expends its energy.

        If you tried firing into a 2×2 foot box of meat and bones the results would be very different. The bullet jacket would begin to separate from its core and bend as it deflects off bone and possibly tumbles. The 6.5 mm round certainly is of a length and construction that aids its integrity but CE 399 is just not realistic.

        Gerry Bull would be very disappointed in your argument and evidence.

        • Charles says:

          And if this round penetrates 3 feet of pine…and i am sure it does…it would have taken much more than a cadaver’s wrist to stop it. How it just popped out on a stretcher is quite a magic trick. Like all magic tricks, the effect is a consequence of fraud of one sort or another.

        • Photon says:

          Charles, I suggest that you view YouTube video “30.06 vs 7.62×39″ posted by Iskw1.
          This video clearly shows that wood boards DO NOT maintain the ” the shape and trajectory of the bullet” but can actually rip off the metal jacket and significantly deform a round.-in this case a standard military round fired from a rifle.
          Your assumption is clearly incorrect.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Agreed.

          • Charles says:

            Now the fun part…photon i dont understand you…on one hand you seem to be claiming that the carcano 6.5mm is so tough that it can penetrate 40 feet of soft pine without deforming or on the other hand that wood will deform the bullet?

            I want you to imagine a 40 foot long sphincter…the sphincter will support the shape of a soft fecal projectile until that projectile has exited free of the sphincter and meets another object. Deformation will commence as the projectile seeks a path of lesser resistance.

            Go to your butcher and buy some meat and bones. Buy two vintage suits and shirts and fill with the meat and bones. Place stuffed suits in old car seats. Using your Carcano, shoot the stuffed suits until you have reproduced the appropriate wounds. Recover bullet and show us.

            What is certain is that CE399 could not have caused the injuries without greater deformation and thus it was planted.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Why not tell the whole story about elephant hunting, Paul?

        Before the invention of “controlled expansion” bullets, such as the Barnes “X” bullet http://www.midwayusa.com/product/110882/barnes-tipped-triple-shock-x-bullets-30-caliber-308-diameter-165-grain-spitzer-boat-tail-box-of-50
        big game hunters in Africa, specifically elephant hunters, found that soft nosed bullets tended to break up long before they reached the elephant’s brain, in a head shot. A 160 grain full metal jacket bullet virtually identical to the 6.5mm Carcano, namely the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoeanauer, was found to be so stable, and resistant to breaking up in a wound, a certain elephant hunter used it to kill over 300 elephants; all with head shots.

        The long FMJ 6.5mm bullet was able to penetrate the thick skull of an elephant, without tumbling or breaking up, and reach the brain beneath. Yet, magically, this same bullet went through the much thinner skull of JFK and completely disintegrated.

        Really??

        • “The long FMJ 6.5mm bullet was able to penetrate the thick skull of an elephant, without tumbling or breaking up, and reach the brain beneath. Yet, magically, this same bullet went through the much thinner skull of JFK and completely disintegrated.
          Really??”~Photon

          No not at all, the headshot suffered by Kennedy was not a long FMJ 6.5mm bullet fired from the rear. It was a supersonic frangible fired from the front. The ballistics are very clear on this point.
          \\][//

      • David Regan says:

        The ballistics tests by Edgewood Arsenal found that all of the bullets that had been fired into cadaver ribs and wrist bones were more deformed than the CE 399 bullet. http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=1
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35

        According to a memorandum from Melvin A. Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff regarding a meeting on April 14th 1964, “the bullet recovered from the Governor’s stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

      • Bill says:

        Photon. It’s would be pretty hard to argue ANY point that would attempt to counter or contradict the point you have made. Factually, the damage to any bullet is ALWAYS a condition of chance and circumstance (bone, tissue, etc). I saw the program too. It can be done just as you said. And, in light of NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to the contrary it seems pretty clear. To ignore the FACTS, that a bullet can do that damage and appear only slightly damaged, would be ignorant. Peace.

  4. Career Objective says:

    None of Oswald’s shots hit Kennedy. His role was to participate in a “fake” assassination attempt. His first shot hit near a man-hole cover. At that point the real sniper behind him in the Dal-Tex building fired as soon as he heard Oswald’s next two shots.
    Look at the accuracy of the head shot- Jackie Kennedy was inches from JFK’s face. The head shot was done by someone with an incredibly accurate weapon, using sabots and a silencer.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Career Objective:]

      “The head shot was done by someone with an incredibly accurate weapon, using sabots and a silencer.”
      ===============

      The fatal shot coming from behind is physically impossible. Notice how the head does not move:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKC_zBA50HA&feature=youtu.be

      The supreme irony is that this was corroborated empirically by the other side, of all people!

      http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/The-Head-of-Tranquility.png

      For more details, join us in the discussion at the Education Forum, led by Jim DiEugenio.

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=126

      • Career Objective says:

        Hi Ramon- the head shot most certainly came from behind.

        There is no angle for a shot from the front that can explain the wounds or deal with the physical obstacles inside the car. Please do not be distracted by everything you’ve heard about the grassy knoll over the years.

        Having a fall guy would not work if someone was shooting from the front. That would exonerate the fall guy. The sniper shot from behind Oswald from the Dal-Tex building.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          “Hi Ramon- the head shot most certainly came from behind.”
          =============================

          Sure! Because a guy hidden under the alias “Career Objective” says so? Without bothering to post at least one URL?

          What caused the violent back snap?

          You are encouraged to post your qualifications. For instance, have you ever set foot in a college level class of Physics?

      • Photon says:

        So your film interpretation is more accurate than an autopsy done by three board-certified pathologists whose conclusions were confirmed by every forensic pathologist who has publically reviewed them- save one ( Cyril Wecht)?
        Are you claiming that a simulated head supported by a METAL ROD will accurately simulate the movements of a human skull atop an innervated spinal column subject to reflexes directed by a damaged brain?
        Your claims fly in the face of every legal jurisdiction in this country, where the physical forensic evidence of autopsies establishes the cause of death, the physical means of death and the direction of missiles that may be the cause of a death.
        The medical examiner who would have done the autopsy in Dallas upon reviewing the Bethesda autopsy photos, radiographs and medical records completely supported the conclusions of the Bethesda team- that JFK was struck by two shots coming from the rear. How many autopsies have you done? How many bullet wounds have you examined? Why can’t conspiracy theorists find even one forensic pathologist who has reviewed the case (except for Wecht) who believes that any shot came from the front?
        The simple answer is that all of the shots came from the rear.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          “Are you claiming that a simulated head supported by a METAL ROD will accurately simulate the movements of a human skull atop an innervated spinal column subject to reflexes directed by a damaged brain?”

          Let the record show that the LNs have abandoned the Jet Effect. Even your mentor, McAdams. Doctor Alvarez has died of shame, again. Their last desperate grasping at straws is the neurological reaction. Which I will proceed to shred to tears.

          Photon: The problem is that you need a time machine, and reverse cause and effect, for your argument to work.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Much has been made of JFK’s motions after Z-313. The most common loyalist explanation is that it was some kind of “neuromuscular” reaction, depending on the telling, either a “decorticate” or “decerebrate” reaction/posture. It’s neither.

            In testimony he gave to the House Select Committee in the late 70s, Mr. Larry Sturdivan said, “… since all (of JFK’s) motor nerves were stimulated at the same time, then every muscle in the body would be activated at the same time. Now, in an arm, for instance, this would have activated the biceps muscle but it would have also activated the triceps muscle, which being more powerful, would have straightened the arm out. With leg muscles, the large muscles in the back of the leg, are more powerful than those in the front and, therefore, the leg would move backward. The muscles in the back of the trunk are much stronger than the abdominals and, therefore, the body would arch backward.” *

            That’s not what happens to the President. The instant before he’s struck at Zapruder frame 312, Kennedy is leaning somewhat forward and to his left. The film then shows Kennedy’s head moving rapidly backward, with his arms and back following limply, not arching backward. Kennedy’s arm is not straightened out, as was the case with the goat and “Fallen Soldier,” examples Mr. Strudivan gave, and as Mr. Sturdivan suggests JFK should have. Nor is there a trace of bodily movement indicating that JFK’s legs reacted with “in a process of violent extension,” as the goat’s did and as “Fallen Soldier’s” is said to have done.

            The President’s reaction is precisely the opposite of the backward splaying of the upper and lower limbs and the backs of the “Fallen Soldier” and the goat that Mr. Sturdivan, who has no training or expertise in medicine, neurophysiology, etc., said marked JFK’s fatal lunge.

            * 361HSCA415: http://www.history matters.com/archive/jfk/ hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0210a.htm

          • Photon says:

            Of course you neglect to mention Fred Hodges, Alfred Oliver, Robert McMeekin,Werner Spitz and Richard Lindenberg-all noted forensic scientists who had precisely the training and expertise in medicine, neurophysiology , etc. that you find lacking in Mr. Sturdivan .They were world recognized authorities in their fields and supported the conclusions of Mr. Sturdivan in relation to the etiology of the movements of JFK’s head following the head shot.
            Are you claiming to have expertise in forensic medicine that trumps those individuals? While I respect your skills in Opthalmology, I certainly wouldn’t consider you an expert in forensic pathology,cardiology,hematology ,endocrinology or any other medical specialty outside of your field. When was the last time that you saw a patient with a gunshot wound, let alone treated one? Aren’t you making assumptions that you have had no training to accurately make? Or is any MD competent to make claims in this case as to what is correct and pathologically certain?

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Photon,

            Once upon a time I was the admitting general surgery resident at UCLA’s Harbor General Hospital I was a general surgery resident directing interns in a Neurosurgery rotation. And I spent a fair amount of time as a medical intern and a surgery resident in ICU’s, etc.

            So I’m quite familiar with the clinical picture of decorticate and decerebrate postures. Pathologists, forensic or anatomic, I dare say, generally don’t have that sort of clinical background. Period. But put a call into one and ask him yourself and get back to us with the name, affiliation and background of your source if you believe I’m wrong.

            But one needn’t have my background, or any medical background, to figure out that JFK’s posture is neither decorticate nor decerebrate. Just look it up! As a favor, I’ll do it for you:
            https://www.google.com/search?q=decorticate+posturing&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIp_rmsPmpyAIVhC2ICh0gFQlj&biw=1366&bih=651&dpr=1#imgrc=4ebFtsZhYzmACM%3A

            Listing the names and credentials of the HSCA’s Forensic Panelists won’t work with me. I wrote a long essay listing the gross factual errors they made – all in a pro-govt. direction of course – that requires no advanced degree to understand really were errors, often whopping errors. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

            Let’s not forget that, until Tink Thompson got hold of the photos of Alvarez’s shooting tests, we all believed, well ‘you’ all believed, in the validity of his “Jet Effect” theory of JFK’s rearward lunge. Little did we know that he shot at lots of objects, all of which flew away from the rifle. But the Nobel Laurate only reported the targets that demonstrated recoil – the disanalogous wrapped melons. That’s the kind of junk science you get with NAA and from a host of other pro-govt/govt paid “authorities.” One must be very cautious.

            Thus, you’ve really got to get away from arguments from authority and look at the evidence squarely yourself.

            When you’ve done that, Photon, please explain to those of us who’ve actually seen decorticate and decerebrate postures how JFK’s motions after Z313 are either.

            Looking forward …

          • Photon says:

            I will agree that JFK does not assume classic decorticate or decerebral posturing-those positions are associated with living individuals with residual but damaged brain function. JFK was essentially brain dead instantaneously and so those terms are technically incorrect.But these individuals were attempting to explain to laymen the fact that neurological stimuli from a massively damaged brain can cause asymmetric muscle stimulation that can account for movement that may seem paradoxical to what might be assumed.
            The actual clinical presentations of decorticate and decerebrate rigidity are not always exactly as presented in the textbooks-an example being RFK on the floor of the Ambassador. But regardless of the actual terminology to claim that neurological reactions as postulated by the individuals named do not occur is simply mistaken. To be brutally honest it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty how a seated human head and body will move following significant cerebral trauma based on neuromuscular actions alone. The asymmetric contraction of back muscles could contribute to posterior movement as postulated by the HSCA panel, but of course that would not be in isolation. The movement of JFK’s head and body would be affected by multiple factors- the “jet effect” of missiles penetrating a relatively hard sphere filled with less dense material ( proved experimentally-even if you don’t like the results); the effect of JFK’s lumbar support brace and its restriction on JFK’s position before and AFTER the shots; even the neurological effects on the muscle tone of the upper body following the cervical cord damage resulting from the back-neck wound.
            The important issue here is not that JFK’s head would have to have moved “back and to the left” following a shot from the rear. The fact is that experimental data, neurophysiological science and forensic pathology all have demonstrated that the ” back and to the left” movement of JFK’s head COULD have happened following a shot coming from behind-and based on the autopsy data apparently DID happen.
            That makes any assumption of where the head shot came from based totally on the perceived motions of JFK in the Zapruder film completely bogus and without any scientific merit.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Photon,

            You seem to have an unfortunate habit of speaking ex cathedra. I mean no insult, but what you deeply believe isn’t as interesting as what you can support with checkable fact and documentation.

            You also seem to work backwards from your unalterable conviction Oswald, alone, did it, a posture that requires you make all evidence and theory conform with that conclusion.
            Here are some examples from your latest riposte:

            By writing, “The actual clinical presentations of decorticate and decerebrate rigidity are not always exactly as presented in the textbooks-an example being RFK on the floor of the Ambassador,” you imply RFK’s reaction was a non-classic example of either a decorticate or a decerebrate posture. It’s neither. What gives you the idea it was? Are you a neurologist, neurosurgeon, trauma surgeon, intensivist, etc.? Has one of the above, an independent, someone who you can name, said so and given his reasons, specifically? For haven’t we long since learned that it’s as least as true of government-paid “experts” as it is of any paid expert: He who pays the fiddler calls the tune? Think Alvarez and “jet effect” or “Vela Incident,” etc.

            But, arguendo, assume a “massive” neurological discharge post Z-313, where all nerves/muscles are stimulated, it’s widely acknowledged that the back muscles are stronger than the abdominals. Which is why the back extends, whether in a “decorticate” or a “decerebrate” reaction. To repeat: that’s NOT what we see in the Z-film: JFK’s head moves backward, his upper body following and NEITHER his arms nor his legs extend OR flex, which would likely be the case for a “massive neurological discharge.”

            A better explanation might be a “momentum” transfer. So how fast did Larry Sturdivan say the test skulls flew away from the rifle during the Army’s tests? (See JFK Myths, p. 164) And how fast did Josiah Thompson calculate JFK’s head was moving post 313? (~1.6 ft/sec). If one were to reasonably assume JFK was paralyzed after the back shot, why not “momentum transfer?” How much momentum would be required, Photon?

            Gary

        • “That makes any assumption of where the head shot came from based totally on the perceived motions of JFK in the Zapruder film completely bogus and without any scientific merit.”~Photon

          Photon. what do you mean by,”perceived motions”?

          Did you mean, “perceived notions”?

          Either way there is nothing “perceived” in studying the motion of Kennedy’s reaction from the shot to his head. The film has that sequence down as it is for the length of time that it will take for our civilization to vanish from the face of the Earth.
          \\][//

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          Photon,
          You also wrote, “The movement of JFK’s head and body would be affected by multiple factors- the “jet effect” of missiles penetrating a relatively hard sphere filled with less dense material (proved experimentally-even if you don’t like the results).” Au contraire, it’s actually been disproved, even if you blithely ignore the disproof testified to by government-supporters.

          Larry Sturdivan explained the dispositive disproof when he reviewed the Army’s shooting tests: “The question is,” Mr. Larry Sturdivan has written, “Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.” (JFK Myths, P. 162.) Why did he say that? Because he was witness to the Army’s “duplication tests” in which filled skulls were shot, as per the official scenario, with MCC rounds.

          The results? “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing,” Sturdivan testified, they all flew AWAY from the rifleman.

          And let’s not forget professor John Nichols, MD, Ph.D.’s shooting tests where he shot at filled skulls suspended on a wire, the proper way to really test for “jet effect” according to Paul Hoch. Like the Army’s skulls, all of his skull also moved in the direction of the bullet – away from the rifleman.

          Before you cite John Lattimer’s shooting tests, please review what Don Thomas has so astutely observed about the flaws in those tests.

          Gary

          • Photon says:

            Dr. Aguilar , why did you neglect to mention the rest of Mr. Sturdivan’s comment on the “jet effect”?-from page 164 of your source:
            “Dr. John Lattimer conducted some skull shots that resembled the Biophysics Division’s simulations, but for which the skulls were filled with animal brain tissue. In his shots all skulls fell back… In the direction of the shooter. Evidently the lack of a jet effect from the stiff gelatin in the Biophysics Lab’s simulation was a bit misleading and there was enough of a jet effect to move Kennedy’s head back after its forward surge.”
            As to the claim about John Nichols head experiments ( skulls and melons) why didn’t you mention that it was reported in a note composed by his wife after he died-and not published in any reputable source? There is virtually no data in her note about the specifics of the tests, the methods or even the veracity of any results. Do you really think that has any scientific veracity? As Nichols’ wife claimed that he used melons, why can’t you accept the Penn and Teller YouTube video demonstration’s results? At least that demonstration has photographically proven results, even as they contradict your conclusions.
            It should be obvious for a physician to be able to deduce what my medical specialty is. John 14:6.

          • “It should be obvious for a physician to be able to deduce what my medical specialty is. John 14:6.”~Most Holy Photon

            “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
            –John 14:6.

            Wow! I am impressed, flabbergasted, awed, and more than slightly dubious!
            \\][//

  5. 1 of 2 comments:
    Charles, as you say, “For me the magic bullet theory is itself another almost pointless distraction.” And indeed it is; on these very pages it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the chain of custody of this so-called “magic bullet is simply nonexistent. See:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/csi-jfk-the-chain-of-custody-for-the-magic-bullet/
    >>Although Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen received the bullet in Parkland Hospital by about 1:30 p.m., an hour after the assassination, Johnsen’s initials are nowhere on the magic bullet, despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.

    Johnsen handed the bullet to the Secret Service Chief James Rowley at Andrews Air Force Base at about 7:30 p.m., who didn’t initial it either. Neither Johnsen nor Rowley could identify the bullet when shown it later.

    The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.

    Todd swore that he initialed the bullet — but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.

    The FBI maintains that the bullet — known as “Q1” — was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.

    However, this does not jibe with Johnsen’s note stating that he gave the “attached expended bullet” to his boss Chief James Rowley at 7:30 p.m.

    Todd has a written receipt from Rowley dated 8:50 p.m., which again doesn’t jibe with the FBI lab’s claim that Todd delivered it to Frazier by 7:30 p.m.!

    How did such a troubling situation come into play? Look at this …

    Within an hour after the assassination, Johnsen was given the bullet by Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright, after orderly Darrell Tomlinson found it by a stretcher. Like Johnsen and Rowley, neither Wright nor Tomlinson could identify the bullet.

    In a 1967 interview by private eye Tink Thompson, Wright was described as a professional law enforcement officer with “an educated eye for bullet shapes.” Wright told Thompson that the bullet looked like a 30-30 round and had a pointed tip, not a blunt tip like the 6.5mm magic bullet.

    It looks like someone originally planted a 30-30 bullet on or near a stretcher before the bullet was found sometime between 1:30 p.m. and 1:45 p.m., in an effort to align the evidence with the Dallas police dispatcher’s report at 12:44 p.m. that the 5 foot, 10 inch, 165-pound shooter used a 30-30 or some type of Winchester. (30-30 ammo has been used in Winchesters since the 19th century.)

    Many years after Thompson’s interview with Wright, a FBI memo was found that said both Wright and Tomlinson thought the bullet in evidence “appeared to be” the same one that they had seen on November 22.

    • Photon says:

      The problem with that scenario is that a .30-.30 round has arounded tip, not a pointed tip like the one described by the officer ” with an educated eye for bullet shapes.”
      As a matter of fact the .30-.30 was about the only commonly available American bullet to have a rounded tip ( except for the .30 caliber M1 carbine round ). As it was an extremely common deer rifle round Wright most likely was familiar with the round and would have easily mistaken the uncommon but similarly round nose Carcano round for a .30-.30 .As such I question the accuracy of the ” pointed round” claim-because why would Wright claim that a bullet well known to have a unique round nose have a pointed one?

      • Steve stirlen says:

        There is yet another problem. Willy is, once again, spot on about the FBI’s criminal conduct in regards to the “magic bullet.” And, once again, you bring up some bogus crap about a shell or bullet. Care to address the FBI’s incompetence? Because as Willy has shown, the FBI’s and the DPD’s performance that weekend and during the “investigation” was dreadful.

      • “The problem with that scenario is that a .30-.30 round has arounded tip, not a pointed tip like the one described by the officer ” with an educated eye for bullet shapes.”~Photon

        An imaginary problem Photon; there are and were many bullets of that general size that were pointed tipped. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a 30-30 bullet. The description of a pointed tip slug is of the essence in this matter.
        The rest of your conjecture is simply not worth addressing.
        \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Let’s try this again.

      Willy,

      ————————————————————–
      Although Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen received the bullet in Parkland Hospital by about 1:30 p.m., an hour after the assassination, Johnsen’s initials are nowhere on the magic bullet, despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.
      ————————————————————–

      Let’s see those regulations.

      —————————————————————
      The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.

      Todd swore that he initialed the bullet — but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.
      —————————————————————

      Todd identified his initials on the bullet in 1964. That alone is enough to satisfy a chain of custody requirement. That his initials cannot be made out on it in photos some 40 or 50 years later does not alter that fact. Joseph Nicol’s initials can’t be seen on it either. In his WC testimony he said that he marked it. So, there are three possibilities as to why neither of their markings can be seen in the photos today: 1) The photos do not show the part of the bullet where they placed their initials. 2) The section(s) of the bullets containing their initials has been removed in obtaining samples for testing. 3) Their initials were not scratched on deep and, as such, have faded from view over time.

      #3 is the most probable. Carl Day gives us a perfect example of it. He marked the sniper’s nest hulls on Nov 22. 1963 and in June of 1964 he had to use magnification under enhanced lighting condition in order to be able to make out his own markings on those shells.

      —————————————————————
      The FBI maintains that the bullet — known as “Q1” — was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.
      —————————————————————

      That is FALSE. There is no official FBI documentation that states that Q1 was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.

      • “..despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.
        Let’s see those regulations.”~Tim Nickerson

        Crime Scene Protocol 1963
        It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
        “Police Markings”
        Second, an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique
        object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals. See
        Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
        http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications

        “. So, there are three possibilities as to why neither of their markings can be seen in the photos today: 1) The photos do not show the part of the bullet where they placed their initials. 2) The section(s) of the bullets containing their initials has been removed in obtaining samples for testing. 3) Their initials were not scratched on deep and, as such, have faded from view over time.”~Nickerson

        There is a 4th possibility, the initials were not there in the first place.

        “That is FALSE. There is no official FBI documentation that states that Q1 was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.”

        There is in fact such documentation, it is from the FBI report to the White House. It may take me some time to locate this…I shall return.
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          ==================================================Crime Scene Protocol 1963
          It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
          “Police Markings”
          Second, an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique
          object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals. See
          Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
          http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
          =================================================

          I’ve gone over that Paul C. Giannelli paper numerous times in the last year. Nothing in it substantiates your claim that Secret Service agents were mandated by regulations to initial forensic evidence.

          ==============================================
          There is a 4th possibility, the initials were not there in the first place.
          ================================================

          The probability for that one is very low. We have official FBI documentation that states that Todd personally identified his own marking on the bullet.

      • “That is FALSE. There is no official FBI documentation that states that Q1 was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.”
        ~Tim Nickerson

        As this is a complex story, read this article here, it has photocopies of shells and documents:

        http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy,

          I’m aware of the Hunt article. I’ll say it again: There is no official FBI documentation that states that Q1 was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.

          The chain of custody for CE 399, while not perfect, is more than adequate.

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          ===================================================
          As this is a complex story, read this article here, it has photocopies of shells and documents:

          http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
          ================================================

          It’s not all that complex. It’s made out to be by some, but that’s because they need it to be. The irregularities that Hunt presents as smoking guns are easily explained to anyone who views the case objectively. Take the 7:30pm that Frazier scribbled on a piece of paper for example. We don’t know when he wrote that but I would guess that it was probably at a point when he was suffering from severe exhaustion from lack of sleep. Perhaps the 25th or the 26th of November.

          • “We don’t know when he wrote that but I would guess that it was probably at a point when he was suffering from severe exhaustion from lack of sleep. Perhaps the 25th or the 26th of November.”
            ~Tim Nickerson

            Ah, so simple unfounded conjecture is all it takes for you to hand-wave the fact that it is indeed part of the record.

            I think pointing this out about your tact of argumentation is enough. Although I have some other remarks best left unsaid in my mind.
            \\][//

  6. 2 of 2 comments
    Thompson and his colleague Gary Aguilar sought out the memo’s author, FBI agent Bardwell Odum, and interviewed him about this contradictory evidence in 2002. Incredibly, Odum said that he never had possession of the magic bullet. Odum added that even though it was highly unlikely that he forgot such a significant event, the established procedure was to write up a report about something that important. No such memo has been found in the National Archives, despite numerous searches. The use of Odum’s identity is another astonishing piece of fabricated evidence.

    The magic bullet would be excluded at any trial, based on the utter failure to create any sort of trustworthy chain of custody.” ~Bill Simpich
    \\][//

  7. Bill says:

    Photon. Correct in all your assertions.

    Steven. You may want to recalculate the distance FROM the TSBD that JFK’s Limo was before dropping out your baseball. You mentioned you had been there 4 times (and I’m sure you were) but you forgot to mention the small service road that actually travels between the Depository and separates it from Elm Street. But, in any case, there is a road with two lanes into the parking area that is located Southwest of the TSBD ( and in case someone is reading this it can be explained as leading the length of the TSBD’s front stairs were people see the phantom Prayer Man Oswald down to the farthest part of the building closer to where Kennedy was hit at frame 313). In any case, There was space between the Depository and ELM STREET (although it is the address).

    It should also be pointed out that there is a very FAMOUS TREE that sits on the corner of the small triangular edge of that Service Road and Elm Street proper that did screen the window’s commanding view from the Limo.

    Regarding the first shot missing. While there are multiple reasons for a shot missing JFK (and the entire Limo for that matter) it is entirely plausible that Oswald, when tracking the Limo from his vantage point as it moved from his left to his right…..did fire a round that was deflected off of a tree branch. It is entirely plausible that the first shot missed because it was fired from a cartridge that had a defect in it and therefore resounded with the crack of a ‘firecracker’ (or less for that matter as the compression escaping from around the projectile could have played a part as well). But who really knows? NOBODY.

    All. The Scope having been knocked out of line. Interesting. How about something less dramatic and less conspiratorial. Oswald simply tossed the rifle down between some boxes of books as he exited the floor and, it tossing it…..the scope was knocked out of line by hitting the boxes on the way down. That simple.

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Bill,

      There could yet ANOTHER reason why LHO missed with the first shot—he may not have fired it. Please see Jesse Curry’s comments about not be able to place him in the window in that building.

      I would be more than happy to send you ACTUAL pictures of my trips to Dealey Plaza. Unlike the WO, I can prove what I am saying.

      The FAMOUS TREE? Gee, wouldn’t the world’s finest detectives and experts have thought to carefully search the tree? I mean, didn’t somebody just recently look a pole from that corner? Hmmmmm.. And, Oswald, was according to the LN, an “excellent marksman.” I am sure he would have accounted for the tree and all the other obstacles from the sixth floor.

      You see, Bill, you have faith in the FBI and the CIA and Earl Warren. I do not.

      • bogman says:

        “The FAMOUS TREE? Gee, wouldn’t the world’s finest detectives and experts have thought to carefully search the tree? I mean, didn’t somebody just recently look a pole from that corner?”

        Excellent point. How hard would it be to find out where the first shot was deflected (if it was deflected)?

        There is so much that still doesn’t add up in this case, 50-plus years on. How can that be?

        Just thinking, too, how the WC or anyone else could explain how, if the Carcano had to be dismantled in many parts with screws and everything to fit in Oswald’s bag, then:

        1) How did Oswald seal up that bag so tightly that none of screws rolls out?

        2) How did it not make a racket when he carried it and when it sat in the back seat on the car ride over?

        3) Why didn’t Oswald have the bag when his supervisor saw him come in?

        4) Where in the hell did Oswald find the time and place to put the Carcano together? If it was the sniper’s nest, he had a scant few minutes to make that happen. Talk about the pressure of putting together a crappy old weapon if you’re a determined assassin with the president minutes away. And a screwdriver was never found at the scene.

        • bogman says:

          To add to my own post:

          Forget about the shooting timing. I want to see someone put together the rifle in a tight space from unwrapping to finished product. Did the FBI or ANY investigation ever try that?

          And I’d like to see it done two different ways — one with a screwdriver that fits in a pocket and another with one thin dime.

          • Photon says:

            Bogman, an FBI agent was able to assemble the rifle in 6 minutes with a dime. That is right in the Warren Report, and has been repeated on multiple occasions by other individuals over the last 50 years.
            Have you read ANYTHING about the specifics of the rifle? That assembly fact has been around since 1964. Another typical error by a conspiracy theorist who is unaware of the facts.

          • David Regan says:

            And when did LHO supposedly take this 6 minutes to assemble the rifle with a dime? After Bonnie Ray Williams leaving the 6th floor at approximately 12:20 and 12:25 when the motorcade was originally due to pass through Dealey Plaza?

            This is a classic example of speculative conjecture in the WCR that falls short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

          • bogman says:

            Photon – can you provide a citation in the WC for the assembly timing test? I can’t find it.

            Neither could this guy, who said the WC actually misrepresented how many parts were part of a disassembled Carcano and neve went into how difficult it would be to assemble in the TSBD:

            http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/pdfArticles/TheMannlicher-Carcano.pdf

          • Photon says:

            Did you read your source? It even references the Warren assembly test.
            What does it mean that some unnamed author with no demonstrated manual skills and who admits that he is no firearms expert can’t put together a Carcano as easily as others who have demonstrated that it could be done?
            Are you claiming that if some guy in the UK can’t assemble a shelf from IKEA nobody else can, therefore those shelves can’t possibly be used?
            Wouldn’t you like to know who wrote this article and what his background was before claiming that he had any credibility?
            Or doesn’t that matter?

          • Charles says:

            If anyone thinks a Carcano or any similar rifle can be disassembled and reassebled and will be reliably and consistantly accurate, without sighting it in again, has been watching too many movies. The WC scenario regarding this does not work in real life.

          • bogman says:

            Agreed, Photon. Not the best source.

          • bogman says:

            It is still strange to me, though, that in all the re-enactments I’ve seen of the assassination, from documentaries to Stone’s “JFK,” I have yet to see the assembly of the Carcano in the TSBD included.

            Putting together a crappy rifle with a dime in a cramped space where anyone could still come up on you and minutes before the President arrives, with likely no chance to practice this procedure for months, for me adds another layer of unbelievability to the LN theory.

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Ignorance? How about telling everyone the CIA, which toppled the governments of Iran and Guatemala, could not produce a picture of Oswald in MC because it made a mistake. Care to guess who ran the overthrow operations? Allen Dulles, the man who sat on your beloved WO…

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Since you have been in the TSBD like I have, you would know the sharp turn that the limo would have had to make, thus slowing the limo down to make the shot a little easier, correct?

      • Bill says:

        Yes Steven. It is pretty obvious that the Limo certainly had to slow down to make the left turn onto Elm. But you have (possibly) missed my point so I’ll restate it.

        If LHO/SHOOTER was in the 6th floor window and willing to just shoot JFK and be done with it…he most likely would have just shot JFK as the Limo approached. (See Elsie Dorman Film) But he did NOT. He clearly set up those boxes to have a shot AFTER THE LIMO had gone by his position.

        Why? Well…for one reason to avoid drawing the attention of the SS Agents. So he set up the nest, including the boxes with his palm prints and there you have it. Taken in conduction with the motion on the Robert Hughes film. This is what the evidence presents.

        • “Why? Well…for one reason to avoid drawing the attention of the SS Agents. So he set up the nest, including the boxes with his palm prints and there you have it.”~Bill

          Pure empty supposition, nothing more.
          \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          Bill, had Oswald moved the cartons to construct the sniper’s nest and then spent time there waiting for the motorcade it would seem likely that more than three of his prints would be found, especially given the fact that 18 of Officer R. L. Studebaker’s and 6 of FBI clerk Forest Lucy’s prints were found. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

          An FBI report from September 1964 stated that one fingerprint and one palmprint from carton “A” had been identified as Lee Harvey Oswald’s. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0419a.htm

          Oswald’s duties as an order filler at the TSBD regularly required him to handle the cartons containing the books. Because the boxes were constructed of an absorbant cardboard, FBI fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, could only testify with certainty that the print recovered at the scene by the Dallas Police using powder was less than 3 days old. The other prints were found by the FBI days later using chemical analysis which indicates that they were probably older. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=165

          On top of all this, according to Captain George Doughty and Lieutenant Carl Day, none of the boxes from the sixth floor were bought into police custody until November 25th because they were dusted for prints in the Depository and only one palmprint was found.

          Needless to say, the WC hardly had conclusive proof that Oswald handled those cartons on 11/22/63 to build a snipers nest.

  8. leslie sharp says:

    Where can one find an analysis of the physical position a shooter would have been forced to assume in order to fire shots with accuracy from that window? Isn’t there a question of the depth of the exterior brick facade combined with the depth of the window frame, and the distance from the floor to the bottom of the open window that would force the shooter into an extremely awkward, squatting position in order to aim at let alone hit a moving target? And from that position, could the rifle have been spotted let alone identified from the ground level? Has anyone measured the alleged rifle in relation to the brick facade and the window frame to determine whether or not it is a viable piece of evidence?

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Hi Leslie:

      For a partial answer to your post, take a look at these videos.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FERNTAh5s0I
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAOxCkvY12s
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mwZ8CGeM6U
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnB_hem8Am4
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktJMBxO-q5g (10 parts)

      [The 2nd. video clip has Fidelistas and everything 🙂

      Check out the comments by Piotr Mancini.

      IF there is interest, I will provide an expanded answer to your excellent question.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Ramon, thanks. It will take some time to digest the links you provided. I hope this particular analysis will find its appropriate place here on jfkfacts. As a layperson, I can’t fathom someone – even a trained shooter and there is some question as to the proficiency of Lee Harvey Oswald – adapting that stance long enough to accurately fire the alleged shots.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Ramon, when you have time and inclination, would you expand on this?

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Leslie:]

          “Ramon, when you have time and inclination, would you expand on this?”

          ======================================
          There you go, Leslie:

          http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1875-3d-animation-of-dealey-plaza/

          There is a group from JFKFActs and other forums working on an Open 3D Model of Dealey Plaza. By “Open” I mean that it will be owned by The People. As opposed to the Dale Myers of the world, every single file is being placed on the Internet.

          We are in conversations with the producers of the film “A Coup in Camelot” and it looks like they are on board, willing to share their 3D models, floor plans, etc.

    • Bill says:

      Leslie. On the post that I was sending from yesterday I included a movie made by by the Secret Service to show the shooting position of the sniper. Oswald/Shooter simply had to drop his behind down onto a box and sit there after the limo passed.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Thanks Bill, I must have missed your link. Will check it out. So, Oswald was sitting on a box – not the ground – and propping the rifle on a box as well? My question is what was the width (or depth depending on perspective) of the box, how deep or wide was the window frame and how deep or wide was the brick facade. Maybe one shot would not be impeded by both the window frame and the brick facade, maybe a second shot would not be impeded by the brick facade, but it seems to me a third or fourth shot would finally be obstructed by that facade if you follow my reasoning?

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    As far as shots that hit JFK: Shot 1, from the front in the throat (Zapruder, elbows up, clutching throat, Dallas Doctors – entrance wound). Shot 2 Back, driven slightly forward as evidenced on the Z film, suit coat and shirt, T-13. Shot 3, possibly 4? At least one from the front. Dallas Doctors again, multiple witnesses on the ground, Kennedy’s aides in the follow up car. Back and to the left.

  10. If I may be so bold as to remark; there are several commentators here (who will remain unnamed) that seem dreadfully ignorant of the proper mode of critical analysis in physical forensics, as well as the rules of classical argumentum. This applies to assertions and questions as a dialectic; as a question is often a subtle and leading assertion in disguise.
    For example the question; “why would they do this when this is so much simpler?” carries the implication that 1. There is something overwhelmingly complex in the proposition, and 2. Is in fact simply conjecture.
    It is possible that these errors of logic and argumentation are due to a sincere lack of knowledge. It is possible that a commentator is fully aware of all of this, and is using these techniques to obfuscate and deflect as a form of cognitive infiltration.
    If anyone here hasn’t heard of Cass Sunstein, should look up his paper;

    “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”~Cass Sunstein
    -2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule
    http://www.pdcnet.org/ijap/content/ijap_2010_0024_0002_0153_0168
    \\][//

  11. Eddy says:

    “In reviewing the conflicting expert opinions, a deciding factor may be the Zapruder film which shows that the fatal bullet drove the President’s head backwards, which in any other case would seem to be prima facie evidence that the bullet originated from the front (the direction of the grassy knoll).” This is misleading. It suggests views are balanced and the Zapruder film may be conclusion. Views are VERY biased towards a large rear headwound, ENTIRELY in conflict with the extant Zapruder film. I would suggest that evidence leaves only two conclusions; either the Parkland staff conspired together to formulate a pretty consistent lie about the headwound, or the Zapruder somehow misrepresents the fatal headshot. I consider it despicable that evidence and opinion contrary to this conclucion is protrayed somehow equal in weight.

    Miss BOWRON – He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
    Mr. SPECTER – You saw the condition of his what?
    Miss BOWRON – The back of his head.
    Mr. SPECTER – And what was that condition?
    Miss BOWRON – Well, it was very bad—you know.
    Mr. SPECTER – How many holes did you see?
    Miss BOWRON – I just saw one large hole.

    • “Views are VERY biased towards a large rear headwound, ENTIRELY in conflict with the extant Zapruder film. I would suggest that evidence leaves only two conclusions; either the Parkland staff conspired together to formulate a pretty consistent lie about the headwound, or the Zapruder somehow misrepresents the fatal headshot. I consider it despicable that evidence and opinion contrary to this conclucion is protrayed somehow equal in weight.”~Eddy

      You are making the same mistake that has been made for years; and that is using the generic and practically useless term, “large rear headwound”. It is useless because it does not portray what the Parkland doctors said: “Occipital-Parietal”, nor what they illustrated by placing their hands on the backs of their heads in the earliest photo’s of them doing so. They did not place their hands as low as the Occipital-Protuberance, which would entail turning their head sideways and reaching under their ear. No, they rather look downward and place their hand higher to the Occipital-Parietal – just as their words say.
      It may be difficult to accept, but what the Parkland doctors said and showed by posing for photos agrees with the X-Rays and autopsy photos that ‘researchers’ have been insisting have been faked for so many years. As Sherry Fiester says, these are myths, and do not agree to modern ballistics analysis.
      The same problem is applied to the Z-film. It’s detractors are under the false impression given by that so-called “McClelland Drawing”, which is a rather cartoonish depiction based on the artist doing the drawing by verbal description, not any photo evidence.
      The disparaging of the Zapruder film is all based on misconceptions, and often by disinformation. See:
      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
      \\][//

      • Eddy says:

        And you Mr Whitten are using the 40 year old plus diversionary tactic to ‘creep’ the head-wound slowly round to where the Zapruder film shows it. ‘Back’ cannot become ‘top’ however much you try.

        Are you really trying to say that all those early photos showing the witnesses indicating a rear headwound, were actually indicating where the Zapruder film indicates a wound?

        • “Are you really trying to say that all those early photos showing the witnesses indicating a rear headwound, were actually indicating where the Zapruder film indicates a wound?”~Eddy

          Yes indeed, the Occipital-Parietal area, where the doctors hands are place, as well as the term they used to describe the wound. It IS the rear portion of the head! It is just not at the lower level of the Occipital Protrusion. The upper wound is fragmented skull obstructed by brain matter in the hair and scalp.
          This wound is the result of a supersonic projectile, that carries a blast wave directly behind it in a cone. This causes an internal implosion, resulting is the reacting explosion within a sealed container – the skull. The skull was fragmented like an egg shell. The observable damage was that trough from the right temple to the right occipital-parietal. As is also observe the temple wound was attached to a flap of scalp, bone fragment and hair, that fell back over the wound when the corpse was laying on its back,and had to be lifted to see in that position. It would fall open when the corpse was laying face down.
          See: autopsy X-rays, and photos.
          \\][//

        • Now let us get something perfectly clear Eddy; I want to know if you have even attempted to read my exposition on the Zapruder film on my blog. If you have not, then I suggest you do so. Therein you will be introduce to Roland J. Zavada, the premier expert on not only Kodak film stocks, but movie making machinery as well. As you may or may not know the Zapruder film was recorded on
          Kodachrome II reversal film. This film was balanced for about 5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about 1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. The film was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
          Do you understand the significance of this explanation?
          As it is likely you do not let me spell it out for you. You cannot – it is impossible to recreate a Kodachrome II “original” using artificial light. So any so-called use of optical printers, rear projection or any other technique of technical necessity involves the use of artificial light.
          Try to grasp these elementary concepts. Review the entire presentation. Again:
          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
          \\][//

    • Let me ask you this Eddy, How many years now have we been waiting for Douglas Horne to finally disclose the names of his “dozens of Hollywood film experts”? He kept claiming that there were this large number of experts who had seen his Z-frame purporting to show a a black matte, that he claims proves someone tampered with the extant film.
      I know it has been at least 6 years now since these claims were made.
      How long are you going to take Horne’s assertions on faith?

      In my experience dealing with the group most responsible for bringing Horne to the attention of the JFK research community, I have found them to be a nest of moles and charlatans, mainly under the guidance of “professor” James Fetzer. Are you familiar with Fetzer and his gang of cohorts? If not, let me introduce you, keeping in mind that this page is fraught with expletives and aggravating false argumentation which is originated by Fetzer’s own abrasive manner, and I have responded in kind. See:
      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
      \\][//

  12. Neil says:

    So the bullet that went through two people and created 7 wounds and shattered bones stayed mostly intact while the bullet that entered and exited JFK’s skull broke into pieces.

    Could someone explain why the bullets behaved so differently if they both originated from the same rifle?

    • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

      You can add that the bullet that caused Tague´s minor wound. The FBI did some metal testing of the curbstone and found something very odd. There were no copper traces in the concrete sample, although the bullets allegedly fired by LHO with “his rifle” were literally coated in copper metal. It proves in itself at least that even if LHO would have fired, he couldn´t have acted alone.

      • Tom S. says:

        Mr. Fernandez, I have read some of your work and I am impressed with your knowledge, skills, and keen interest. However, how do you compare your treatment of Tague’s claims and his “curb evidence” with the quality of the evidence that supported the conclusions in the WCR you disagree with?

        Did Tague’s own statement and testimony as to the direction he stated he was looking towards conflict with
        the side of his face he stated he was struck on?
        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20102&p=271332
        Are there other reasonable possibilities for the mark in the curb; a tire weight or a truck tire steel valve stem, for example?
        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20900&p=283129

        I do not intend to single you out, but I thought your assumptions and conclusions related to Tague’s claims and his curb evidence support my observation that there is a double standard that is avoidable with a more disciplined approach. I have to limit myself to what I know to be fact precisely because the Warren Commission did not. The WC did not question everything and assume nothing. They relied on cherry picking.

        • Bogman says:

          ‘Someone’ had patched the curb during the Warren Commission proceedings. Hoover did not want to admit there was an errant shot and only cut and the curbstone when ordered to by the WC.

          I’ve always thought it was Hoover’s guys who patched it. Can’t imagine it was Dallas road repair – there are curb stones with chunks missing everywhere that are never patched in the real world.

    • Knud Jeppesen says:

      Hi Neil

      Thats a very good question- and it deserves a good answer. Here is the best I can give.

      A full-metal jacketed bullet (FMJ) is designet to go straight through a human body without deforming or fragmenting.

      This does not mean, however, that they will NEVER be deformed or fragment. After all, they’re not made of kryptonite…

      If the force is strong enough, even a FMJ bullet will deform og break up.
      3 factors are essential:
      1) the angle between the bullet and the target.
      2) the density of the target, compared to the density of the bullet.
      And finally a very important factor, often overlooked:

      The speed of the bullet.

      If the speed is fast enough, a strong FMJ bullet will be destroyed when hitting cotton, water – theoretically even air!

      The bullet that hit JFKs head, came with close to full speed. It hit some of the thickest bone in the body. And at an relatively high angle. It was enough to blast it.

      The “magic bullet” however, although with nearly the same speed, it hit only soft tissue in the neck. It went out his throat and began to “tumble”. And very important: it had now lost speed. It was still fast enough to go through Connallys body. When it hit his wrist, it was flying backwards and had lost even more speed. When it hit his leg, it was flying relatively slow, and could therefore not go deep into his leg. It only penetrated the skin and fell off when nurses and doctors removed his pants.

      So the answer is: because the two bullets struck different targets under different circumstances.

      • Knud Jeppesen,

        Your hypothesis is actually not in anyway original. It is a pretty good analysis based on pure conjecture, but it doesn’t take into account all of the integers that would affect a complete ballistic analysis.
        Wouldn’t you agree?
        \\][//

        • Knud Jeppesen says:

          In fact, Mr. Whitten, it wasn’t really a “hypothesis” and I was not attempting to be “original”, just explaining the facts. And neither was I attempting to make a “complete ballistic analysis” just wanted to give the gentleman an overall idea of the difference between the two bullets. I fail to understand what you mean by “pure conjecture”?

          • I fail to understand what you mean by “pure conjecture”?~Knud Jeppesen

            ‘conjecture’
            noun
            1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

            2.an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
            \\][//

      • Charles says:

        jeppesen, the magic bullet was NOT tumbling when it hit Connelly. His surgeon Dr. Robert Shaw measured the back entrance wound at 1.5 centimeters. The bullet had enough energy to break a rib and his wrist and yet was only minimally deformed, (despite leaving fragments in Connelly) as it fell out of leg, BLOODLESSLY no less, on to the stretcher…it was planted.

        • Knud Jeppesen says:

          Dear Charles

          “Not tumbling”…? Then perhaps you would be so kind to explain how come there were small flakes of lead in the governors wrist, if the bullet did not go backwards into his wrist??? the 1,5 cm measurement is proof that it did not hit him at 90 degree angle!

          in fact it is not unusual that a FMJ bullet has no trace of blood on it after going through a body, is it? I can recommend books by british forensic expert Brian J. Heard. Have you ever studied bullets that have gone through a body, Charles?

          The idea that CE399 was planted is in fact one of the most silly suggestions that has been made in this story. Why would the conspirators plant a nearly undamaged bullet, something yhat would certainly arouse suspicion? Why plant it at parkland, were they could get caught and the bullet might never have been found? How did they manage to get a bullet fired from Oswalds rifle? Why was it even neccesary to plant a bullet in the first place? What if the bullet had stayed in Connallys leg? Then we would have had one bullet too many!

          • “[1]The idea that CE399 was planted is in fact one of the most silly suggestions that has been made in this story*. [2]Why would the conspirators plant a nearly undamaged bullet, something yhat would certainly arouse suspicion? [3]Why plant it at parkland, were they could get caught and the bullet might never have been found? [4]How did they manage to get a bullet fired from Oswalds rifle? Why was it even neccesary to plant a bullet in the first place? [5]What if the bullet had stayed in Connallys leg? Then we would have had one bullet too many!”~Jeppesen

            1. It is in fact proven beyond reasonable doubt that CE 399 is a plant.

            2. Again, pure conjecture and supposition. Although you do admit it causes suspicion.

            3. Because it was never in Connally’s leg, but Connally was at the hospital where it might appear likely that it came from Connally.

            4. Because the authorities had control of the weapon, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

            5.And addendum to #3; the bullet was never in Connally’s leg to begin with.

            * See my comments on this page at:
            October 29, 2015 at 8:22 pm & October 29, 2015 at 8:23 pm
            \\][//

  13. Career Objective says:

    Anyone that suggests shots from anywhere but the rear needs to show trajectories that actually work. There aren’t any, FWIW.

  14. Gary Aguilar says:

    Much has been made of JFK’s motions after Z-313. The most common loyalist explanation is that it was some kind of “neuromuscular” reaction, depending on the telling, either a “decorticate” or “decerebrate” reaction/posture. It’s neither.

    In testimony he gave to the House Select Committee in the late 70s, Mr. Larry Sturdivan said, “… since all (of JFK’s) motor nerves were stimulated at the same time, then every muscle in the body would be activated at the same time. Now, in an arm, for instance, this would have activated the biceps muscle but it would have also activated the triceps muscle, which being more powerful, would have straightened the arm out. With leg muscles, the large muscles in the back of the leg, are more powerful than those in the front and, therefore, the leg would move backward. The muscles in the back of the trunk are much stronger than the abdominals and, therefore, the body would arch backward.” *

    That’s not what happens to the President. The instant before he’s struck at Zapruder frame 312, Kennedy is leaning somewhat forward and to his left. The film then shows Kennedy’s head moving rapidly backward, with his arms and back following limply, not arching backward. Kennedy’s arm is not straightened out, as was the case with the goat and “Fallen Soldier,” examples Mr. Strudivan gave, and as Mr. Sturdivan suggests JFK should have. Nor is there a trace of bodily movement indicating that JFK’s legs reacted with “in a process of violent extension,” as the goat’s did and as “Fallen Soldier’s” is said to have done.

    The President’s reaction is precisely the opposite of the backward splaying of the upper and lower limbs and the backs of the “Fallen Soldier” and the goat that Mr. Sturdivan, who has no training or expertise in medicine, neurophysiology, etc., said marked JFK’s fatal lunge.

    * 361HSCA415: http://www.history matters.com/archive/jfk/ hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0210a.htm

    • Photon says:

      YouTube ” Penn and Teller debunk the Second Gunman Theory”.
      I will never understand how conspiracy theorists can simply ignore their lyin’ eyes.

      • leslie sharp says:

        photon, would you speak to the material environment of the alleged sniper’s nest? Could a shooter with Oswald’s military record adapt and hold the pose necessary to complete the number of shots you argue were feasible – taking into account the depth of the brick facade, the depth of the window frame, the distance from the floor to the bottom of the window and the angle of the shots. Please walk us thru this scenario.

        • Photon says:

          He was shooting from a sitting position ( which coincidently was the position he assumed when he scored his highest shooting scores in the USMC).
          He rested his weapon on a box of books-the crease of which was apparent when the sniper’s perch was discovered. He could have remained in that position for several minutes without strain or need to reposition the rifle.
          Why do you feel the need to claim an extremely comfortable firing position giving him excellent views of Elm Sreet toward the triple underpass would not allow him to make the shot?

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon, “take the shot’ singular? I assume you mean multiple shots. You have avoided the pertinent question related to the brick facade and the window frame, and you have added the box to the equation. How long was the rifle barrel and would a shooter in that position have to adjust the rifle to achieve the number of shots at a moving target? Did his USMC rating include moving targets from a sitting position? And given your scenario how could the rifle have been visible to anyone on the street?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            You still have not answered as to how he missed the first, and by far, the easiest of the three shots. He was, according to the LN side, an excellent and marksman and very skilled. He was filled with rage and he was ready to cross the Rubicon. He was set for his date with destiny and he had the look of a cold blooded killer. He was a lone nut, hell-bent on murder. He was a sociopath who wanted to change the course of history. He spent years and years practicing his shooting skills, because the anger he felt was building inside of him. He walked through Dallas or rode the bus with a gun to shoot Walker to prove he was a man of action. He was ready for his big moment.

            And, somehow, he whiffs EVERYTHING on the first shot. Hmmmm… . Oh, I know, the rage inside of him caused his vision to change ever so slightly as to pull his aim…

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Where is your documentation on him resting his weapon or elbow on a box of books? Causing a crease in it? Was there a finger print or “elbow print” ? Never heard of this (BS) before.

      • Lol…”Penn and Teller”?! Photon is certainly good for a chuckle from time to time.
        \\][//

        • This ‘Penn & Teller’ video offered by Photon, that is proposed to “prove” the “Jet Effect” has long sense been relegated to the dust bin of history. In a medical or physics context, the assertion is simply hogwash.

          “The path of “missile dust” on the right lateral X-ray shows that a soft lead or frangible round struck near the right temple and exited through the right posterior parietal region, near the midline. We know this bullet was travelling front-to-back because the smaller dust-like particles are found near the temple and the larger ones are located in the upper right rear. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry.”

          A DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence ~ by John Hunt

          http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

          \\][//

    • Eddy says:

      Dr Aguilar, I would be extremely grateful if you could provide your comments on the Zapruder film’s authenticity from your perspective. You describe what the film shows in comparison to the theories expounded about Kennedy’s reaction to ‘events’. Can you reconcile what you see in the film with the medical evidence and the medical witness testimony?

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        Hi Eddy,
        That credible, authoritative Parkland physician-witnesses described a skull wound that extended to the very rear of JFK’s head is undeniable. Warren loyalists insist such descriptions were ambiguous and made long after the fact when memories were fuzzy. To counter, let’s just consider the descriptions written on the day of the assassination:

        Warren Report: *P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

        p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

        p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.
        p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

        p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

        P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

        The Z-film is far from perfect, but it’s not clear from it that JFk’s skull wound extends as far posteriorly as these witnesses said.

        Let’s recall that the skull wound was NOT 13-cm as per the official autopsy report. It was 17-cm, the measurement made on the night of the autopsy as noted in Boswell’s Face Sheet diagram of the skull (“17 missing”), a number/size Boswell confirmed under oath.

        So take a ruler to a human skull, any human skull, as I’ve done when teaching resident surgeons at UC San Francisco Medical School. Put the ruler at the very front of the skull, at the edge of what would be the hairline. And measure 17-cm backward. A continuous, 17-cm defect invariably gives you a trough from the occipital bone into a portion of the frontal bone. Period.

        As JFK lay supine on the gurney at Parkland, the scalp/skull would probably have fallen back by gravity, revealing the full extent of the head injuries to the curious physicians who described it, physicians who, the record reflects, actually lifted JFK’s head to examine the wound..
        Why it’s not as evident on the Z-film as it was to the pathologists and Parkland trauma surgeons is a muddle.
        Best,

        • Photon says:

          Exactly which Parkland physician lifted the head? The only one who has claimed to was Dr. Grossman, who has credibility issues and according to the genuine attending physicians present had little if any role in the resuscitative effort.
          Even Dr. McClelland, the favorite Parkland doctor of conspiracy theorists has admitted he never moved the head.
          I submit that despite the claims nobody aside from Clark and Jenkins had anything more than a superficial view of the head wound. If they had, none of them would have contemplated initiating open heart massage, a procedure only aborted when Jenkins brought up the nature of the head wound to the others

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Dear doctor Aguilar:

      For a while now, a group of people have been working to solve the back snap event in a definite way, assisted by the most advanced science and technology. You will be getting an invitation to participate, if you have not yet.

      See below an approach that can put the issue to rest, forever. That is an e-mail that I sent to an specialized research group in France.

      The problem is equivalent to seeing a train, as it starts to move in the distance: Did the front locomotive PULL the train or did the rear one PUSH it? While I hesitate to call the solution trivial, with modern tools this is highly solvable.

      The event can be measured at the millisecond and millimeter level.

      ============================

      To: GD Tech

      Bonjour.

      There are 2 competing theories that attempt to explain the violent back snap seen in several films.

      Consider two anthropomorphic figures, both in virtual [software] and actual [crash dummy] forms. One of them is subjected to a shot in the cranium and the other to muscular spams.

      In a sense, in one of the cases, the muscle drives the skeleton, while in the other the “muscle” would be the projectile. The cause/effects would be opposite.

      In theory and practice, the two should have substantial, measurable differences, noticeable enough to compare pixel by pixel, or microscopically, with the movement seen in the films.

      Best regards,

      -Ramon F Herrera
      Houston, Texas

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Here is a good question for everyone that will test their degree of shooting and hunting experience.

    When taking a head shot, and depending on the type of bullet used, is the exit wound from the head ALWAYS perfectly lined up with the path of the bullet, in other words, precisely 180° around the head from the point of entry? If there is a large exit wound, is it mandatory for the bullet to actually exit that wound?

  16. Bill says:

    Steven..Not really. I’m very sorry to ruffle your feathers! Sorry!!

    However, even stating that, you are simply making assumptions based on every last thing being staged. You just can’t have it that way Steven. Actually, I guess you can as this is America but it just won’t hunt. I’ll explain:

    Let’s go to the events before the shooting that place ‘someone’ (feel better?) in the window. The Robert Hughes Film clearly shows a shape moving/shrinking downward as the Limo passes just below (but not right under right..?? lol) the 6th Floor window. Not only does Hughes Film show this but it should also be noted that the film taken by Charles Bronson, taken from across the Plaza minutes before the shooting, shows the construction of the boxes/barrel rest. Please check out the 1:06 second mark of the Bronson Film here (and the blow up which follows it. I would not the very obvious ‘sharp’ corner of the box at one (and maybe not you of course) can see the reflection of the sun off the box as it is manipulated into position. Here is a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J52ANg2TfL4

    • “However, even stating that, you are simply making assumptions based on every last thing being staged. You just can’t have it that way Steven.”
      ~Bill

      Wait a minute Bill. Making such assumptions are not simple based on a single proposition as you contend here. There are many aspects that make it entirely reasonable to conclude that the entire scene was staged. One primary point of evidence is the fact that the so-called “magic bullet; C399 was a plant. If this isn’t indicative of “staging” then what pray tell, is?
      \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Please feel free to read Willy’s excellent and TRUE account of CE 399 and the way in which the FBI and the DPD did their “investigating” if you would like to have your eyes opened just a little.

  17. Bill says:

    Steven:
    Aside from a Hughes Film, and a still photograph that was overexposed and ‘washed out’ it is the only photographic record of the shooting site before it occurred.

    It is interesting to note that BOTH the Robert Hughes Film AND the Charles Bronson Film tell a story here. The first is that there was activity in that window in the minutes before the assassination and more importantly, DURING the assassination. After all a rifle was seen being withdrawn by multiple witnesses from the street and the actual motorcade photography pool itself. In fact, the credence for a first shot from this window was actually mentioned by the reporter (Jackson??) who announced: “There is the rifle” during the shooting.

    Important as well is the often overlooked are the remarks on this Newscast, from Dallas, by an eyewitness who actually saw the shooting and ran into the TSBD. Here is his recounting of the shooting (very vivid) and please listen carefully to what he says about the shooting. The link to this also includes the film by Robert Hughes. Here is a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88B2Kpm_QE The reporter here completely debunks the nonsense of the car stopping as well. Keep in mind that this comes from a reporter who was LOCKED INSIDE THE TSBD after running into it because he felt the shots came from it.

    • David Regan says:

      Sure Bill, but how many of these “multiple witnesses” could identify Oswald as a man they saw holding a rifle in the 6th floor window? Before dismissing accounts of the cap stopping as ‘nonsense’, you may want to consider:

      According to a report of an FBI interview with Mary Ann Moorman “She recalls that the President’s automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=868

      Dallas motorcycle policeman, Bobby Hargis who was on the left rear fender of the Presidential limousine told the Daily News Report “Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun.”

      Witness Billy Lovelady told the FBI in March of 1964 that “I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy’s car had stopped.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=640

      Roy Truly testified to the Warren Commission that “I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=229

      Dallas police officer Marrion Baker told the Warren Commission that several officers had said the limousine had “stopped completely” and when asked if this is only what he had heard from others he said “Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=274

      Senator Ralph Yarborough who was in the Vice Presidential car, two cars behind the Presidential limousine signed an affidavit saying that “the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me to be a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop).” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=449

      Mrs. Earle Cabell testified to the Warren Commission that “I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that” and later adding that “we were dead still for a matter of some seconds http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=496

      In a live ABC report soon after the assassination, newsman Bob Clark stated that during the assassination, the President’s limousine “came to an immediate stop.” http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.ca/2012/03/abc-tv.html

      There are many more witnesses to corroborate this and I will be happy to post for your reference.

      • Bill says:

        David. I’ll be happy to address each of the things you asked in order. Ok?

        1. Regarding Oswald holding a rifle in the window. Of course there is nobody who can, with 100% accuracy, say that. The position of the window (in that it was 6 floors above the crowds) take care of that. Right? It would come down to evidence as it does in almost every murder case. That evidence would be palm prints on boxes, the gun, the fact that the gun was signed for by him and sent to a PO Box that he was at the signatory on etc. It’s just evidence.

        2. Car Stopping. Look. To say the car stopped is just nonsense. What did occur is that the entire motorcade began to fall to pieces as soon as Agents Hill and Ready jumped off the follow up car. On the Nix Film you can see that the cars began to bunch up (slow down) but they never stopped. In fact, you quote Mary Moorman as you did makes me wonder why even bother? She said she had the IMPRESSION of the limo stopping (that does not say that it did) She said it hesitated. That also does not mean stopped.

        3. Bobby Hargis actions are visible on the Nix Film as well. He contradicts himself quite clearly. He pulls over and the Limo was still moving. The one that stopped was Hargis..NOT THE LIMO. I am not sure why you say that Hargis said the Limo stopped. He told the Warren Commission it ‘ SLOWED DOWN’. Now….I also want to thank you for asking me some questions about this subject. I found this on Hargis going back to the shooting. LISTEN TO THE LAST FEW SECONDS and it will help you I HOPE.

        It’s all about ECHOES. From a Cop. Incredibly valuable and it made me smile because it puts the issues about shots and directions to rest.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDKQWf_W1no

        Billy Lovelady was so far from the spot that the Limo was when Kennedy was hot, in fact BELOW the level he could have even have seen it that, let alone that it was moving away from him, to even place a shred of value on what he thinks he saw. Elm Street, Dealey Plaza, is not a slope. If he thinks the limo came to a stop he, like a dozen other people, confuse the log-jamming of cars after the movements of Hill and Ready as being a stop.

        Truly. Same for him.

        Baker? Why would I be interested in reading what Baker admits was something he ‘heard’ other officers tell him??

        Yarborough and Cabel: “Seem to come to a stop”???? Hello?

        Anyway. Thanks for wasting my time.

        • David Regan says:

          Billy, obviously the point was lost on you that many witnesses, including Bobby Hargis, the patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down markedly for at least a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine’s brake lights on for nine frames during the time period approximately corresponding to frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film.

          How about posting documented evidence on how your ‘one reporter’ debunks all this?

  18. Bill says:

    Now Steven. Look, respectfully, so please try to respond accordingly. It should not be so hard to place oneself into the shoes of Oswald/Shooter up in that window. First, if you had been up into the TSBD (and I do believe you were btw) you know that the optimal place to hide before JFK’s car took the left turn to go down Elm Street, would have been to the left of the actual window…let the car pass below (and people’s attention as well) and then begin to sight JFK. And, in doing so it should not be very difficult to imagine Oswald pulling the gun up to his eye and beginning to find JFK in the scope…track him down the road for a few seconds…and squeeze the trigger.

    Well, why not just allow the tree branches to simply appear as you pan down and to the right??? Are you saying that Oswald/Shooter, had a completely clear shot? I’m sure Oswald had a clear shot at the precise moment of the first shot….but between that instant and it pulling that trigger it is just as likely that he (Oswald/Shooter) was obscured by some foliage/branches. Steven, you can not be SURE that Oswald/Shooter accounted for that tree. And as an example of the ‘surprise’ appearance of the tree into the shooting range please carefully check out the view through the scope and the suddenness of the emergence of traffic signal pole..as well as the tree branches. Here is a link to the film the SS produced to help narrate the evidence and sequences involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeLpnnwEQUY

  19. Bill says:

    Steven. I’m fully aware of Jesse Curry’s issue with placing Oswald into the window. But isn’t this true in 99.9% of all homicides when the guilty party says I was not there??? The EVIDENCE puts them there. Fiber evidence, Palm Prints on Boxes, Signature on Post Office Boxes, Signature on Purchase Orders, etc.

    I’m not totally sure of why/what you want to prove about your photos of the Dallas Scenes. I am actually happy enough that you went to see for yourself. I too have done that and had a relatively unique discovery happen on my trip. In finding the Rental Property that Oswald and his wife were living in for the backyard photos a buddy and myself climbed over the fence where the alley-passage divides the yards for photo opportunities. In taking a photo we were able to duplicate, by pure accident, the ‘balancing’ issue that so much was made about regarding how someone could stand as Oswald stood without falling over.

    It turns out that Marina was unsure of the camera shutter/trigger back then. So, as Ozzie got upset with her he began to step forward to show her when she took the photo. We had the same thing happen 50 years later. The resulting image was a person appearing to be inserted into a scene vs. the reality of a man just beginning to move toward the camera. Cool Stuff.

    Lastly, the ‘experts’ that you mention looked over the extension on the Signal Light Support. Not the Pole (just saying).

  20. Bill says:

    I’m fully aware of Jesse Curry’s issue with placing Oswald into the window. But isn’t this true in 99.9% of all homicides when the guilty party says I was not there??? The EVIDENCE puts them there. Fiber evidence, Palm Prints on Boxes, Signature on Post Office Boxes, Signature on Purchase Orders, etc.

    I’m not totally sure of why/what you want to prove about your photos of the Dallas Scenes. I am actually happy enough that you went to see for yourself. I too have done that and had a relatively unique discovery happen on my trip. In finding the Rental Property that Oswald and his wife were living in for the backyard photos a buddy and myself climbed over the fence where the alley-passage divides the yards for photo opportunities. In taking a photo we were able to duplicate, by pure accident, the ‘balancing’ issue that so much was made about regarding how someone could stand as Oswald stood without falling over.

    It turns out that Marina was unsure of the camera shutter/trigger back then. So, as Ozzie got upset with her he began to step forward to show her when she took the photo. We had the same thing happen 50 years later. The resulting image was a person appearing to be inserted into a scene vs. the reality of a man just beginning to move toward the camera. Cool Stuff.

    Lastly, the ‘experts’ that you mention looked over the extension on the Signal Light Support. Not the Pole (just saying).

    • Anonymous Contributor says:

      Bill writes:

      “I’m fully aware of Jesse Curry’s issue with placing Oswald into the window. But isn’t this true in 99.9% of all homicides when the guilty party says I was not there??? The EVIDENCE puts them there. Fiber evidence, Palm Prints on Boxes, Signature on Post Office Boxes, Signature on Purchase Orders, etc.”

      Unfortunately for Bill, there is almost no credible evidence placing Oswald in the sixth-floor window during the shooting.

      – “Fiber evidence”: What fibers were found at the scene of the crime? How could fiber evidence place Oswald or any other named suspect in the sixth-floor window during the shooting?

      – “Palm Prints on Boxes”: Of all the boxes in the so-called sniper’s nest, only one contained a print of Oswald’s that could be dated to within three days of the assassination. There is a perfectly innocent explanation for the existence of that print: Oswald handled boxes of books every day as part of his job. The existence of only one print is stronger evidence that Oswald was not there at the time of the assassination, moving the boxes to construct his sniper’s nest, than that he was.

      – “Signature on Post Office Boxes”: Oswald rented a Post Office box in Dallas until May 1963 (Warren Report, p.119). What does this have to do with Oswald’s location at 12:30pm on November 22?

      – “Signature on Purchase Orders”: Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the documents and the few words of handwriting are genuine and that Oswald took possession of the rifle in March 1963. How exactly does his ownership of the rifle in March place him in the sixth-floor window in November?

      – “etc.”: Presumably this refers to Howard Brennan, the unreliable witness who identified Oswald as the man in the window, and then changed his mind. Or perhaps it refers to a couple of other witnesses who saw a slender white man with light brown hair, a description which matched Oswald. Presumably it doesn’t refer to the witnesses who described the man’s hair as dark, unlike Oswald’s, nor to those who described the man’s shirt as light-colored and with an open neck, unlike Oswald’s. The eye-witnesses’ vague and inconsistent descriptions are the only evidence placing Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting.

      If this were an open and shut case, with plenty of strong evidence pointing to a lone gunman whose name was Lee Harvey Oswald, the lack of specific evidence placing Oswald in the window would be a minor distraction. But the JFK assassination remains controversial precisely because there is almost no evidence that only one gunman was involved, and only weak circumstantial evidence that Oswald played an active role. Oswald’s presence on the sixth floor during the shooting is just a piece of dogma, convenient for political purposes but with very little evidence to support it.

  21. Bill says:

    Anyway. The Testimony of Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connolly, Gov. Connally, all coincide with the photo of the assassination taken by Robert Croft. From all accounts of the assassination the testimony of the two wives and the Gov. all agree that this was the moment when life changed for everyone. Here is a link to this https://www.google.com/search?q=couch+photo+of+jfk+assassination&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS503US512&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI1bHh9ZbryAIVgfMeCh2VBAm4&biw=1920&bih=875#imgrc=_n4cSkbxmOk9LM%3A

    And, fwiw…here is an exhibit containing the view from the scope, the view from Zapruder. You can see that it matches the issues I’ve mentioned. If not. So be it. I’m not re-writing history….just discussing it rationally.

    http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050b.htm

    Good Luck,

    Peace.

  22. Bill says:

    Photon. I also wanted to mention something that is constantly overlooked and continually never addressed by those attempting to declare the validity of a knoll shot. It is literally frame 313 of the Zapruder film. It it it is plainly (and painfully as well) clear to see the trajectory that the bullet followed by simply seeing the ejecta being blasted out of the Presidents skull.

    A clear still frame of Z-313 will show a rainbow of material being ejected FORWARD over the top of the car. More plainly put: The material is arching forward out of the top of JFK’s skull because it is ‘energized’ and is following the path of the missile through the skull.

    Yes, there is significant avulsed material fly off of JFK’s skull (devils slap, etc) as well. This is material that reacted with the other parts of the shockwave that rebounded through JFK’s skull that did not follow the path of the bullet and therefore exited from the exit wound as well. Here is a link to the still frame https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-hz3RkbxXlQnf4Gqy4lAjt1wIIokOiRRPqSqkoZODs9m63hm2

    What is not addressed is any non-biased discussion of the significant amount of spatter that is moving FORWARD (following the path of the missile parts that exiting JFK’s skull)…and probably causing James Tague’s cheek/chin cut as well.

    For anyone who is reading. I’m not interested in the fairytale of the double headshot as that is just plain nonsense.

    Peace.

    • “For anyone who is reading. I’m not interested in the fairytale of the double headshot as that is just plain nonsense.”~Bill

      The spray of blood and brain matter flew some 4 feet straight up, as observed in the Z-film. Thus the material landed in all directions. However Tague was too far away to have been wounded by such materials.
      I do agree that there was only one single head shot. It came from the front, on a rise just forward of the triple underpass S-W of the oncoming limousine. See the ballistic analysis of Sherry Fiester. I have put that link here several times.
      \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      First of all, it is STEVE, not Steven. A careful reading will reveal that “truth.”

      You did not ruffle my feathers. It takes a HELL of a lot to ruffle my feathers, and you, in no way, ruffled my feathers.

      My main point of contention with the LN side is the double standard they enjoy about the assassination. I point that out frequently on this site, and I get all kinds of “well, the evidence says…” Right after that is said, I tune out. YOU and the other LN BELIEVE the “evidence” that was collected by the two most corrupt organizations of the American government, the FBI and the CIA. I DO NOT. Not now, not ever. The DPD in 63 was about as awful as law enforcement can get. Please reference Mr. Curry and his bewildering statement in 69.

      The FBI was lead by a man who acquired and kept his job, not because of his talent but because he kept “secret files” on people of power. Usually they involved people of power having sex with people other than their spouses. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Hoover’s skills would you say, Bill? So, anything with Hoover and his “men” must be viewed with extreme suspicion, in my opinion. You give Hoover a free pass and that is your right. However, the performance of Hoover and his men that weekend—see Hosty—makes your views about Hoover a VERY slippery slope. You can also look at the chunk of concrete that was taken from the triple overpass by the FBI, flown to Washington AFTER it was patched if you need additional proof. So, for me? The FBI was a HUGE joke in 63. (It probably still is today.)

      The CIA is by far, a much more culpable and guilty part of the assassination than what the LN side would like anyone to believe. My good friend Photon tells us the CIA was not able to produce a photo of LHO in MC because it made a “simple and honest mistake.” What???? If a CT said something like that, the LN side would be howling at the moon. The CIA was able to overthrow the governments of Iran and Honduras, but cannot provide a photo of a man, according to their official story, they knew very little about in 63. If you believe that line of crap, please call me. I have some oceanside property in the Sahara I would like to sell you.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      It is your right as an American to believe in the value of the CIA. Again, I believe you are foolish to do that. Allen Dulles was the SINGLE biggest despicable human being in the history of America. It is a close tie between Dulles and LBJ, but you can take your pick. I have several books that you may borrow about the CIA and their “idea” of democracy. The fact that Dulles used some of the Nazi brass should have you concerned, but if you choose not to be, please feel free. Please read Endless Enemies if you would like a clear perspective of the CIA. Talbot’s new book, The Devil’s Chessboard, will also help. If you think that the CIA did not know what was going on during November of 63, then you are the kind of American that Dulles would have loved. The moderator of this site, Mr. Morley, has said that Helms and his buddies should have seen jail time. So believe the CIA if you want to. The “evidence” points out that you would be foolish to do that.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Let us talk about the BIGGEST joke of ALL time. The Warren Omission. Let me see if I have this. A “commission” set up by politicians to investigate the actions of other politicians being fed “evidence” by agencies that the politicians doing the investigating did not even believe. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario? Some of the biggest lapdogs that EVER served in American government were allowed on the commission. Gerald Ford? Really? That is the best we can do? Allen Dulles was on the commission. The same Allen Dulles who slaughtered thousands and thousands of people in the name of “democracy.” Gee, what could go wrong there? Even some of the members of the commission did not believe what they were putting out to the American people. See Russell if you want some insight.

      I mentioned the photos of me in Dallas, because unlike the members of the WO, I actually traveled to Dallas to see for myself. I am sure you know that Warren was reluctant to travel to Dallas, which is shocking for a man who led the Commission. The fact that EVERY member of the grassy knoll was not brought to Washington should cause you concern. If it doesn’t, then again, Dulles would welcome you into the fold. The fact that Howard Brennan was given the credence he was by the WO should shock you, because he claimed the shooter was standing up, when the 6th floor window does not allow for that possibility. So, the WO handpicked the folks who would support their thesis and anyone else was simply ignored. I could go on about the WO and its lack of competence, but you can read Blakey’s assessment if you want the view from someone who was actually involved with the investigation of the investigation.

      For me, Bill, the question is not about who actually killed JFK. No amount of bickering and debating will ring him back. He was a politician. Most historians don’t even believe he was a good president. That is for other people to decide. For me, the question has always been about the willingness of the American people to overlook the actions of our politicians because they somehow believe that God (or whomever) thinks the lives of Americans are more important than the lives of people in other countries. It simply baffles me that LBJ and ALL of the members in Congress who voted to send troops to Vietnam based on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution are not in jail.

      Who killed JFK? I don’t know. You don’t know. You know what the WO has told you, but you are basing your conclusions on evidence that was gathered by individuals and organizations that have been proven to be deceitful, liars, or even worse. How you can base your conclusions on that information escapes me.

    • Charles says:

      Bill , I could not disagree more. You are observing what is known as backspatter. When a bullet enters an object, matter is first ejected back through the entrance of the bullet. There are many hunting and combat gore videos out there but this one is a tasteful slo mo of food jars and bottles. The peanut butter, coke bottle and tv show it well. https://youtu.be/qSmC8A1pNsU

      There is NOTHING about z-313 or the whole film that indicates a shot from the rear whatsoever. Buy youself a gun, shoot a bunch of stuff and observe the behavior of that stuff and report back.

      • Photon says:

        Your video has to slow down the speed to the point that you can see the bullet in flight in order to observe anything that you describe as backsplatter Even at the slow motion speeds of the Zapruder film the material exiting the entrance hole would not be visible, as even the scenes that you claim show backspatter are overwhelmed within milliseconds with the residue of the objects exploding .Nothing that is presented in your video approximates a human skull, or even a hollow sphere. Your conclusions are as false as your claim that wooden boards maintain the shape and integrity of rounds fired into them. Again, you reveal your ignorance of ballistics and firearms.

        • Charles says:

          photon, the headshot frames in zapruder show skull fragments moving straight up…that is not an exit wound.

          I wish you could at least maintain a bit of civility, your methods of argumentation don’t have many fans… short of volunteering yourself to be shot in the head to prove your opinions, you must accept a certain amount of imprecision and slack by those of us who are unwilling to devote our entire lives to argue the obvious to someone such as yourself who will never change his mind and is impervious to reason and the preponderance of evidence.

          The bottomline is that ALL the legal evidence collected by Dallas police, FBI, WC, is tainted or suspect to one degree or another and the circumstances of this cast of characters are so smoke filled that a forest fire of improprity lurks somewhere. The flat earthers of the WC can think whatever they want, but the judgement of history is moving on without them.

          • Photon says:

            ” photon, the headshot frames in Zapruder show skull fragments moving straight up…that is not an exit wound.”
            Actually, the two most prominent fragments seen in 313 go up and FORWARD. Why did you neglect to mention that?
            The ejecta pattern seen in 313 is principally forward, with solid matter including bone and brain matter being deposited predominantly anterior to JFK, including on Connolly’s leg, which was directly in front of JFK’s head.
            While not conclusive of the direction of the round that hit JFK’s head, the Zapruder film is consistant with a round striking the skull from the rear. The only way to accurately (and legally) determine the the entrance and exit characteristics of the JFK head wound was by post mortem examination of the body, ie. the autopsy. No forensic pathologist (real experts in this matter) who has examined the physical and medical evidence in the case denies that JFK was shot from the rear.None. Cyril Wecht has claimed that the rear shot was accompanied by a simultaneous shot from the front hitting the same spot -a feat of marksmanship on a moving target that has never been demonstrated to be possible.
            Please present a real expert that confirms your claims. Not a Sherry Fiester, who couldn’t confirm her claimed certification when previously challenged and has neglected to mention that her sister has run one of the largest conspiracy websites (and online conspiracy shopping site) on the net. Even Wecht doesn’t buy her claims.
            Present a real expert who bases his conclusions on the real physical evidence, not these continual claims based on reading more into a film that while valuable is principally a chronometer of events, not a real source for the etiology of those events. A film that so many conspiracy theorists are now claiming is forged, simply because (despite 50 years of claims to the contrary) upon close and objective study it actually is consistant with the Warren Commission scenario .

          • Charles says:

            Photon your “forwards” is just my “backwards”… just go to youtube and check out the deer and hog headshot hunting videos…it is all “back and to the left”

            Zapruder is perfectly consistent with a glancing shot from the front right. PERIOD.

            I could not care less about about all the botched and mutilated autopsy reports or the testimony of those that performed them…The WC is a textbook example of “garbage in garbage out” and is worthless as a fact base in 2015. All one has to do is examine the way bullets perform in real life to know that the WC investigated and reported to a predetermined result, not to fact, not to truth, not to science. Oswald was involved with something but ultimately he was just a patsy for many more and bigger fish.

      • Regardless of what Photon claims, there is a red mist that appears that is the backspatter of blood. Yes the Z-film has to be slowed down or view frame by frame to see this.
        It should be noted that this is one of the features in the Z-film that started the uproar about it being an altered film.
        This is what Got Sherry Fiester’s attention when she heard her sister mention it. Right away she realized that what was being discussed was backspatter.
        This is a relatively new development in modern forensics, despite the fact of its discovery sometime in the 30’s.
        If anyone is curious about this, there are frames from a film of that bygone era called “Death of a Light Bulb”. The frames are reproduced in my article at:
        https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-5601

        What is shown here is how the bulb nods towards the bullet at the split second the bullet touches the bulb – this is because at that moment the weight and mass of the bulb are more than the bullet, so the bulb literally pushes against the nose of the bullet – and then as the bullet penetrates about midway the bulb sprays material in the direction the bullet came from. The frames are obviously from different angles and different bullet shot, from a continuous film I haven’t found in full.
        \\][//

        • Charles says:

          Willy, dont get me wrong, i like your post but I have learned there are some cherry picking nitpickers who will confuse your illustrative “example” of a lightbulb and attack it as a flawed “simulation” of a skull.

          I am not mentioning any names but some just won’t see the forest for all of the trees in the way. That is just how the flat earth WC supporters roll.

        • Photon says:

          There is red mist in all directions from the head wound in 313. But the only identifiable particulate matter seen are the skull fragments going up and forward.
          In addition , solid brain and dura mater was deposited on Connolly and his wife. Despite the claim that Mrs. Kennedy went back on the trunk to retrieve a portion of skull , the Zapruder film reveals no particulate matter on the trunk.As Mrs. Kennedy had no recollection of climbing onto the trunk the ” piece of skull story” was a chivalrous invention of Clint Hill to explain why she tried to get out of the car-instead of her real reason for getting out-fear.
          Your ” Death of a Light Bulb” entry confirms what I have previously stated-you need a high speed camera to demonstrate even the minimal ejecta seen coming out at the entrance site of your bulb and that minimal ejecta is overwhelmed by the exit site explosion of material in milliseconds .Without a high speed camera any “backsplatter” is invisible-and certainly not consistent with what is seen in the Zapruder film where large particulate matter is seen moving away from the direction of the shot.

          • “Without a high speed camera any “backsplatter” is invisible-and certainly not consistent with what is seen in the Zapruder film where large particulate matter is seen moving away from the direction of the shot.”~Photon

            Naturally it takes a high speed camera to photograph the light bulb sequence. That in no way negates the lessons of the sequence; the nodding forward into the bullet and the backspatter.

            As for your assertion that a “large particulate matter is seen moving away from the direction of the shot.” is patently false, that piece of bone was blown to the left into the grass across the street – not forward. This is presumed to be the famous “Harper Fragment”.

            As per Mrs Kennedy retrieving a piece of skull from the trunk, she does visibly pick something up. It is also known that she handed this piece of skull to one of the doctors in the emergency room at Parkland.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Are you seriously stating that two apparently solid objects are not visible moving up and anteriorly in frame 313?
            Are you stating that those objects are not 10-12 feet above the limo, where it would be impossible to predict where exactly they would fall to earth?
            Mrs. Kennedy gave a piece of brain tissue to the staff at Parkland – not bone. Please quote any witness at Parkland who stated that Mrs. Kennedy gave anybody a piece of bone.You simply made that story up.

          • “Are you seriously stating that two apparently solid objects are not visible moving up and anteriorly in frame 313?”~Photon

            Why yes Photon, I am indeed. That object is in an arc obviously moving in a trajectory to the left of the limousine and already over the grassy area as it starts its downward motion.

            How long since you had your eyesight tested Doctor Photon?
            \\][//

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Care to address Willy’s spot on analysis of the receiving of the so called magic bullet? To quote you, can you give us one example where Willy did not carefully point out the incompetence and outright lies your WO gave us concerning the “recovery” of 399?

          • Photon says:

            Care to address Willy’s claims about where the Harper fragment was found if you find the #399 chain of custody record suspicious? Harper picked up the fragment many hours after the assassinaton, with no documentation of actually where he picked it up. The only clearly identified spot where Harper said the fragment was was on a 1997 map he made for conspiracy theorist Milicent Cranor.The map clearly shows that he found the fragment AHEAD of the spot where the head shot took place. Willy and every other individual that has claimed that the fragment was found BEHIND the spot of the head shot have been promulgating a falsehood.

          • “The map clearly shows that he found the fragment AHEAD of the spot where the head shot took place.”~Photon

            Care to cite that source?

            I’ll tell you what Photon, it is proven that CE 399 was a planted bullet with a broken chain of evidence. Whether you care to admit this or not, it is a fact. So this BS carousel about this nonsense minutia that you and your cohort Bill keep spinning is a diversion from that proven beyond reasonable doubt fact.
            \\][//

          • Photon and Bill;

            This is the perfect day of the year for revealing spooks; Día de Muertos.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Page 96 of Richard Gilbride’s “Matrix for Assassination”. As a conspiracy theorist he seems unique in reporting the actual position that Harper claimed to have found the fragment – not his uncle’s second-hand description of ” 25 feet south” of the shooting site. But the convolutions that he has to go through to explain a fact that has been falsely reported for decades by conspiracy theorists is quite entertaining.
            Another conspiracy ” fact” bites the dust.

          • “Photon, Care to address Willy’s spot on analysis of the receiving of the so called magic bullet?”
            ~Steve stirlen on November 1, 2015 at 5:22 pm

            Rather than answer this simple question with a straight forward asnwer; Photon ignores it completely and asks his own question; “Care to address Willy’s claims about where the Harper fragment was found…”

            This is another example of Photon’s scurrilous tactics of evasion. No, he will not address the one issue that rains torrents on his entire parade.

            After all this time here, it is clear to any lucid thinker, that Photon is not a sincere character. He has a most obvious agenda to obfuscate and distract away from the salient points being made here.
            \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I have seen that red mist in a slow motion version of the Z film. It is only there a moment, but quite visible. It is also cone shaped, with the widest part of the cone going away from the front of JFK’s head, and reminds me of this high speed photo of a droplet hitting water.
          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iZu_8plp0sI/hqdefault.jpg

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon, maybe you haven’t seen my comment that asks you to elaborate on the material environment of the alleged sniper’s nest.

            I repeat it here: ‘photon, care to answer the questions about the sniper’s nest? Seems to me that the majority of the re-enactments over the decades have been executed in mock environments with a focus on the rifle, the ammunition and the trajectories … of course the tree. Have any of the experiments replicated the precise material environment of the 6th floor window, and if so can you link to them s so that they can be presented on this forum? What was the depth of the box, the window frame and the brick facade, in precise inches. What was the length of the rifle barrel, in precise inches.’

      • Bill says:

        Charles. The appearance of material…IN FRONT OF JFK’s head, is ejecta from his skull moving away from his head and FOLLOWING the object/bullet path of the bullet that exited off of the top of his skull. Thank you.

        • Charles says:

          Bill. The appearance of material…BEHIND JFK’s head, (on the back of the limo, on trailing motorcycles) is ejecta from his skull moving away from his head and FOLLOWING the object/bullet path of the bullet that entered on the right temple the of his skull. Thank you

          • Photon says:

            Except that there isn’t any evidence of ejecta on the back of the limo-post a picture.
            The motorcycle cops ran into the aerosolized blood cloud- one used the term ” run into it” at least 3 times in discussing events. I have posted that fact in the past on this site.
            There seem to be a lot of provable falsehoods and unprovable assertions cropping up on this topic lately.

          • “There seem to be a lot of provable falsehoods and unprovable assertions cropping up on this topic lately.”~Photon

            That is an understatement coming from perhaps the very worst offender.
            \\][//

          • Charles says:

            photon, your comments are just sophisty. Why dont you put up a photo of ejecta on the front of the limo, or the driver or partition or windshield or Connally?

            I run into rain everytime it rains…that says nothing about direction and even a fine mist is falling, it is not suspended.

          • Photon says:

            Willy’s “ejecta” disappear as the limo moves.
            A better term would be ” reflections”.
            Please comment on that piece of skull Mrs. Kennedy gave the doctors at Parkland.

          • Charles says:

            The best part about photon’s cloud is that the motorcycles were flanking the limo not directly behind it. More evidence for “back and to the left.”

          • JohnR says:

            Uh, Photon, if there was no “ejecta” on the back of limo, what was Jackie climbing on the trunk to retrieve?

          • Photon says:

            On Nov. 22, 1963 between 1155 and1255 the windspeed was 15-20 mph from WSW to WNW-and directly from the west @ 1230. An aerosolized cloud of blood would have been suspended in the air and driven toward the east-BEHIND the limo, toward the motorcycle cops. This would account for the perception of ” driving through” the blood a described 3 times by one of the cops.
            I suggest reviewing the YouTube video “JFK Assassination Eyewitness -Nellie Connolly TV Interview 2003-Part 2”. From 6:19 to 7:15 the describes in detail the ejects pattern- including that the whole interior of the car was covered with tissue from JFK. As JFK was sitting in the back seat, the entire portion of the interior of the limo was IN FRONT of JFK.
            Coupled with the fact that Harper illustrated where he really found the skull fragment several feet In front of where the head shot took place ( contrary to decades of CT misinformation) it should be apparent that the vast majority ( if not all) of particulate matter from JFK’s head wound was directed forward.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            I think Jackie was on the trunk of the car not to retrieve anything but to remove herself from a deadly line of fire.

            This is a natural reaction and I imply no disrespect. I’ve moved out of the line of fire myself.

          • Photon says:

            As she later stated that she had no recollection of crawling out on the trunk self-preservation is the most likely and understandable reason for attempting to exit the vehicle. She made no attempt to return to the back seat until Hill pushed her back into it.
            The source of the skull story was Clint Hill and his desire to protect Mrs. Kennedy-and her reputation. There was no piece of skull on the trunk-nor any identifiable particulate matter.

          • Bill says:

            Chuck. What material are you talking about? Are you referring to the all-too-often-repeated mention of some reports… stoic, but sadly and tragically romanticized… movements out of the back seat and onto the trunk in fleeing the scene??

            Here is a clear and moving video link that I think may help you better understand the mechanics involved. It REALLY will help you understand the issue.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+head+shot+at+z313+photo&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS503US512&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=875&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI4sHA14nzyAIVilU-Ch1yAgeu#imgrc=ivEEcX1m5mgUjM%3A

            You will notice that JFK’s body does, in fact, move forward. You can see his torso in relationship to the silver color seat lining. At 312 it is just barely visible. By 314 it is clearly visible.

            Because these frames are stabilized you can also put a cursor under the nose of JFK at the beginning frame and you can see that only 2 frames later the cursor will be at his ear. So, JFK is probably pushed forward a good 2.5 to 3.5 inches.

            You can test this measurement on ANY of the other occupants of the car. You will see that, because Zapruder was panning as the car moved down Elm Street, each of the other 5 occupants aside from JFK do have any movements away from the cursor point in those frames. Only Kennedy’s head moves.

            However, Charles, more to the point: You will notice that there is NO EJECTA MOVING BACKWARD OFF OF JFK’s HEAD. Yes, there is the spray of material, the ‘cloud’ of blood and macerated tissues spraying upward and then, ONLY AFTER IT CATCHES THE WIND ABOVE THE WINDOW, it moves backward and is what the DMP Officers reported.

            So, I hope that you will find it probative that there is no material moving BACKWARD off the head of the President, or even around his head at the start of the sequence. ALL OF IT. EVERY LAST DROP OF IT…was moving toward the Triple overpass until it reached a height above the Limo’s glass Windshield.

            I will help you out here. Use your index finger to cover JFK’s head. You will see material moving FORWARD and UPWARD until it catches the wind and is blown backwards.

            That the wound at the top of JFK’s head was photographed and documented it stands to reason that James Tague was grazed by a part of the bullet as he was in the line of fire.

            Anyway….

          • bogman says:

            More great points, Charles. OF COURSE there would be material all over the inside windshield with a shot from behind. You would expect it to COVER it. Never noticed that there was in any of the photos I’ve seen.

          • Charles says:

            CE 252 and 253 show nothing even remotely like what photon describes…as for Bill, take it up with Tink Thompson. All is see in the film is consistant with a shot to the right temple, not from behind.

          • “Willy’s “ejecta” disappear as the limo moves.
            A better term would be ” reflections”.”~Photon

            “What about your windspeed of 15-20 mph from WSW to WNW-and directly from the west @ 1230” Photon?

            A better term would be “blown by wind”.
            \\][//

          • JohnR says:

            This is for Bill Clarke and Photon:

            BC: “not to retrieve anything”…”remove herself from the line of fire”

            PHTN: “protect…her reputation”

            You do realize that in order to draw these conclusions you have to willingly ignore the contemporary testimony of the closest eyewitness. I’m glad neither one of you is a detective.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JohnR November 3, 2015 at 11:46 am

            This is for Bill Clarke and Photon:

            BC: “not to retrieve anything”…”remove herself from the line of fire”

            PHTN: “protect…her reputation”

            You do realize that in order to draw these conclusions you have to willingly ignore the contemporary testimony of the closest eyewitness.

            BC. Yes I certainly do realize this. It is a reflection of my opinion of “eyewitness” accounts. I think most are questionable at best especially those accounts by the Camelot Shiners. I once herd Nellie Connaly (a very close eyewitness)claim Jackie was out on the trunk trying to help the SS man get in the car. I didn’t buy this crap either. You?

            I’m glad neither one of you is a detective.

            BC. I’m glad I’m not so naive as to buy all this Camelot crap. Did you understand what I explained in the accuracy thread?

          • JohnR says:

            For Mr.Clarke:

            MC:…”reflection of my opinion of eyewitness accounts.”…”most are questionable…”…”Camelot crap”…”Camelot shiners”…

            Are you implying that you don’t believe Hill because you think he was complicit in the Kennedy family’s post-mortem spin doctoring? What on earth did Clint Hill ever do or say that would give you cause to impugn his credibility? Does it corroborate his testimony at all that Dr, Marion T. Jenkins testified that Jackie handed him a piece of JFK’s brain outside the Emergency room?
            Speaking of the “Camelot shiners” as you like to call them, you have long criticized them for reading into NSM 263 what they want. Are you not guilty of the same transgression with regards to Clint Hill? You have a well-deserved reputation on this site for sticking to the facts. On this subject, you have failed to meet that standard.
            I did understand your explanation on accuracy. Thank you for lending me your expertise. I’m afraid I was on the verge of running off in the woods with another “Oswald couldn’t have done it because…” tangent. Because of you, I didn’t look like a fool. And no one will ever know. Wait.

          • “I’m glad I’m not so naive as to buy all this Camelot crap. Did you understand what I explained in the accuracy thread?”~Bill Clarke

            But you are totally comfortable buying all this Warren Commission crap. Which has been trampled under the heels of history for some 40 plus years.
            In my view that makes you a walking talking dinosaur.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            No John, I don’t believe Hill and the Doctor lied. I don’t doubt Jackie didn’t pick up a piece of flesh or bone. But I don’t think that is what drove her out onto the trunk in the first place. I believe she was moving away from a deadly line of fire. This is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. It just doesn’t sound as heroic as picking up pieces of her husband for the doctors or helping Clint Hill onto the limo so the Camelot crowd push their story.

            To be honest I doubt Jackie even knew when she moved onto the trunk or what she did while on the trunk before Hill pushed her back into the car. I’ve seen people well trained for combat go into a sort of shock when first fired on. The poor woman had to be in shock after such a trauma. In fact, didn’t she say she didn’t remember a lot about that? I’m sure she didn’t.

            Glad to be of service about the accuracy thing. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            November 4, 2015 at 4:37 pm

            But you are totally comfortable buying all this Warren Commission crap.

            BC. I certainly do not buy all the WC crap. In fact I have read little of the report, being dismissive of government reports in general. You on the other hand continue to make claims about NSAM 263 that are easily proven false. Seems like you are the one buying a bill of goods here.

            Which has been trampled under the heels of history for some 40 plus years.

            BC. I don’t think so.

            In my view that makes you a walking talking dinosaur.

            BC. At least I know what NSAM 263 says. Would you like for me to explain it to you?

  23. Bill says:

    Steven: As I mentioned. Sorry for ruffling your feathers. Ouch!

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Bill,

      As I mentioned, it is Steve, not Steven. The only thing you have really done is make sure that Dulles and his methods continue to operate in ’15. Of course, if you stick your head in the sand long enough, you will suffocate yourself. That really will be an OUCH.

      • Bill says:

        One shooter. one Rifle, one truth. Unfortunately for this website we have invisible shooters on the knoll, planted bullets,and phantom testimony about skull fragments being propagated along with diversionary psychobabble now. With the psaasage more than 50 years the assassination evidence has withstood the test of time, authors digging up bodies, and ballistic experts. At the end of the day anyone who visits Daley Plaza can figure out the shooting sequence for themselves.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Billy,

          If the “evidence” has withstood the test of time, then why are you on this website promising everyone that the evidence has withstood the test of time?

          In reality, the ONLY thing that has withstood the test of time is people like yourself refusing to ask the CIA and the FBI to actually answer some of the questions that have gone unanswered for 50 plus years.

          Allen Dulles and JEH would be SO proud of you!

          • Bill says:

            Seve. I come onto this website to communicate rational thoughts with respect to the assassination. Sadly, and I do mean SADLY, the noise level of…well…people like you tries to drown out the discussion of facts. But it has enabled me to discuss questions with people whom I’ve met who have provided some solid information.

            At the same time I do enjoy watching you guys fall to pieces each time one of your crazy/paranoid theories gets torched.

            As far as the CIA and the FBI….are you kidding me??? Ha Ha. I think it’s pretty clear that they had their fingers in the investigation pie to keep the secrets that people like….Oh JFK and RFK wanted to remain secret. Namely Hit Squads financed and funded by the seedy side.

            The answers to the question of who killed JFK were resolved in the WCR. It’s the rumor-mongering book-sellers that keep the uneducated masses (this is where you should insert your kind) churning out every nonsensical theory under the sun.

            JFK Assassination by the numbers:

            22,000,000 The number of people under 21 who know that Kennedy was assassinated but do not know what the Warren Commission Findings were.

            1,127 The Number of JFK Assassination Books

            80,000 The amount of money an average FJK Assassination Book, one published will make its author.

            72 The number of people who have ‘solved’ the JFK assassination to have come forward.

            25 The number of JFK Assassination Books Published in 2013.

            4 The number of Assassinated US Presidents

            3. The number of Shots Fired in Dealey Plaza

            2. The number of Bullets Striking JFK and Governor Connolly

            1. The Number of Shooters, in Dealey Plaza, on 11/22/63

            Peace.

          • bogman says:

            Two can play the numbers game, Bill.

            # of CIA assets and/or anti-Castro Cubans Oswald is known to have met in the 12 weeks prior to the assassination?

            Est: At least 5 DRE members, including one who went to his residence, possibly 8 if you include the two Sylvia Odio Cubans and CIA contractor William Gaudet in the passport office.

            # of FBI personnel?

            Est: At least two – the top NO agent, invited by the presumed assassin himself, and the secretary at the Dallas FBI office. If you want to count Hosty talking to his wife, that’s three. The NO FBI parking garage drop-offs noted by the operator there would include more.

            # of KGB agents?

            Est.: At least 3. Likely everyone he interacted with at the Mexico City embassy, including the head of wet operations for the hemisphere

            # of virulent American anti-communists?

            Est.: At least one – Ed Butler, INCA. Likely several others, including Banister and Ferrie. CIA contractor William Gaudet identified Banister with Oswald.

            Total # of verified CIA/FBI/anti-communists/KGB: 11

            Total # of verified and non-verified /FBI/anti-communists/KGB: 17-plus

            Total # of letters to top officials 2 – one to the FBI and one to the Russian embassy

            Total # of US presidential assassins who’s “best friend” was a longtime US intelligence asset who debriefed the CIA in DC about his friendship with the assassin before leaving to take advantage of an oil deal with a US-backed dictator – 1 – Lee Harvey Oswald

            Total # of US presidential assassins who was the subject of a press release warning he was a danger to America BEFORE he ever pulled the trigger: 1 – Lee Harvey Oswald

          • bogman says:

            To add:

            Total # of pro-communists the alleged assassin met with in the U.S. – ZERO

            Total # of documents still being held by CIA alone relating to the assassination on the grounds of “national security” 50 years on – 1,100+

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Bill,

            I believe Bogman has done a superb job of helping you see the light from the “torch” you mentioned.

            Just curious, Bill, does the 1100 number Bogman mentioned about the CIA documents bother you, because the CIA told the WO in 63 it had provided all they know about Dallas?

            Here is one more number for you:

            ZERO: damns I give about anything you have to say about 11-22-63.

            Amen

        • Charles says:

          So not true. The quaint WC has bled credibilty since day one. The evidence was certainly bent by investigators in the intrest of preserving stability and muddled by all sides ever since looking for answers and proofs. I choose to reject false certainty, accept that many things will never be known and look instead to the circumstances. Oswald could not be convicted in a court of law by what are presumed to be the facts and and certainly was not a lone nut. There was a remakable level of intelligence activity surrounding him and far far too many strange things to be just coincidence.

          I have watched governments lie over and over again my entire life from the Gulf of Tonkin to Watergate to Iran Contra to the WMDs in Iraq. Everyday in the newspapers are stories about corruption in the police, in business, in politics. I do not find the instant story made by authorities in the wake of the murder in any way credible nor the ballistics, personal behaviours or methods consistant with my life experience.

          People like Morley and Simpich have SOLVED this case to my satisfaction in a manner that is consistant with my life experience.

          If you want to persuade me to change my mind, arguing about what happened in Dealy Plaza will never work. You have to convince me that Ruby, LBJ, Dulles, all the CIA, FBI, Dallas Police, military, etc. were all decent, honest and uncorruptable people.

          I wish you could. I really do.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Bill and Photon,

            Charles is so spot-on as to be scary with his assessment of the government and political activities of the US after WW2. (It happened before WW 2, but that is another story.)

            If the two of you could, can you interpret a couple of lines from Talbot’s new book, which sounds like what I have been saying to my friend Photon for 2 years, and my new friend, Bill.

            Page 542:

            “While Oswald visited MC, someone impersonating him made phone calls to the Cuban and Soviet embassies—calls that were intercepted on CIA surveillance tapes. The agency later claimed that these tapes were routinely destroyed. But J. Edgar Hoover listened to them immediately after the assassination and the FBI chief informed Lyndon Johnson, the new president, that the voice on the tapes was not Oswald’s.”

            Gosh, the CIA must have made a “mistake” when destroying the tapes from the crime of the century. It had to be an accident, right fellas?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Bill and Photon,

            How about another “nugget” from Talbot’s book?

            Page 578:

            “Russell was edging painfully close to the fundamental PROBLEM at the core of the Warren panel’s impossible mission. How could the board run a credible inquest when it had limited investigative capability of its own and was largely dependent on the FBI and the other security agencies for its evidence…”

            Gee, boys, I guess this is what happens when you have crooks investigating other crooks concerning a crime committed by crooks. Oh, the joys of American democracy!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon and Bill,

            I found this interesting. I hope the two of you do as well!

            Page 579:

            “But Senator Cooper thought the allegations that Oswald was some kind of government agent were too serious to simply be dispelled by written statements. During a WC executive session in April, he proposed that the heads of the CIA and the FBI be put under oath and questioned by the panel.”

            Gee, remind me, please, my dear friends. Where can I look in the great Warren Omission report and find the sworn testimony of Dulles and Hoover? I think McCone was sworn in, but I don’t remember Hoover and Dulles being called.

            Oh my! Surely there was nothing to hide, was there?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon and Bill,

            Oh no, wait! There is more!

            Page 580-581:

            “in February 1975, Slawson suggested that the CIA had withheld important information from the WC, and he endorsed the growing campaign to reopen the Kennedy assassination. Lawson was the first WC attorney to publicly question whether the panel had been misled by the CIA and the FBI (he would later be joined by Rankin himself)… .”

            Golly, Billy, you said in an earlier post something about one report, one truth, or some BS to that effect. But, gosh darn it, here is a man WHO ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CIA during the first investigation, unlike Photon, who tells me about his extensive knowledge in this matter, and he thinks he was lied to by the two agencies charged with the collection of “evidence.” I don’t know about you, Bill, but that sure makes most people who read the WO piece of trash wonder about its value…

        • David Regan says:

          Right Billy, how about you posting some credible links with your opinions to prove your case?

          In the meantime, here’s some things you may not know about your precious WC. http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission

  24. Bill says:

    All of the discussion about ejecta. How about looking at it like it is: A bullet fired from the 6th floor window, by Lee Harvey Oswald, entered the very top portion of the Presidents skull, rode along the top portion of his skull for a short time, fragmented and created a shockwave that blasted out of the top right side of his skull. The evidence of which is what we can see by viewing the Zapruder film frame 313.

    Simply put: It would be hard to put material in front of the head of JFK as he had not yet reached the point we see the material being ejected.

    Peace

  25. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Bill Clarke
    October 31, 2015 at 11:59 pm
    Yes Bob, they trained us to bore sight the main tube on the M60A1 tank and the Sheridan armored vehicle. Thanks for the link.

    I plugged in a 500 yard zero and got numbers close enough to yours to satisfy my curiosity. As you have spoke of, the trajectory for a 500 yard zero is rather severe, more like a rocket trajectory than a shoulder rifle.

    Thanks for the discussion.
    ————————————————————–
    You are quite welcome, Bill. Sadly, though, I greatly fear you are possibly the only person on this forum to actually understand what I have shown, and how it relates to and completely debunks what SA Robert A. Frazier of the FBI told the Warren Commission, regarding the rifle allegedly used in the assassination.

    As you determined, independently of me, a rifle shooting 2.5 inches high at a range of 15 yards cannot possibly be shooting 2.5-5 inches high at 100 yards. Rather, as determined by a ballistics calculator, a rifle hitting targets 2.5 inches high at 15 yards will be hitting targets 25 inches high of the point of aim at 100 yards.

    I strongly believe that the scope on the alleged assassination rifle was never mounted or sighted in properly prior to the assassination, and could not possibly have made any of the shots attributed to it.

    Of course, I’m sure those such as Photon will be quick to point out that all of the shots could have been made with the open sights but, this raises another question. If Oswald practiced with this rifle as much as claimed by some, why did he not simply REMOVE the scope, if it was totally useless? The mount of the scope is held to the rifle by two tiny slotted screws, and the scope could have been removed in a fraction of the time it would take to reassemble a Carcano with a dime.

    I also believe Frazier was told to determine, through testing, that the assassination rifle was very accurate. I also believe Frazier’s knowledge of rifle scopes was quite limited. How else could the very obvious mistake by him that I pointed out be explained?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      I share your doubts, especially about the scope. Simply a lot of questions about the scope that are not answered and probably will not be answered. For example; Did he even use the scope? I don’t think we will ever know but I agree with you; if I wasn’t going to use that sorry excuse for a scope I would have jerked it off the rifle. That scope sitting to the left of the receiver would have worried hell out of me.

  26. Bill says:

    Charles. Why would it seem more likely that more of his prints would be found on those cartons? I’m pretty sure that a sniper, while setting up those boxes, would attempt to wipe what he could. Furthermore, given the work in the TSBD….both on retrieving orders and replacing flooring (and even building a snipers nest complete with a box facing squarely down Elm Street), one would seem to think a fair amount of sweating….AND BROW MOPPING…with rags would be standard protocol. And so too would be wiping any prints.

    Now I am not saying that is what happened but ANY SNIPER up there would be doing his best to hide his evidence.

    Actually….given that LHO prints were present just tells me he missed some.

    • Charles says:

      Given that LHO prints were present just tells me he worked there and moved boxes and books around. I think an assassin would wear gloves.

    • “given that LHO prints were present just tells me he missed some.”~Bill

      The fact that LHO prints were present proves that he worked in the Book Depository Building, nothing else.
      \\][//

  27. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I cannot overemphasize how difficult it is to use the open sights to make a shot, on a rifle with a sidemounted scope. I have experience in this department, as a friend of mine decided he just had to have a scope on his Winchester 30-30 Model 94 lever action rifle, even though he was good with open sights. The Model 94 requires the scope to be offset to the left because it ejects empty shells out of the top of the receiver, and a scope mounted normally would interfere.

    The first thing I will say about a side mounted scope is that it is far more difficult to accurately sight in than a normally mounted scope. We went through many cartridges and an entire afternoon
    trying to nail this thing down, and, even then, the windage on this thing was a compromise. You have a choice, either adjust the windage so the scope and rifle barrel are parallel, and your shots will be that distance (centre of scope to centre of barrel) wide to the right of the point of aim, out to infinity, or sight the scope in, windage-wise, at one particular range, and everything short of or beyond that will be wide of the target.

    I did try a few shots with the open sights, visible to the right of the scope from the shooter’s perspective. However, while they were visible, using them is another matter. I like to get up
    close and personal when I use open sights, and it is very disconcerting to do so with the scope trying to poke you in the side of the head. I recall several times suggesting he take the P.O.S. scope off and use the Winchester with its open sights, as the good Lord intended.

    Once again, I do not believe Oswald had any experience with rifle scopes in the Marines (or anywhere else), as the standard infantry weapon then in the Marines was the M1 Garand, and it was equipped
    with a peep sight. There is no indication anywere that Oswald received sniper training in the USMC, where he would have been taught how to sight a scoped rifle in, as well as how to shoot a scoped rifle. Without experience or training, I fail to see how Oswald could have sighted the rifle in to be accurate, or even close to being accurate. As I stated earlier, if he practiced at all with this rifle, he would have quickly learned he couldn’t hit anything using the scope.

    Is anyone really foolish enough to believe he would have left the useless scope on the rifle when he brought it to assassinate JFK? Personally, I would have taken the two minutes required to remove the scope, and planned on doing the whole job with open sights. Why was the scope still on the rifle?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      I never had any experience with a side mount scope and don’t intend doing so at this late date in life. That has got to be hard and clumsy to use with that scope hanging off the left side.

      • JohnR says:

        My question is for Mr. Prudhomme and Mr. Clarke.
        After re-assembling ANY rifle, what steps are needed to ensure any degree of accuracy, scope or not?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          JohnR, to answer your question up-front; any reassembled rifle needs to be sighted in again for a “high” degree of accuracy. Now “any degree of accuracy” opens the game up here. For “any degree of accuracy” often the re-sight in would not be necessary. I’ll try to explain by example; I have a couple of rifles that are highly accurate. When I broke them down for cleaning the impact point might shift an inch or two on reassembly. This wasn’t a big difference but it was no longer “highly” accurate so I’d re-sight them in again and they were then highly accurate. When the impact had shifted a couple of inches the rifle was still accurate but not highly accurate. I could have still killed a man at 200 yards with it. Now when the point of impact begins to grow larger it can become a problem to the accuracy of the rifle and it can become inaccurate without a new sighting in.

          We need to remember that a military rifle, due to it high usage and dirty conditions of combat, is made with these problems in mind. Breakdown and reassembly is made as simple and easy as possible and usually free floated barrels are used to maintain a zero after cleaning.

          • JohnR says:

            So the fact that the range to target at Dealey Plaza, being less than 100 yards, means that the sniper’s rifle would probably not have needed re-calibrating.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Right John. I don’t think it would have been necessary for Oswald to sight in the Carcano after a reassemble on the 6th floor (or wherever). I believe the Carcano would have still been accurate enough to do the job.

            If I may discuss accuracy for a bit; I think it will be some help here.

            Too many factors in accuracy to cover them all here but it comes down to this. What makes a rifle accurate is it’s ability to put the second, third, fourth and fifth bullet in the same hole as the First bullet. So in a perfect world a accurate rifle would fire 5 rounds into the same hole. The world is, of course, not perfect so we have 5 holes in the target, one for each round. Now, how far apart these 5 holes are tells us how accurate the rifle is. At 100 yards they are all within a circle with a diameter of 1″ or less you’ve done well. That is an accurate rifle. Two inches is reaching the limit and anything over that has a problem and is not accurate.

            I have shot rifles shooting about a 6 inch group and some rifles with problems shooting all over the target. The point is we need to know what the rifle is shooting (in group size) to know what it is doing at zero range. I’ve seen some folks have a fit because the bullet moved a inch or three! Often caused by a gun shooting a sloppy group or shooter error.

  28. leslie sharp says:

    photon, care to answer to answer the questions about the sniper’s nest? Seems to me that the majority of the re-enactments over the decades have been executed in mock environments with a focus on the rifle, the ammunition and the trajectories … of course the tree. Have any of the experiments replicated the precise material environment of the 6th floor window, and if so can you link to them s so that they can be presented on this forum? What was the depth of the box, the window frame and the brick facade, in precise inches. What was the length of the rifle barrel, in precise inches.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      The rifle barrel on the M91/38 Carcano was just a hair under 21 inches long. The windowsill on the 6th floor SE window was approximately 24 inches tall. I’m not sure what the depth from outer wall surface to inner wall surface would be. I have a friend who might know, though.

  29. Russell says:

    I am not a ballistics expert. I am conflicted about all the scenery surrounding the assassination, but after viewing the Zapruder film over and over again, paying particular attention to frame 313.
    One thing that strikes me is the forward movement as mentioned, then the snap back as what looks to be the right side of his head explode.
    Again i’m no ballistics expert, but this suggests to me that the kill shot came from behind – with the wound on the side being the exit wound.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Many witnesses, including members of the Secret Service, heard the last two shots as being almost simultaneous; possibly less than a second apart. What you may ave been witnessing, in the Z film, is two shots striking JFK’s skull; one from behind followed by one from the front.

      However, for a different interpretation of the Z film, I recommend watching this Youtube video from Nov. 25/ 1963, featuring a very young Dan Rather. Purportedly, Mr. Rather had just viewed a copy of the Z film, which he describes. See if you notice any differences from the film most of us have seen.

      • “a very young Dan Rather.”~Bob Prudhomme

        Yes indeed Prudhomme, a young Dan Rather who rocketed to stardom as a result of his reporting that day. Perhaps having been assured that the film would never been seen by the public he made a deal with the devil, and sang the song that fiddler played and scripted for him.

        There is ONE Zapruder film. There has always only been one Zapruder film. Many people have told many strange tales about the film, but the film speaks the truth for itself. And that proof when seen with open eyes; is a shot from the front.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Strangely, though, one of the things Dan Rather reported seeing in the film was corroborated by Sam Holland, a witness atop the Triple Underpass, in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

          Both Holland and Rather (starting about 1:20 in the video http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22338&page=17 ) reported Connally turning around to his right, and extending his right arm to JFK. According to both, he was shot in the chest while in this positon.

          “Mr. HOLLAND – And she was looking in this direction [indicating].
          Mr. STERN – “She,” is Mrs. Kennedy?
          Mr. HOLLAND – His wife. And about that time—
          Mr. STERN – Was looking in a southern direction?
          Mr. HOLLAND – In the southern direction.
          Mr. STERN – South side of Elm Street?
          Mr. HOLLAND – And about that time he went over like that [indicating], and put his hand up, and she was still looking off, as well as I could tell.
          Mr. STERN – Now, when you say, “he went like that,” you leaned forward and raised your right hand?
          Mr. HOLLAND – Pulled forward and hand just stood like that momentarily.
          Mr. STERN – With his right hand?
          Mr. HOLLAND – His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard.
          Mr. STERN – What did it sound like?
          Mr. HOLLAND – Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
          Mr. STERN – With his right hand out?
          Mr. HOLLAND – Turning to his right.”

          Did Sam Holland get “rocketed to stardom” too?

          • “Did Sam Holland get “rocketed to stardom” too?” ~Prudhomme

            A silly argument Bob; Rather’s words were broadcast and repeated in the national press, whereas Holland’s testimony is buried in a massive tome of nonsense. There is no video or any corroborating evidence for this anywhere that I know of.
            \\][//

      • “What you may ave been witnessing, in the Z film, is two shots striking JFK’s skull; one from behind followed by one from the front.”~Prudhomme

        This is “double head shot” theory has been soundly rebuked by the ballistic analysis of Sherry Fiester. I have published a link to this analysis numerous times now. Perhaps it is time you stop ignoring it.
        \\][//

      • Charles,

        This Tink Thompson presentation brings up the audio match to the Z-film. Another area that is going to send Photon into hysterics. Can this thread stand much more of that???
        Well it will be sure to be full of hilarity should this ball get rolling. Of course this is a valid subtopic under a ballistics thread…
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          How much was Thompson paid for this presentation?
          His claim of debris ” 25 feet to the left of JFK” is based on the claim that was where the Harper fragment was found -totally incorrect and contradicted by the discoverer of the fragment in 1997. This shibboleth was laid to rest by conspiracy theorist Milicent Cranor when she revealed what Harper actually put on his map in 1997-totally ignored by conspiracy researchers who would rather claim that second hand testimony by Harper’s uncle was more valid than what Harper himself stated. As I have stated above the wind was blowing from west to east with a velocity of 15-20 mph-more than enough to carry an aerosolized blood cloud back toward Hargis. The motorcycle police were behind the limo at the time of the head shot-at least 5 feet behind JFK’s head as documented by the Zapruder film. Thompson’s claim that they were abreast is not correct.
          Thompson’s claim that Hargis was “struck with such force that he thought he was hit” has been confirmed by only one source-Thompson himself! There is no documented evidence anywhere that Hargis ever made that statement-only references to -you guessed it-Thompson’s claim. Hargis himself stated on at least 3 occasions that he ” drove through it”- never stating that he was hit with any degree of force. Hargis himself claimed not that he was hit with particulate matter, but with blood and water-consistent with an aerosolized cloud.
          The dramatic effect of gunshots supposedly aligned with the Zapruder film is close to being a farce. Those shots are NOT the tones that the HSCA acoustic “experts” claimed were shots-shades of Oliver Stone. If Thompson had played the actual tones-and the term ” hold everything secure” that accompanied them he probably would have been laughed out of thr room.
          Thompson has made a good living out of misrepresenting facts and misinterpreting documented evidence for over 30 years. The fact that hardly anybody has called out his errors doesn’t mean that they don’t exist-only that there are enough CTers out there willing to suspend critical thinking and logical conclusions to pay his fees.

          • What did I tell you Charles, mention of the dictabelt recording in sinc to the Z-film would send Photon into a hysterical rant.

            He cites as well ONE source; Milicent Cranor to dispute the area in the grass where the Harper fragment was found. Is this single source adequate. Coming some years after the event and uproar, I personally doubt it.

            Photon ends with this whopper of a presumption;
            “Thompson has made a good living out of misrepresenting facts and misinterpreting documented evidence for over 30 years.”

            So one might inquire, how many years has our darling “Photon” made a living of debunking the proven facts of the JFK assassination?
            \\][//

          • Charles says:

            photon, the problem is that eyewitness statements always contradict in any major event, so when there are conflicts in the testimony i dont find it significant. The WC story just does not hang together with what we now know about the case. With what i see in zapruder thompson makes more sense to me than the planted magic bullet theory.

          • Photon says:

            What witness statements are you referring to?
            I have quoted documented meteorological conditions at the time of the assassination . I have documented clearly evident ejecta patterns seen on the Zapruder film correlated with physical evidence of where brain ejecta was found. I postulated the correct position where the Harper fragment was located as described by the discoverer of that fragment-and how that position impeaches a host of conspiracy assumptions based on an incorrect position of discovery. I have demonstrated with photographic evidence that your claim that wound boards preserve the shape and trajectory of a metal jacketed round is not correct. I have demonstrated that Josiah Thompson presents undocumented claims as fact, such as his made-up Hargis quote and the falsehood that the JFK head shot debris went 25 feet to left of the Presdent and struck motorcycle cops who were abreast of the limo-when the Zapruder film clearly shows the closest cop is at least 5 feet behind JFK’s head.
            The one witness I have referred to was within 3 feet of JFK in the limo and anterior to him. This witness stated that both her and passenger sitting directly in front of JFK were covered with brain matter from the head shot-which was confirmed by the passenger sitting next to her.
            What other witnesses have I quoted on this topic? Exactly what have I posted on this topic is not true?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Pure fantasy, Photon, right out of the Lame Nut handbook.
            For your information, a 15-20 mph wind is classified as a “fresh breeze” on the Beaufort Wind Scale (fresh breeze = 17.9 – 24.1 mph). While people that work indoors their whole life might be fooled into thinking this is a wind with any force behind it, i have worked outdoors my entire life, and know that a fresh breeze is barely enough to carry campfire smoke on a horizontal drift.
            Two oter things working against you. As the matter Hargis was struck with was part of JFK’s skull 1/18th of a second before z313, it and the rest of JFK were moving away from Hargis at roughly 12 mph, or 17.6 feet/second, this “aerolsized spray”, as you refer to it, would have been moving away from Hargis at 14.7 ft./second PLUS whatever speed the ejecta left JFK’s head. I’m sorry but, a fresh breeze is just not enough to perform this trick.
            Second, JFK’s head was lower than the top of the limo windshield, and would have been shielded from the direct force of the wind, especially a wind required to carry matter from JFK’s head to Hargis.
            Third, the wind was blowing from the Southwest. If you look at a map of Dealey Plaza, you will see that the limo was travelling in a Southwesterly direction at z313 and, as JFK was seated on the right side of the limo, anything carried by this wind would have ended up behind the limo, on the passenger side of the limo. As even you have to admit, with Hargis riding OUTSIDE of the left rear of the limo, he was nowhere near the path of any wind borne ejecta.

          • Photon says:

            Bob:
            ” … know that a fresh breeze is barely enough to carry campfire smoke in a horizontal drift”. But as per Zapruder 295-311 it was strong enough to blow open Muchmore’s vastly heavier and more dense coat, Your claim is false.
            “Haggis was struck with was part of JFK’s skull 1/18th of a second before z313…” Harris was never struck by any piece of JFK’s skull and never claimed to have been. 1/18th of a second prior to z313 JFK’s head was intact, Not only is your timing in error you have Hargis being hit by debris before JFK was shot in the head.Your claim is false,
            “…JFK’s head was lower than… Windshield, and would have been shielded from the direct force of the wind …”. Zapruder frames 262-310 clearly show JFK’s hair being blown around by the wind. Your claim is false.
            “… wind was blowing from the southwest… with Hargis riding OUTSIDE of the the left rear of the limo he was nowhere near the path of any wind borne ejecta. In actuality the Zapruder film shows him to the left and behind the limo. U,S, Weather Bureau records for downtown Dallas at 1230 on Nov 22, 1963 show a 15 mph wind from the WEST. At the rear and to the left JFK’s head he would be PRECISELY in the path of ejecta coming from the southwest traveling vehicle. Your claim is false.

  30. Bill says:

    Leslie. I am not entirely sure that you saw a link to the secret service video production as to the position of the Limo, 6th floor, and Oswald’Firing position. In any event I saw this and put it out here yesterday.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Bill, this is a great find. My knee jerk reaction … at approx. 14:25 when the film depicts what would have been viewed through a scope, can you tell me WHAT the scope is resting on? Is that a box? and if so, WHY is the box moving with the scope? I’ll review this further, and maybe I’m imagining things.

      • Bill says:

        Hello Leslie. It’s not really a find. It is just a version of the SS Recreation of the Shooters Perspective. The FBI had one as well. In their recreation I recall them having a a surveyors device set up to measure angles as well.

        Leslie, as to what scope is resting on? It is sitting on top of a smaller box that was built so that the viewer while looking at a screen the original SS Recreation was shown on, could be as ‘first-person shooter’ as possible (What we see here is a movie taken from off of a projection screen and it gives the appearance of moving).

        Also. I wonder why more attention is not given to this picture, also taken of the TSBD and digitized (if possible). Who knows? Maybe we can see Marilyn Monroe and Johnny Rosselli or even JEH and the Dulles boys up in that window! (just kidding…but…).

        https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+head+shot+at+z313+photo&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS503US512&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=875&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI4sHA14nzyAIVilU-Ch1yAgeu#imgrc=D7DbVj8rFCz-4M%3A

        • leslie sharp says:

          Bill, surely the propaganda value of the SS reenactment is not lost on you. Had I watched this decades ago, I would have focused solely on what the SS wanted me to experience … the extraordinarily traumatic reality of the assassination in broad daylight. As Salandria realized early on, this murder was intended to send the message ‘don’t {expletive deleted} with us.’

          Regarding the box – one you admit was not an exact replica in spite of this being a reenactment of the crime and crime scene – I venture that a majority of those viewing this film in the early days would not have integrated the details of the sniper’s nest. The “smaller box” as you call it, would convince them on a subliminal level that there would have been no difficulty, no adjustment, no impediment to firing the number of shots the WC asked them to accept. Seemingly you too have been mesmerized, and it’s disturbing to realize how many citizens do not have have the integrity to risk asking the questions … what were the machinations required within that small space, what coincidences had to align to conceal the shooter, etc. ad nauseam.

          • Bill says:

            Leslie. Actually I didn’t look at anything like propaganda value at all? I’m looking at this as someone from today looking over an event that occurred 50+ years ago and trying to determine where the issue between reality and fiction was born. I was focusing on the distances involved. The scope and the way tree limbs suddenly would pop into view (Like at frame 161, or the moment that Mrs. Kennedy said she heard the first shot. See Croft Photo).

            The box was there to show how the gun would sit and what the view was like. The only impediment that Oswald would have had was with the sudden intrusion of the branches at frame 161, or the moment everyone in the car first heard the 1st shot.

            Seemingly mesmerized? No. Not in any way, shape, or form. You’re the person who wrote that Oswald/shooter (depending on where you stand) would have had a difficult time kneeling there. I just pointed to this film in response to your question to Photon about the dimensions. Remember?

            I hoped to help you increase your understanding of the events in that window. I suppose I have to some degree. Right? I mean, at least now you see/understand that there was a box to sit on that you hadn’t learned was there before. It was the one with his Palm Print, and behind it was the bag he entered the TSBD with in the morning with BWF.

            Oswald didn’t believe in coincidences apparently. That’s why he set up the nest just as he needed to and as was demonstrated in the SS film.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill, there are a number of holes in your argument beginning with the failure to acknowledge that said “nest” required dozens of boxes to conceal a shooter in the position you argue Oswald assumed. When did Oswald arrange those stacks of boxes?

            You argue that the box in the reenactment is to ‘show how the gun would sit and what the view was like’, but you continue to avoid any explanation of how the rifle would be shifted by degrees to follow the moving target. Would not the sitting position on a box no less make it all that more difficult to make those adjustments? the box after all would not move with the rifle in spite of what we are shown in the reenactment.

            I didn’t use the term kneeling; I said squatting, as in crouching which I assume a shooter would have to do even if he was resting his bottom on a box. was the box the same height as the bottom of the windowsill or was it lower or higher? do you have those measurements?

            Bob Prudhomme has provided the length of the gun barrel. Do you know the measurements of the box that the rifle with scope would have rested on? not the “smaller” box in the reenactment but the actual box? And do you know the depth of the windowsill in inches and the exterior brick facade? Those measurements seem significant in relation to the barrel, don’t you agree?

            FWIY Bill, I don’t have these answers and I approach this as a layperson who grew up around rifles but never fired one. I’m interested in the material environment of the alleged sniper’s nest and how precisely a rifle would be handled in relation to that space.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill, how did you get so competent at identifying the meaningless coincidences? I have a heck of a time attempting to figure it all out.
            Maybe if I had less information?
            “…One early version was that they were taken to see Oswald by a Dallas businessman of Russian descent, Col Lawrence Orlov. Orlov, though, told an interviewer that when that meeting took place it was obvious the Oswald’s and the de Mohrenschildt’s had met before. De Mohrenschildt told the FBI after the assassination that they had been introduced by the doyen of the affluent Russian colony in Dallas, George Bouhe. Bouhe said it did not happen that way.”
            Anthony Summers Not in Your Lifetime page 155.

            Step-father Edwin Ekdahl and Col. Lawrence Orlov lived in walking distance of one another until they both left the Roxbury, MA neighborhood at about same time. Ekdahl went to China. Both their families stayed on in Roxbury.
            https://www.google.com/maps/dir/14+Harold+St,+Boston,+MA+02119/9+Cardington+St,+Roxbury,+MA+02119/@42.3179995,-71.0932252,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37a2d2cd6f66b:0x48a635c0d20f6735!2m2!1d-71.0878167!2d42.3194476!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37bd4500280a9:0x46ccbcd83f96327e!2m2!1d-71.093638!2d42.317368

            https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-d7xjKYUH5L8/UX2ujDAWkbI/AAAAAAAABBc/Li3-T2V-6zI/s144-Ic42/Orlov1921RemOkla.jpeg
            Orlov, living with his widowed mother, Elka at 14 Harold St., was off to Oklahoma in 1921.
            Technology Review – Volume 18 – Page 786 – Google Books Result
            https://books.google.com/books?id=tUYLAAAAYAAJ
            1916 – ‎Technology
            Edwin Albert Ekdahl, 9 Cardington St., Roxbury, Mass.— …

    • Bill,

      I watched the video you posted. You of course know that this is a secret service video production. It is not a video of Oswald at the window. It is a “reenactment”, a stage show. I have been aware of this reenactment for the past 40 years at least.
      It doesn’t prove anything except the collusion of the Secret Service in the perpetration and cover-up of the assassination.
      The original “snipers nest” was no less staged than this one filmed by the SS. Let that roll off your lips Bill…SS. Where have we heard that term before?
      \\][//

      • Bill says:

        Chuck. Are you out of your mind. Mark Lane was on TV making a fool of himself about Ruby in the crowd, Sam Holland Testimony, etc. Gotta hand it to him though. He saw his chance to make money and did.

      • Bill says:

        Gee Wilbur. Good Golly!!!!! You mean Oswald isn’t the guy shooting himself shooting the President of the United States in this Video?????? GET OUTT TOWN! Ha Ha.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Bill, the subject of ‘chance events’ has surfaced in another thread on this site. Watching this reenactment, and the very deliberate emphasis on the condition of the 6th floor that day, what do you think are the odds that the floors would be under repair in just the right sequence that boxes would be shoved to the end of the room in just the right configuration to provide concealment of a shooter from that window? Boggles the mind doesn’t it?

      • leslie sharp says:

        cho·re·o·graph
        ˈkôrēəˌɡraf/
        verb
        plan and control (an event or operation).”the committee choreographs the movement of troops”

        Obviously someone managed the reenactment; who might have been the stage manager in the TSBD building leading up to 11.22.63?

      • “the subject of ‘chance events’ has surfaced in another thread on this site.”~leslie sharp

        Indeed Leslie, and not just on this site, Coincidence Theory is a staple of argumentation for the “debunkers” of this world.
        \\][//

      • Bill says:

        No Leslie. Not really. I had read somewhere that the condition of the floors in the TSBD were so terrible, because of water damage, that the construction was planned months before the trip was even contemplated.

        • Bill says:

          I checked on the cause Leslie. The issue was oil. The oil on the flooring was being pulled upward onto and into the boxes of school books that were being warehoused there. Cardboard boxes are so ‘water-starved’ that they actually act like a wick and, once the oil is on the box…it’s not long until it gets into the books inside. The water damage I mentioned was after a fire was set there in the late e70’s or early 80’s.

          Lastly, about coincidences and chance events. I met President Kennedy when he came to my hometown. I was no more than 5 or so. We were all dressed up by my mother and she took all 6 of us boys down to see JFK drive by. As the car came along Kennedy, and the US Senator from Connecticut, Abraham Ribicoff, were sitting up on the back ledge of the car…almost on the trunk. As the car came closer and the crowd was essentially only my mother and us, standing on Route 69, almost by ourselves. Kennedy had the car pull up only inches from us. He looks directly at my mother and asks, “Are these all yours”? She was ecstatic and just looked at him and said, “Yes, Mr. President”. He looks at us and made a surprised mock face and said, “They’re Beautiful”! And off he went to New Haven. My mother flew up the hill to our home….happiest woman in Connecticut.

          Well…years later I get married and I find out that my In-Laws owned a farm all around Choate School where…you guessed it, JFK attended private boarding school. Turns out he would often spend a Sunday with his brother Joe at my In-laws farm having a drive and eating Ice Creme with Joe Jr and flirting with my future MIL.

          Then…years later…a house comes up for sale and we buy it. We find out in the title search more about it. It was owned by the family of the bride of JFK Jr. and her sister, who were killed while flying with JFK Jr.

          The point: Coincidences do happen and you never really know who you’re going to be linked to.

          • bogman says:

            Love that JFK meeting story, Bill. Tells you something about the man. Thanks for sharing.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill,
            Thank you. That is the most beautiful story I have ever heard, especially President Kennedy asking (I imagine incredulously, with a twinkle and a smile), “Are these all yours?” That man was funny.
            And to think the most powerful man in the world, CEO of America, Inc. would stop and engage a bunch of strangers. There will probably never be another one like him.

            I have to brag about something Kennedy and funny, but not so innocent: Late 1979, I fixed the easiest part of the slate roof on Hickory Hill (in Maclean if memory serves), the low sun room/porch on the right side as you’re facing it from the road. To anyone who doesn’t know: Hickory Hill is the house lived in by the John Kennedys before they sold it to the Robert Kennedys.

            It was a total pie job, only about 12 feet off the ground, and only a few slates cracked. Rumor was (from cook and groundsman) that through the years, youngsters had escaped from the second floor to that lower roof, either to cool off at night in summer or to make a total clandestine escape from the property. The slight and weathered damage fit that scenario.

            I went into the house a couple times to get a coke (they had those delicious 6.5 ouncers and they insisted we have one on our breaks) and to use the bathroom. Those walls were covered with pictures. I was a dumb 20-some and didn’t know much of the history, but that knocked me out.

            To do the job, I over-figured a little on the number of tiles, the best 14×10″ Vermont blue-black slate. I had 8 to 10 left over. I was visiting my uncle and artist aunt in Rhode Island shortly after and mentioned that I had worked on Hickory Hill. Aunt Marian was a Kennedyphile of the first order and wanted to know Everything, of which I had very little. “They were very nice. Don’t know if I saw Ethel. Who’s Ethel?” When I told her I still had the leftover slate under the toolbox in my pickup truck, she fairly exploded. The short of it: on all of them she painted “Welcome to the (family name)’s” with fancy birds, hearts, and curlicues above the family name, then laced leather through the holes to hang them. For all her coolest friends and relatives. It is one of my proudest possessions. Though my uncle kids me that I stole from a widow.

          • Photon says:

            Bill, you should be careful.By now I bet that some of the posters on this blog have come to the conclusion that your in-laws must have been feeding information on young JFK to the FBI.
            And that your family must have been involved with causing the crash that killed JFK,jr.The motive must have been the leaky faucet that you got stuck with.
            How did your mother conspire with Ribicoff to clear out everybody else so that you or one of your siblings could have given JFK a cold, which could have been fatal to the Addison -affected Senator? Anybody can see the hand of Israel in this-trying to protect their nuclear program.
            Bill, isn’t time that you admit that you and your family worked for the CIA? The evidence is overwhelming.

          • Petronius, Photon certainly is not.
            \\][//

        • leslie sharp says:

          “Bill, do you know if the floor in the rear quadrant of the room (the sniper’s nest) had already been replaced? the fotos and film footage seem to me to show a distinct difference in the new repairs and the old flooring; maybe they only repaired one section, but anyone with some knowledge of construction knows that the general principle would be to start at the back and work toward the exit. Do you concede had those boxes not been in place that it is highly unlikely Oswald would have risked being interrupted let alone observed?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Leslie,
            I’ve seen photos and I’ve heard descriptions that the flooring crew started at the west wall, facing Lee Bowers’ observation tower and the RR yard in general. And they were heading east toward the “sniper nest” and the wall that faces the Dal-Tex Bldg. The stairs that LHO supposedly descended are in the NW corner, where the new floor started.

            I’m curious, what do you have in mind? But I tell you, toward the “nest” had a good reason to have stacks of boxes because they moved them forward until they had a lot of the floor done, and then moved them back.

            btw, Mac Wallace was in the “nest”, LHO was in the 4th or 5th window over (winged John Con twice when he saw that the fascist cabal he had tried so hard to stop was actually gonna kill JFK), and Loy Factor was in the far west, 7th, window. LF said he didn’t fire his rifle that day, but by that he might’ve meant he didn’t shoot a person that day. Some gunman put a sharp-angled hole in the Stemmons sign, probably LF, maybe MW.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Leslie,
            I didn’t mean to sound like I think that all the gunfire came from TSBD. Not by a longshot. Jim Braden/Brading was in the 2nd or 3rd floor Dal-Tex with GHW “Zapata” Bush close by. Harry Weatherford, with his brand-new hunting rifle and suppressor, was on the DCRB roof across Elm from Dal-Tex. Lucien Sarti and his Corsican boys were on the South GK, somewhere between the Postal Bldg. and the south (left) end of the RR bridge (Triple Overpass in Dallasese).

            Then there are the North GK boys, THE Grassy Knoll. But space is limited. Do you know there were even riflemen on both sides of Stemmons? One high up in Cobb Stadium and another high up across the freeway. Both seen by scads of folks.

          • Bill says:

            Leslie. According to Mr. Shelley, the work/flooring was being done along the ‘West Wall’. They were moving in a pattern and moving boxes out of the way as they went. The workers were not professionals. They were TSBD employees. According to Bonnie Ray Williams, they were asked to do the job so nobody would be let go on the job.

            As far as Oswald risking being interrupted or observed by others I really have no opinion on what he was thinking about risk that day. He wasn’t overly concerned about risk when he went home to get his curtain rods and, apparently, he left them behind for some reason or another. 😉

            I think Oswald was fully committed to following his plan to its conclusion.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Thanks Roy. If Lee Harvey Oswald was the patsy as he claimed, then the evidence at the crime scene to implicate him had to have been staged. Part of that staging had to have included an environment where it could be argued he was concealed long enough to have fired a rifle without being disturbed or observed. The boxes that were stacked sufficiently for that scenario were moved because of floor repairs. I think contractors would work from the East wall toward the stairs/elevator unless they had reason to do otherwise. I’m questioning why they were working in the opposite direction that ‘by happenstance’ required them to stack the boxes that ended up providing the appearance of a nest to frame a patsy.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Leslie,
            Forgive my cynicism and general geezer grouchiness, but from what I’ve seen of most warehouse-type places in general(I worked in a “good” one for over a year), and TSBD in particular (esp. the higher floors) — they are all a bloody mess. For any given five minute period, someone could hide about anything and do anything he wanted. The chaotic hodgepodge ain’t suspicious.

            Now how LHO was placed there in the first place is very suspicious. Ruth Paine really orchestrated that on the LHO level. She didn’t tell him about a better-paying (though harder) airport job, which could be innocent. But then the guy called a second time, and RP didn’t quite tell the truth to him. Much worse, before the WC, RP told the worst whopper of her testimony about that airport offer.

            Now I don’t think RP was one of the big-shots of the coup or even privy to any inside information. Someone in her circle (the most CIA connected I have ever heard of) could have just put a bug in her ear, and sweetened the pot with money or favors or vacations or anything; I don’t know what.

            The ED Forum is running a great new hot topic about Ruth Paine, started by Paul Trejo, who thinks she’s an angel, was pretty much led by the nose if anything bad. That’s as far as I can tell from the little I have seen, what little I know. But PT is masterful at collecting the definite, salient facts. I perfected my idea about the Walker “shooting” (when no one was shot) from his EAW thread. Trejo ain’t cynical enough, but he sure finds the facts. Take him with a grain of grouchy salt.

          • As far as this new floor project on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Bldg. , is a timeline of when the oil problem of the absorbent cartons was noticed and how long it took to take action. As well we need to understand why the new flooring was being laid in a totally unprofessional manner. By that I don’t mean merely that the employees were involved in the manual labor; I mean as well the clearly logical approach of working the lay-down of a new floor from the far wall to an exit, and working the lay to that exit.

            At any rate, it is just one more “coincidence” in a ship container full of coincidences that is the medium in which we are forced to contend.

            I think that Coincidence Theory is the most untenable manner of analysis there is. It is a simpleton’s path.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Roy, It’s not the chaotic hodgepodge of boxes that is suspicious, it’s the specific layout of the hodgepodge in that quadrant of the 6th floor the morning of the assassination that causes me to ask the question. The boxes appear stacked at a height that ensured concealment. I’ve stacked boxes, and there was no reason to stack those at that height when there was ample room north to south to stack them two by two or four by four as other boxes appear in photos, unless you see something I don’t.

            I’ve been in warehouses including my father’s Magnolia Oil distribution warehouse in the summer of 1963, and while books are books and oil products are what they are, the fact is that the soles of one’s shoes or sandals will be coated and leave tracks if oil is present. I wondered if there were fresh tracks on the stairs or on the soles of Oswald’s shoes?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            leslie sharp,
            OMG, you are on to something here. It hit me last night. “A vision that was planted in my brain/still remains.” Dreamed about it, it’s been growing all day. There IS something so perfectly staged about the state of the sixth floor on 11-22-63. So perfectly staged that the perps could never be prosecuted for it.

            First though, the principle you’re talking about — working on a floor toward the exit, esp. painting/varnishing (don’t want to paint yourself in a corner) — really applies to finished floors; i.e., in a home or office. Very true, it’s best to have the least work-traffic possible. But here they were just cleaning up the existing floor and nailing down 3/4″ 4’x8′ sheets of probably cheap plywood, B/D at best, laying the D side down of course. It was easier, and probably a whole lot safer, to work from the stairs and elevators, which brought up the materials, so they had the more solid surface to work from and carry that heavy plywood on.

            That in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the sixth floor was at exactly the most perfect state of chaos on 11-22 to serve its part in the Big Event. It’s too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence. I can’t cite sources right now, but I am almost certain that the impromptu flooring crew was really hustled to finish, rather sloppily, the 5th floor. Then on the 6th floor, when the perps saw that enough was done for their purpose, it was a skeleton crew at a leisurely pace. They broke for breaks and lunch early, especially on 11-22.Now someone may say, “That was due to the magnanimity of the bosses on this eventful day. Let the peons have plenty of leisurely time to see the Great Man.”
            (continued)

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            (cont.)
            So my question is, Leslie, who was below Dry Hole Byrd, owner, and above Roy Truly and Bill Shelley at TBSD? You are the leading expert on the Dallas area’s business nexus. I know it’s a lot to ask.

            Here’s how it could have perfectly well gone down: All DH Byrd had to do was tell that Mr. X to make sure that the new 6th floor was well-begun but not half-done. That’s all. Then on The Day any number of rats have all the cover they need.

            Get ready, Leslie, I’m about to ask you a bigger favor.
            Preamble: Bonnie Ray Williams, Jr., he of the abandoned chicken lunch, was run out of the sixth floor around 12:15. A man as neat as BRW and who takes the time and trouble to pack a good lunch every day does not leave it all over a filthy construction site. He was run out by at least four men, at least three well-dressed (Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and Mr. X) and Lee Oswald. BRW may not have seen all 4 or 5 men, but he probably heard or felt their presence.

            The Huge Favor: I’m about to send a letter to Bonnie Ray Williams, III. BRWII passed away in the late 1990s. I’m pretty sure BRWIII has a lot of good info. I’ve had his address for a while. I figure a letter is the least invasive. That’s why I haven’t called or e-mailed him. But still I’m afraid to send this letter, though I’m going to do it anyway. If a certain local, native, kind lady with initials LS were to do the same or similar, Bonnie Ray Williams III may think better of me and the JFK community in general.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Roy, ‘So my question is, Leslie, who was below Dry Hole Byrd, owner, and above Roy Truly and Bill Shelley at TBSD?’

            Enter stage right: O.V. Campbell and Jack Charles Cason, owners of the depository business. Truly had worked for them for decades. Why were they paying their own employees, unskilled at floor repairs, when the building belonged to DH Byrd? (I understand they were told it was in order they wouldn’t lose hours of payroll?) For one thing, why would Byrd risk the liability if they were injured repairing his property let alone repercussions for shoddy craftsmanship? And why didn’t he insist on sending in his own crew, and why did they wait until the depository business took over the building? Wouldn’t Cason and Campbell have been astute enough to notice the floors needed repair before signing a lease? Russ Baker, “Family of Secrets” alludes to Cason’s anti-communism and significant role over the years with the American Legion. He also states that Cason and Campbell made no apologies for their dislike of John Kennedy. Mrs. Cason actually made a statement to that effect to investigators. (note: someone has reported that the depository business had space in the Dal-Tex Bldg. as well? Do you have any info on that?)

            The American Legion held it’s national convention in Dallas the summer of 1964; how long in advance that was planned, and what influence Cason might have had on the selection is yet to be determined. But Dallasite and former Ambassador to Ireland Alvin Owsley was a founding member of the US legion. A native of Texas, he married the daughter of the Ball Corp family of Indiana, HQ of the legion. I suspect that Owsley knew Cason and that both played a role in the selection of the convention that would be designed to assert Dallas’ patriotism. The timing is ironic. The Owsleys had a large property in the area of the Cabell Dairy north of Dallas, as in Earl and Charles P. Cabell.

            Yes, I would sign my name to an inquiry of Mr. Wiliams.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            leslie, I can’t express how thankful I am for your help on this topic. It would take too long to explain exactly why. Suffice it to say your big picture and your details have perfected my picture of a huge part of the coup de 1963. All the bugs are worked out about what happened in TSBD.

            I haven’t had time to follow up on any of these specific new trails. The most important thing to me is that there is no shortage of candidates who could, at the direction of DH Byrd and his buddies, make sure that the sixth floor was perfect for the purposes of the atrocity. Without leaving any of the VIPs fingerprints. So they DID have plenty of means and opportunity along with their motives.

            I’m on my tenth re-write of that letter to Ray III. You say you’ll sign it. How about if I put somewhere something like, “Leslie Sharp — the coolest expert poster on the premiere JFK website, JFK Facts, and a Texan as well — says this inquiry is OK.”

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Leslie,
            Sorry I didn’t get back sooner. I’m kinda tied up on another forum that’s very educational, trying to find the best evidence that the throat (entrance), lung, and back (exit) wounds were caused by a shot from the South GK.

            First, the no-gos to your queries in your above post 11-5-15 approx 5 pm. I’m not aware of any TSBD offices in Dal-Tex. There WAS another TSBD warehouse on Elm not far away, where I get the idea that employees did not want to work because it was bleak and lonely. WB Frazier worked there for a little while and was relieved to transfer to the bigger place. I’ve always had the idea that Dal-Tex was fairly lousy with energy businesses: oil, gas, and even exotic uranium enterprises with some quasi-CIA.

            Here’s a big yes-go in my opinion. I haven’t yet googled OV Campbell and the other underlings of DH Byrd that you gave me. But while I was tracking down something unrelated, I came across this in the mostly execrable The Day Kennedy Was Shot by the entirely execrable Jim Bishop (pp 156-7): “Roy Truly left for lunch with his boss, Ochus V. Campbell. They stepped on the sidewalk and decided to watch, hoping that the motorcade wasn’t too far away.” As if these very busy honchos just happened to be there. Ho-hum. Studied casualness. Didn’t really care but may’s well stay and see what trips the hoi polloi’s trigger. Then a few lines down, the end of this mini-section, “As the Hertz sign on the Depository roof clicked to 12:15 [a Very Important Time in my book], the pigeons jumped in flight and circled Dealey Square, a peerless view unencumbered by people.”

            Leslie, do you think it’s possible that these pigeons were disturbed, just like they were disturbed by all the noise at 12:30, by the team(s) of snipers in TSBD making their final preparations and positions? I do.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Roy, according to Weston in this The Fourth Decade piece, Polk’s directory indicated that in 1962, the depository business and the publishing companies were still located at 501 Elm, the Dal-Tex Building. The same directory indicates that 411 Elm is vacant.

            Weston opines that the discrepancies (Truly says the company had only been in 411 Elm for a few months while a branch manager of MacMillan Publishing thought the move took place in ’57 or ‘58) indicate that the issue is a highly sensitive matter.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48681#relPageId=24

            I wouldn’t think of Cason or Campbell as being underlings of Byrd. I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that Byrd could not orchestrate this operation, at least not from what I have read about him. I’m far more inclined to study the tenants of 411 Elm including a number of the publishing companies.

            The pigeons’ reaction is fascinating, and I think Stone used it to good effect, didn’t he? Had they been perched near the Southeast corner, or on the roof near the Hertz sign?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Leslie,
            Ohmygosh. So the sister TSBD WAS in Dal-Tex at 501 Elm, right across the street, not TOO suspicious. I should have known that.
            So Jim Braden/Brading and his team had entree and cover in any number of places in Dal-Tex, not only the 2nd floor fire-escape window at the janitor’s closet, but, as Bob Harris now thinks, also in the the 3rd floor corner window. I still lean toward the 2nd floor window because of the flatter trajectory of the first shot that hit JFK’s head, grazing rt side around Z313, continuing on to put a big ding in the chrome windshield trim, then denting the back of the rearview mirror, and cracking the windshield. If that slug didn’t come from a low Dal-Tex floor, then it had to come from hungover George Hickey, waving his AR-15 around.

            Then two immediate shots: one to rt temple from NGK, one to left temple from SGK. Somewhat excised from Z film. (Sorry, Willy)

            “Byrd could not orchestrate this operation.” (?!) He didn’t have to do much. His buds Sid Murchison and the cuckoo Hunt family only had to tell him to make sure that a few of their guys had carte blanche at 411 and 501 Elm. “And make sure the sixth floor of the warehouse is a mess.” If memory serves, DHB was on his first African safari with some ex-Nazi when the American coup went down.

            The pigeons taking flight at (12:15 and) 12:30—yes it’s horribly…something, as Oliver Stone used effectively. I think it’s the soul of America taking flight and circling lo these almost 52 years. Those birds did return to their home. From what little I’ve seen of birds on a flat roof, they like a lot of cover for their nests, but they use it all.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            P.S. to l.s.: you and D.R. are feeding this old dog very well. I’m getting fat.

        • “I had read somewhere that the condition of the floors in the TSBD were so terrible, because of water damage, that the construction was planned months before the trip was even contemplated.”~Bill

          You had “read somewhere”??? Lol
          \\][//

      • Bill says:

        Leslie: Regarding your comments to me. My ‘argument holding water’? I was actually unaware they were drowning. Interesting?? My initial note to you was penned to help you come to a better understanding of the physical restrictions/situations of being a sniper up in that window.

        From you remark back to me, specifically regarding Oswald’s position, it was evident in the reading of your own remarks that you did not know the position Oswald was accused of maintaining as he shot. This is why I sent you my link to the SS Recreation. You responded with this note to me:

        “Thanks Bill, I must have missed your link. Will check it out. So, Oswald was sitting on a box – not the ground – and propping the rifle on a box as well?” It appeared that you did not know his firing position. Now you do. He was comfortable. He was sitting.

        To further help you understand the firing position: All you need to do is look at the film and watch the position of the Agent portraying Oswald. That should help clarify any questions about the physical nature and dynamics of Oswald firing that gun.

        You ask: When did Oswald set up the Nest? Well, he was responsible for filling 3 Work Orders for books on November 22nd, 1963 and didn’t fill a single one. So, I gather that gives him plenty to time to skulk around up there and prepare for the assassination. His clipboard was found very near to where his rifle was found on or about December 1st. This is where/why I mention his work output on that day. I don’t think he did checked off the box titled “Murder the 35th President of the US”.

        • Bill says:

          Further: Avoiding discussion?? What??? I would suggest you watch the video and understand that what you are looking at are actually two things: 1. A movie that was taken and put onto a projection screen. 2. A scope that approximated the view that Oswald had as he targeted the back of JFK’s head.

          When you mentioned the screen and movement the other day, of the ‘box’, I thought you were aware of the mechanics of the SS Recreation. Sorry about that. But I am not avoiding any part of the thread. Ok? Where did you develop that theory???

          The movements of the Rifle Scope CLEARLY show the ability of Oswald to track the President’s movement as if the viewer was physically in that window. You must have noticed that the movements of the scope tend to drift up/down/sideways…just as one would expect it to move. You must see that the President is tracked….left to right as the car passes below the window…AND…as it tracks further down Elm Street you can see the Scope follows the President’s head and begins to move upward as the car moved down-range (away from him in a straight line vs. left to right).

          • Bill says:

            Leslie: On Movements: While sitting down on the box and leaning forward to place JFK into the sights…Oswald need only have leaned slightly forward and let his arms slide across the boxes with hardly any movement North/South at all. Read that in EASY.

            The white ‘box’. No reason to be coy. It isn’t some attempt by unknown govt. conspirators to dupe the public. That ‘box’ was just put there because the engineer who put that demo together wanted to show almost exactly what the view would have been. There is no intent to deceive. The ‘box’ was a device that would block the viewers having to look at a ‘hand’ holding the gun just as the real box did that day.

            As to the measurements of the Boxes, there were 4 of them. The large box under the two roller boxes is the same dimension as the one making the base of the shooting support. Here are the Numbers:

            Under the window: 1 18 by 12 by 14 inches box which had been moved from a stack along the south wall (because other books bearing the same ID were left where they were supposed to be.

            On top of this ‘pedestal box’ was a small carton marked “Rolling Readers,” measuring approximately 13 by 9 by 8 inches.

            In front of this box, and sitting on the window and the wooden sill of the window was another, identical box In front of this small carton and resting partially on the window sill was another “Rolling Readers” carton and it measured 13 by 9 by 8 inches as well.

            The box that Oswald sat on was identical to the box, same dimensions, that made up the base of the shooting pedestal he created.

            All of these numbers are available in the WC Report.

            Hope it helps.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill, thanks for those measurements.

            I have more questions about the SS video if you will indulge.

            1) What about that box tilted against the bottom of the window frame that seems propped against the two boxes allegedly stacked to steady the rifle? It seems to be at a precarious tilt. Would a (skilled) shooter take the risk that box might collapse? Why did the SS include that 3rd box? Did they create a precise replica of how the authorities first witnessed the ‘nest’?

            2) Why doesn’t the reenactment depict Howlett leaning over as you have described. I can sort of follow your description but wouldn’t it have been easy enough for the SS to show us? I posit they didn’t because there is a problem.

            There are two instances of the film cutting abruptly before it could have revealed critical aspects to be considered in the investigation:

            3) The first, just after the triple underpass … the narrator has told us why the parade route passed thru a kill zone (my words not his), but just as we are about to view the exact portion of the curb that is the cause of that route, the film cuts to the next scene. We get a brief glimpse of the curb’s potential to impede, but we don’t see it fully. The narrator reassures us.

            4) The second is, just as the mock car disappears from sight from the sniper’s window, we can see the right hand window frame that may have obstructed vision let alone gunfire in those final seconds. We don’t know if it could have because the perspective we see in the film is thru a lens so we can’t determine precisely the rifle’s position in relation to the window. But the narrator assures us there were no impediments other than the tree as you argue. Was the SS able to determine precisely what moment that window frame obstructed a shooter’s vision OR the barrel pressing against the frame; it seems to me that would require some sophisticated calculation. The narrator reassures us what they say happened, happened, yet all we can see is the view thru a mock scope that has been mounted on a box and the box turns with the rifle.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Bill, before we get buried under the rubble and locked in those Chinese handcuffs, would you check out that SS video at minute 15:40 – 15:50. Try turning off the narration (which tells you what you are seeing) and describe what you see?

          • Bill says:

            Leslie: Ok. I did as precisely as you asked. I turned off the video and watched 15:40-15:50 of the SS Video Recreation of the JFK Assassination.

            What I was watching is the Limo moving away from the scene of the shooting. I saw the car beginning to make the long sweeping motion to the left to move down to Stemmons.

            May I ask what the purpose of watching the aftermath is about?

            I actually should preface that by saying that I had been up into the TSBD on a couple of trips and that I already was aware that the car was practically moving directly away from the 6th floor window at z 313. So it was apparent to me that I was just watching a car moving away?

            Your idea/thought?

  31. J.D. says:

    The fact that this argument is even happening, 52 years later, simply underscores how unlikely it is that the events of November 22, 1963, unfolded as the Warren Commission insisted they did.

    I’m reminded of something Vincent Salandria said to Gaeton Fonzi (as quoted in “The Last Investigation”): “My initial feeling was that if this were a simple assassination, as the Commission claimed, the facts would come together very neatly. If there were more than one assassin the details would not fit.”

    Lo and behold, the pieces did not fit. In order to defend the official story, one must hold fast to every single tenuous “fact” like a drowning man clinging to driftwood. One must argue that Oswald pulled off a once-in-a-lifetime shot, that Oswald was even in the sixth-floor window despite not being seen by a single credible witness, that Oswald made it to the second floor and got a Coke out of a vending machine within 90 seconds of shooting the president without appearing out of breath, that Oswald shot J.D. Tippit despite conflicting witness reports and credible evidence that he was elsewhere at the time, and that Oswald murdered the president for no reason and denied it to his dying breath.

    Defenders of the Warren Report may be able to cobble together elaborate explanations of the Single Bullet Theory, and they may be able to find “experts” willing to swear that President Kennedy’s head was flung violently backward by a shot coming from behind him. But they cannot banish the sheer implausibility of those arguments. Common sense rebels against them.

    • Charles says:

      EXACTLY RIGHT J.D.

      Regardless of all the merits and arguments, I find it so telling that the WC defenders are all so insistant that Oswald fired the only rifle and was acting alone when neither of those so called “facts” are actually provable. Their degree of certainty about anything is inverse to that which is reasonably doubtful.

  32. Bill says:

    But JD. It has been proven that the assassin could pull off those shots and in the time allowed. What makes it so difficult I have to ask?? What makes it a once-in-a-lifetime shot?

    How many people are actually witnessed killing another person anyway? Especially from a window 50 feet up or so, when all eyes (except those who saw a rifle in the window being fired) are on a man universally loved (almost I guess)…moving almost straight away?? In murder cases all over the world people are found innocent/guilt by those who listen to the evidence, understand it, put preconceptions out of their minds etc. Things like fingerprints. Suspicious Actions. Lying. No Alibi. etc. PO Boxes linked through handwriting samples from 3 separate parts of life and so on.

    It was demonstrated that Oswald was not out of breath to be sure. Good for him. But neither were the others who performed the feet as well…numerous times…under stop-watch times and filmed as proof.

    Oswald was elsewhere at the time? Witnesses??? He was followed into the Theater because of his suspicious actions every time a police car flew by.

    He did deny it for sure. Jails are full of innocent people..even today. But when he spoke to his brother. His OWN BROTHER…he gave him the cryptic response: “Brother. You won’t find anything there”. His own brother knows he did it.

    What gives people who just make statement after statement, about any rumor they can create, the inside track. Oh. I know. A complete lack of common sense.

    • Charles says:

      Bill, you are making a big mistake here…you think making a couple of point by point rebuttals about very debatable material in oceans of doubt changes ANYTHING?

      A jury could not convict Oswald, the WC was just to preserve the legitimacy of the government. Even if Dealey went according to how you think it did, it has no longer has an impact on the case for conspiracy as laid out by the likes of Morley, Simpich, Talbot, Hancock, Newman and many others before them.

      Before the internet, ballistic arguments were important to either support the case for conspiracy or refute it. With the internet, the ability to study, parse and collate so many documents has created a new and persuavive view of the political and logistical situation with gives greater weight to those suspicious of the WCs Dealey story.

      In 2015, NO ballistic arguments can disprove a political conspiracy, but the emergent political case is certainly undermining the WC’s work and by extension their ballistic argument.

      Because the case for political conspiracy has grown exponentially in the last two decades, it has only fueled greater doubts about the mechanics of the assasination. The true certifible facts about Dealey may never be known and it wont matter one damn bit…what matters is what officials did before and after in these circumstances and that is what will create the historical concensus that Oswald really was just a patsy.

      • Bill says:

        Charles. Actually the idea is to debate what is fact and fiction. Isn’t it?

        Your notion that a jury ‘could not convict…..’ is not relevant here. We have no way to evaluate if Oswald would have been convicted. I will say yes…you will say no. Ok. Done.

        Most here think that I am a LN guy. This is totally untrue. I actually believe that Oswald and Ruby and members of the DPD and Organized Crime had their hands in this mess. I just feel the LHO was the man behind the gun.

        As to the question of CIA, FBI, culpability. Nope. I won’t play in that park. I will continue to think they were screwed over by their own relationships with Murder Inc. and, AFTER the FACT, decided to be coy as to what the various departments were up to. I think we call it today, Accessory after the fact.

        Anyway. Peace.

    • Yup, that anecdote cinches it Bill, “Oswald was the long gunman!” You proved it right there… (grin)
      \\][//

    • Fearfaxer says:

      You are assuming that Lee and Robert Oswald were close. They were not. When Robert saw Lee in jail on 11-22-63, it was the first time he’d seen him in exactly one year. They’d been together the previous Thanksgiving, which in 1962 fell on November 22. Robert was also shocked to discover that Marina had had another baby.

      Once Robert left home to join the Marines in the summer of 1952 (when Lee was not yet 13), it is obvious that the brothers could not have spent much time together, especially once Lee himself joined the Marines in 1956. Then there was Lee’s almost 3 year stay in the USSR. By late 1963, the two men were not much more than amiable strangers.

    • bogman says:

      Never knew what to make of that comment. For me, it was either of these two:

      *My soul is dead, I killed for no reason.

      or

      *I didn’t have anything to do with it, so you won’t find any hint of knowledge or guilt in my eyes.

      One other possibility could be:

      *I’m a trained intelligence asset. I don’t give up secrets.

      • Bill says:

        Totally true. That I certainly agree with. See? Civility works! Pass it on to Willy. But please say it slowly to him. LOL.

        But I’m going to rule out the second reason. …or a total nut-job.

    • J.D. says:

      Bill — The Single Bullet seemed implausible enough to John Connally (who always insisted that he had been struck by a separate bullet) and, apparently, Lyndon Johnson. This is all subjective, of course, but I don’t think it’s going too far to say that the Single Bullet shot seems fantastic to a lot of people.

      When it comes to Oswald and the stairs, what has always struck me as strange is not so much that Oswald would not be out of breath after running down several flights of stairs as that he would remain calm, unflustered, and unemotional after shooting the president. Oswald’s total composure over the next two days, visible in all of the clips, seems extremely strange to me if we assume that he was the guy who had just murdered the president.

      The Robert Oswald anecdote seems ambiguous at best to me. Whatever Lee meant by “You won’t find anything there,” I highly doubt that he meant “I did it because I’m a heartless sociopath.” If anything, it seems more likely that Lee was telling Robert not to try to find evidence of guilt in his face because he was maintaining his innocence.

  33. Gary Aguilar says:

    Doubts about Dr. Guinn’s NAA were perhaps first raised in 1982 by historian Michael Kurtz, Ph.D. in his book, “Crime of the Century.” (p. 180-1)

    In a 1998 Skeptic Magazine article, Stanford Linear Accelerator physicist, Arthur Snyder, Ph.D., showed that Dr. Guinn’s NAA statistics were fatally flawed. file:///F:/Snyder%20and%20Snyder,%20Skeptic%20magazine,%20Case%20Still%20open.pdf

    As mentioned, in 2006 acclaimed metallurgist Erik Randich, Ph.D and accomplished NAA authority Pat Grant, Ph.D. crushed Guinn’s case for two bullets, concluding that NAA could neither match the fragments to one another nor even show that the smaller fragments came from MCC ammunition.

    In 2007, a team lead by noted statistician, Texas A&M Professor Cliff Spiegelman, Ph.D. and Mr. William Tobin, a forensic metallurgist at the FBI Laboratory for 24 years (12 as the de facto Chief Forensic Megallurgist ), finally buried Dr. Guinn’s claims about NAA and JFK, once and for all. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf

    • Photon says:

      I feel like I have to channel Paul Harvey when responding to Dr. Aguilar . From the ” Science-Texas A&M University” newsletter dated Nov.14, 2013:
      ” Speigelman and his team of researchers… examined 30 of the same brand of bullets from 3 boxes and found that one of 10 examined from a box of 20 match assassination fragments. So whereas Guinn essentially claimed a zero out of 100 chance of matching bullets ( not true, the chance was quoted as 2-3%-Ptn.) the reality based on just a batch the researchers analyzed was closer to 10 out of a hundred, SPIEGELMAN SAID.
      ” So we’re not saying that there is no value to the science…but simply that it was overstated”
      I guess so. Instead of a 3% chance of a match, Siegelman states that there was a 10% chance of a match. So an increase of 7% buries the data that even Spiegelman finds valuable? By the way, Spiegelman has gone on record stating that he believes Oswald was the lone assassin.
      And THAT is the rest of the story.

  34. Bill says:

    Roy. Thanks for the comment. Whenever I read about Hickory Hill I always recall the photo of Robert Kennedy and kids holding each other in responding to the news! I laugh now about something else. Given Kennedy was a ladies man through and though….I always told my mother, years later of course…he was just flirting with her!! Ha!

  35. Bill says:

    Stevie. For someone who didn’t give a darn….you sure spent a lot of time explaining. Again. I’m sorry to have ruffled your feathers. Please accept my apology.

  36. Bill says:

    JD: I read your note with interest. I may have to break my theory down into a couple of segments because it requires a bit of writing/space. Please bear with it. Thanks.
    JD. I always thought the single bullet theory was bogus as well. Then I changed my mind.

    May I ask why John Connally seems to think it’s implausible. I mean, from reading the testimony of the Governor, His Wife, they seem to be describing the same thing. It’s pretty clear that Mrs. Kennedy and Gov. Connolly are speaking of the same moment when they became aware of a the first shot.

    Mrs. Kennedy’s last normal reaction on Elm Street is visible in the CROFT Photo. She stated that she was looking off to the left (and this is visible on the Zapruder Film) and when you combine what she says she was doing, and read Connally’s statement about what he says he did (and this is also visible on the Zapruder Film) we have a decent starting point.

    At Frame 161 Mrs. Kennedy has turned so far to her left was to be looking behind her and backward. Governor Connally is looking forward at the last possible time he does this before he begins to do as he described.

    Either unfortunately or fortunately, at frame 161 branches from the tree do suddenly obscure the view of JFK as they suddenly jump into the sight (IF Oswald were to be using the scope) as he would be tracking the vehicle from left to right.

    In my opinion this is why the first shot misses. If you use 161 as the start time and progress forward…..JFK and Connally are in perfect position to be shot by the same projectile, given their movements at 224.

    I guess my question has to do with this: Why does what John Connally have anything to say about this situation. Had his back to the President so anything he may feel about a separate bullet is literally just his guess.

    The fact is that he did place himself into a position to be injured just as he was. Right down to the tumbling bullet hole in his jacket.

  37. Bill says:

    JD 2:
    JD. Try this for me. Ok? I’m serious: I’m sitting here at my desk with both my hands on my keyboard. My right hand is resting on the spacebar. Connally, of course was in a jump seat and his hands were probably very close to the position of his chest/sternum. Maybe your hands are in the same position as well. Ok. Let’s start:

    1. Pretend that you are Connally for a few seconds. Make believe you hear a startling sound from over your right shoulder.

    (you begin to turn to the right to see what is going on. This is frame 161).

    2. You don’t see Kennedy so you begin to turn your body/torso to look back into the limo.

    (you begin to lean slightly backward…maybe 6-8 inches as you keep scanning).

    3. Now you are convinced that this is an Assassination Attempt. So now you really start to turn your torso.

  38. Bill says:

    JD 3:(you now are sitting there….leaning backward and turning. Did you notice what you did with your right hand?) I’m willing to bet that you moved your hand upward toward your right chest..so the top of your wrist is almost touching your right chest/nipple area. All this happens between frame 161 and 223. You turn with your right hand like this because your not really anchored to anything as you sit in that car with your knees so awkwardly raised.

    4. Now you are totally lined up to be injured in the same position Governor Connally was. I’m willing to bet that you can turn, lean, and move your wrist into this position simply to see what the noise was behind you….let alone to get a better look at JFK. You are at frame 224 and you are practically, for all intents and purposes, lined up facing Abraham Zapruder’s camera.

    (and when you are getting your best look…fully exposed….you will be shot under the right shoulder area and the bullet will exit your chest and puff out your jacket, enter your wrist….and then continue down to slam into your left thigh, just above your knee). This is because your knees are so much higher because you sitting in a jump seat.

    Anyway…this practical test is what makes the SBT not impractical at all. Forget Posner, Myers, etc. If you do the experiment it’s the position you’ll be in. Simply trying to see what is going on behind you.

  39. Bill says:

    JD 4.
    About the stairs. Nobody who has ever done the movements from the window to the stairs has ever been winded. He didn’t have to run. Just move along. As for the emotional part: He was a calm and collected duck to be sure. He could spin and this is evidenced in his interview after his arrest in New Orleans on some TV interview. Just keeping on the subject. But he wasn’t unflustered JD. He went off on Hosty when Hosty entered the Capt. Office. He was flustered at the lineup. But we also agree to see things differently on this score..and that is fine.

    When his own brother asked the question his response shows his mind-set. If it were you or I and we were innocent of this crime the roof would be blown off. This guy finds time to quote Byron???

    He wouldn’t answer the question for a reason. Anyway…I appreciate your remark on this. But if you do try the experiment….let me know what you thought (just in case it works out that you find yourself in the exact position of Connally at 161-224.

    Thanks.

    • J.D. says:

      Bill — thanks for your intriguing comments. We may have to disagree on our interpretation of Oswald’s motives, but that’s OK. You’ve given me a lot to chew on re: the Single Bullet Theory. I may have to get back to you with a more detailed answer later.

      Like many of the people posting here (I suspect), I’ve tried watching the Zapruder film frame by frame on YouTube numerous times to try to figure out exactly what happened, but it’s hard to watch the thing too often without feeling nauseous.

      • Bill says:

        No Problem JD. I hope you can just get a more complete picture of the actual movements, beginning at 161 (as the Limo reached the branches of the tree and the exact time Mrs. Kennedy and Governor Connally say they began to respond to a gunshot). For me this starts the clock ticking. It is just odd to note that Connally and Mrs. Kennedy are both doing exactly what they said they were doing (responding to a shot/noise).

        JD…I also wanted to mention this. IF (if ever) you do the experiment, I would like to preface it by saying that I have done this experiment with about 15 others and, almost to a person (male and female) they all react the same way. In our study we wanted to know ‘Why’? What were the environmental factors in play?

        Each of them responded to 2 different test scenarios. In the first one (what we called our ‘blind study’, they were not allowed to put their hands on any other solid object in front of them (i.e.-another chair or hand-hold) and to be sure they they were in their lap(s). In the second one they all were told to listen and then to turn around and respond to the sound and identify the color of the tie (that I was wearing) while holding onto the seat in front of them.

        In experiment number one, with no hand-holds, they all had to move their body the same way and, remarkably, all of them assumed the same position as Connally at 200 to 224. In the second one, with something to anchor them, they all responded much more quickly to the input (and yes they knew it was going to happen…but I was measuring movement times and not the movements.

        In any event, I just wanted to clear the air about the time frame beginning with frame 161 (Mrs. Kennedy’s testimony regarding her movement from looking almost backward over her left shoulder (visible in the Croft Photo) at the ‘shot’…and Gov. Connally’s movements based upon his testimony regarding his movement at the same time.

        I’m pretty certain they are both congruous and clearly describe the startle response of the party beginning with Zapruder frame 161.

        I am interested in learning from your response if you try the experiment. Thanks.

        Lastly, JD. Nobody can ever know Oswald’s motives. He was, as his own wife said, a ‘nut’. He was prone to lying about practically everything in his life. But, even with that being the case. It is what it is. Right? So….take your time and let me know what you were thinking.

        I actually would like to discuss movements of people vs. theory to a large degree. I mean to come across as simply physical reactions of people to stimuli are easy to discuss vs. position. Ok?

        Thanks!

  40. Bill says:

    Photon. I did enjoy a good laugh at your note the other night. I was working on a redesign for ergonomic comfort environmental system ( ECES) but I did take the time to read your note. I completely understand. I liken the mentality as to that of the little creatures from the movie Gremlin. I think they may have done it!! Why not??? Every other possibility has been embraced. Again. Thanks and Happy Holiday Season.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      I also enjoyed a good laugh when I read your post that you believe that LHO and Ruby and the Mafia and I think you also said the DPD was in on the assassination. Could/can you provide any documentation for your “theory?” Because as you may or may not know, the WO could find no “link” between any of the individuals that you mentioned in your post. As a matter of fact, the great WO report could also find no motive for LHO to shoot the president. I cannot remember the name of the man on the WO, but I believe his comments were “we dodged the question of motive.”

      If you can provide concrete evidence that links these actors together, please be so kind as to forward it to Langley first, and then out to David Slawson, still alive and kicking in California. Because he would probably like the chance to re-write the WO trash, with the help of your “insight.” Because, as you are well aware, all of the CT people on this site LOVE a good conspiracy! It sets them on fire!

      As far as not “playing in that park,” feel free to play in any park you wish. However, you may wish to head to Constitution Park, and find the part that allows our democracy to engage in what you call Murder Inc? I can’t seem to find the part where the CIA is allowed to overthrow democratically elected governments because they refuse to be prostituted out to American big business—please see Honduras and the United Fruit Company.

      I will not be drawn into a war of insults with you. You have your views, which are welcome here. I have my views as well. They are not similar, which, I believe, is still okay in this country. I am going to continue to respectfully disagree with almost everything in and around the WO. I have studied this topic since 1979, which was the first time I set foot in the TSBD.

      You can share your view about LHO and the sniper’s nest, and the fact that LHO knew Jack Ruby, or whatever else you wish to share. However, you need not be disrespectful to people who disagree with you.

  41. Tim Nickerson says:

    Willy Whitten,

    Ah, so simple unfounded conjecture is all it takes for you to hand-wave the fact that it is indeed part of the record.
    ===================================================================

    It is not unfounded conjecture. Frazier told us himself that he never got home until sometime on Sunday and then he only got 5 hours of sleep before starting again. Also, we know for a fact that some of the other “times” that Frazier scribbled on the sheet of paper are erroneous as well. Like the “Rec’d from Sibert and O’Neill}1:45pm” for example. We know from the White House Garage Logs, and from a schematic of the limo that Frazier drew and notated, that he was in the White House Garage at 1:45pm.

    Q1 was never anything other than the bullet that was given the CE399 designation. We have the envelop signed by Todd and initialed by Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. We have the official FBI documentation that states that Todd personally identified his marking on CE399 in 1964. We have the initials of Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham that can still be seen on the bullet today. And we have Frazier testifying under oath that CE399 was the same bullet that Elmer Todd handed over to him on Nov 22, 1963. How to you get around that? You can’t. You just ignore it.

    • David Regan says:

      A July 7th 1964 FBI memorandum states that on June 24th 1964, Agent Elmer Lee Todd showed CE 399 to Richard Johnsen and James Rowley who told the FBI that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. The memo is corroborated by a June 24th 1964 memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
      http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6.GIF

      Elmer Lee Todd based his identification of the bullet on his initials being on it but an examination of the bullet doesn’t show them. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430
      http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image005.jpg

      Darrell C. Tomlinson was never shown CE 399 and asked to identify it by the Warren Commission and neither O. P. Wright, Elmer Lee Todd, or Special Agent Richard Johnsen were ever called to testify. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35&relPageId=138
      http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix5.html

      A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”
      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86

      • “They’ll wear you down” — Vince Salandria.”

        And that is precisely what we are witnessing here with this endless carousel. We offer sound refutation of the WC cult’s arguments, and they simply claim that we haven’t. These are not on subjective matters either; but on points of fact. Such as the points pertaining to the broken chain of custody for CE 399.

        Who were the “They” that Salandria was speaking to in that quote? Obviously he is speaking to the tactics of the stooges and dupe buying the Warren Commission nonsense. I don’t think a single person on this site hasn’t identified who these agenteur are. They shine Klieg-lights on themselves by the content of their dialog.

        (As to decorum I make these remarks as a matter of my personal opinion]
        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          “They’ll wear you down”. How true. Reminds me of the famous line from one of JFK’s favorite poems “and I have miles to go before I sleep”.
          Bill, not being a researcher myself but having read much of their work over many years I think many who post or read here would disagree with you over the first shot missing. You refer to the Z film. The first inkling on it that JFK is wounded is him raising his arms and hands toward his throat where the highly experienced doctors in Truama room one observed an entrance wound.
          Regarding your statement about Connally “The fact is that he did place himself into a position to be injured just as he was”. No, that’s not a fact. JFK placed him where he was in the Presidential Limo. Connally placed himself under the protection of the United States Secret Service as a result. And they failed miserably. Quite likely a couple of them intentionally. Read Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt”.
          Apologies on OUR behalf to Jeff and Tom S. for diverging somewhat from the thread subject of ballistics.

        • Let’s get beyond the disinginuous merry-go-round the WC cult is cranking out here; and move on to more evidence that their “magic bullet – CE399” is a crock of bovine excrement. This will be 1 of several so as not to go over word limit:

          The Warren Commission ignored their own expert witnesses when they concluded that “All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor’s stretcher could have caused all his wounds:

          Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy’s head in Exhibit No. 388?
          Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.

          Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?

          Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

          Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?

          Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.

          Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399.

          Commander HUMES. 399, sir.

          http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
          \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            Humes thought it was unlikely. He was wrong. Wound ballistics was not his area of expertise.

            http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy291/kegeshook/facklerbullet.jpg

            The above bullet had been fired into a human wrist during tests by Failure Analysis Associates in 1992. They had reduced the powder charge in order to decrease it’s velocity.

            “The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE 399.” — Dr. Martin Fackler (Live by the Sword, by Gus Russo)

            They don’t know the exact velocity that CE399 was traveling at when it hit Connally’s wrist. They approximated it to be 900 f/s. That approximation was made after a series of tests. The Fackler bullet was traveling at 1100 f/s.

          • Nickerson,

            I have read Dr. Martin Fackler’s flawed arguments base on his flawed experiments before. And this was discussed at great length on another thread on JFKfacts sometime last year.

            Again, I will not be digging up that thread for you. You and Photon fail to see that your “Magic Bullet Theory” has been dealt a decisive (final) blow. It makes any orbiting argument moot. CE399 was a planted bullet.

            The facts of this matter go beyond simply disregarding the Chain of Custody as unreliable. The facts prove chicanery, and fraudulence by the authorities who produced this slug. The authorities, acting under color of law are accessories after the fact; and may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

            As this is a case of First Degree Murder, there is no statute of limitations. Charges could be brought today some fifty years after the fact and be within the jurisdiction of prosecution on a state and federal level.

            In fact those who continue to attempt this cover-up today are liable to the same charges.
            That includes several of the commentators on this very thread.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Totally in keeping with the known stability of the Carcano round, a characteristic not well publicized in 1964.
            Unfortunately some CTers are still aware of the true physical properties of the round-or prefer to close their eyes.

        • Continued:

          Colonel Finck was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Medical Corps. He obtained his medical degree at the University of Geneva Medical School in Switzerland in 1948. He experienced 4 years of training in pathology after his internship, 2 years, including 2 years of pathology at the University Institute of Pathology in Geneva, Switzerland, and 2 years at the University of Tennessee Institute of Pathology in Memphis, Tenn. He was in the Army since 1955. From 1955 to 1958, he performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma, including missile wounds, while stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, personally reviewing all the cases forwarded by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and forces overseas, totalling approximately 400 cases. Finck was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.

          Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?

          Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

          http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

          \\][//

          • bogman says:

            Pretty damning to anyone claiming a single shooter with a straight face.

            And from the sacred scroll itself!

          • Photon says:

            Finck never examined Connolly’s wrist. He apparently was unaware that the operative surgeon described the fragments to be of ” postage stamp weight”.

          • bogman says:

            The authorities didn’t even ask to examine Connally’s clothes until AFTER they were dry-cleaned a month later. What makes you think they’d let anyone examine his wrist?

            At some point, so many “mistakes” in an investigation look like pure skullduggery.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            ============================================
            Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
            =============================================

            Did Finck even ever see the fragments? He certainly wasn’t the one who removed them from Connally. Let’s take a look at what Dr. Gregory had to say about them:

            ARLEN SPECTER — “Will you describe, as specifically as you can, what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?”

            DR. CHARLES GREGORY — “I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in diameter. And each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes…flakes of metal.”
            ….
            DR. CHARLES GREGORY — “A fragment of metal, again microscopic, measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by two millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half-inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.”

            ARLEN SPECTER — “What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?”

            DR. GREGORY — “This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts. Not much more than that.”
            ——

            Dr Gregory removed four fragments from the wrist. He left one tiny fragment in the wrist. It was about the size of the smallest fragment that he removed.

            CE-399 weighed 158.6 grains. That’s almost 3 grains less than a WCC bullet weighed by Robert Frazier. One grain is equivalent to 64.8 milligrams. The density of lead is about 11.35 g/cc. In total there were 6 fragments; 4 removed, 2 left in Connally. If we were to say that all six fragments each had the dimensions of the largest dimensions given by Gregory – that being 0.5mm x 2mm – the total mass of the fragments still won’t add up to 3 grains.

            After converting mm to cm:

            .05 x 0.7854 x (0.2^2) = 0.0015708cc

            0.0015708cc x 6 = 0.0094248

            0.0094248cc x 11.35g/cc = 0.10697148 grams

            0.10697148 grams is 107 milligrams
            ——————————————-

            Three grains is equivalent to 194.4 milligrams. As you can see, there’s plenty of room left over. And that’s using dimensions for the fragments that are exaggerated for effect. Three of the fragments removed are considerably smaller than the largest one.

            Here are the fragments removed from Connally:

            http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy291/kegeshook/CE842.gif

          • David Regan says:

            According to a memorandum from Melvin A. Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff regarding a meeting on April 14th 1964, “the bullet recovered from the Governor’s stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

            According to a memorandum from Melvin A. Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff regarding a meeting on April 21st 1964, Dr. F.W. Light, Jr., Deputy Chief of the Biophysics Division and Chief of the Wound Assessment Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland and Dr. Joseph Dolce, Consultant to the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, “expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally’s stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion.” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

            According to the testimony of Commander James Humes to the Warren Commission, CE 399 did not cause the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally because of the amounts of bullet fragmentation found on their respective X-rays and the lack of damage to the bullet. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=382

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, and Johnsen could not positively identify CE399 as being the bullet that they handled. And it’s perfectly understandably why they couldn’t do so. None of them had actually marked the bullet. However, Todd did mark the bullet and was able to positively identify it as being the bullet that he received from Rowley and then passed on to Frazier. That alone would be enough to satisfy a chain of custody requirement. The letter from Johnsen, the envelop received and signed by Todd and initialed by Frazier, Killion and Cunningham, and the sworn testimony of Frazier make the chain of custody a slam dunk.

        • “Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, and Johnsen could not positively identify CE399 as being the bullet that they handled. And it’s perfectly understandably why they couldn’t do so. None of them had actually marked the bullet.”~Tim Nickerson

          No Nickerson, it is because the bullet they handled looked NOTHING like CE399 It was pointed and unjackeded; nowhere near the breadth or length of CE399. See:

          http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4_thumb.jpg

          \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            No Nickerson, it is because the bullet they handled looked NOTHING like CE399 It was pointed and unjackeded; nowhere near the breadth or length of CE399. See:

            http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4_thumb.jpg
            ===========================================

            Uncorroborated hogwash.

          • David Regan says:

            In an interview in November 1966, O. P. Wright said about the bullet found, “that bullet had a pointed tip” and when shown pictures of CE 399 said that they did not look like the bullet found that day. Wright was a former Dallas police detective and was familiar with looking at bullets. http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_edn9

            Nathan Pool, an employee of the Otis Elevator Company, was interviewed in 1977 by Belford V. Lawson of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and said that he was present when the bullet was discovered and described the bullet as bronze, long, pointed, and smooth. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48684#relPageId=48

          • The “Uncorroborated hogwash” Mr Nickerson, is that there is a solid chain of custody for CE 399.

            It is necessary to be redundant here in pointing out the first four people to handle the bullet found in Parkland will not identify it as CE399, that is the bottom line.

            And as far as “Uncorroborated” is concerned; David Regan noted earlier, Nathan Pool saw the Parkland bullet and described it as, “as bronze, long, pointed, and smooth.”

            This is distinct from the round nose full metal jacket slug on exhibit as #399, that has very obvious deep rifling grooves.

            At some point Mr Nickerson, you are going to have to put an end to this endless carousel, and admit that the first and proximate points in the chain of custody of the Parkland, prove it is not CE399. Thus, the Magic Bullet is a plant, a fraud, and a sham. Like most everything else asserted in the Warren Report.
            \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Are you claiming that one of the biggest conspiracy claims about the ” Magic Bullet” is simply a misunderstanding about the actual facts of the case?
          The next thing that you will tell me is that forty years of conspiracy dogma related to the Harper Fragment is based on it being found at a spot yards away from where the discoverer actually found it.
          Or that it is not impossible to get off 3 shots with a Cacano in 5.6 seconds-as proved in the movie “JFK “.
          Or that it is not impossible for a Carcano bullet to remain undamaged despite penetrating 3 feet of a substance as hard as wood that has been proven to disrupt other similar military rounds.
          Or that a statistical study of Neutron activation data iwhich has been claimed to prove that NA is inaccurate actually proves that instead of being accurate to a measure of 98% it is only accurate to a measure of-90%.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Could it be possible that a “cold-blooded” and “lone nut” crazed killer, intent on changing the “course of the world,” the one who missed the easiest of the three “alleged shots” may have not pulled the trigger at all?

            “No one has been able to prove that man fired that gun from that building.” Jesses Curry, ACTUAL “investigator” of the crime of the century, which happened on HIS watch, in 1969.

          • bogman says:

            The Harper fragment. You mean the one a separate medical facility from Parkland identified as being from the blow-out region of the head Parkland doctors had described?

            And that the FBI then “LOST”? That Harper fragment?

          • “Why has there been no confirmation of this story in 49 years, nor any other independent source stating that Wright ever made a similar claim?”
            ~Photon

            We have confirmation that none of the four primary witnesses were able to confirm the bullet found at Parkland was C399 in a memo from the FBI.
            You have seen that memo as we all have seen that memo.

            I don’t have a copy of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS. This is where the content of that interview was drawn for that article. This was published in 1966.

            “Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

            “Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

            “Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”

            It is not Thompson that has changed his story over the years Photon, it is the authorities changing their stories over the years to cover their collective asses, that should concern all of us.

            Regardless of all else the first 4 individuals to handle the Parkland Bullet refused to identify it as CE399. Live with it.
            \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          As Bill Simpich demonstrates, competent defense counsel could point out enough holes in the state’s case on this matter: http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Oh, Tim, you haven’t changed a bit!

          Are you seriously suggesting the only reason Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley could not identify CE399 as the bullet the had seen on 22/11/63 is because they had not put their own identifying mark on it?

          Seriously?

          • It is rather astonishing isn’t Mr Prodhumme?

            CE399 is some 3 inches long and has a round nose. The one Wright pulled out of his desk and showed Josiah Thompson is no longer than a single inch and has a pointed tip. The photo of it next to a key that Thompson took while with Wright has been offered here plenty of times.
            Anyone who seriously proposes that anybody could mistake the two slugs is…well, either delusional, disingenuous or both.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Oh, Tim, you haven’t changed a bit!

            Are you seriously suggesting the only reason Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley could not identify CE399 as the bullet the had seen on 22/11/63 is because they had not put their own identifying mark on it?

            Seriously?
            =========================================

            Hi Bob,

            You haven’t replied to my previous post to you in this discussion. How come?

            And yes Bob, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

            Seriously.

          • “And yes Bob, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
            Seriously.”~Nickerson

            You stand on this untenable position even though it is firmly established that the slug found in Parkland was a pointed unjacketed dull lead bullet, easily distinguishable from the round nosed shiny jacketed CE399.
            “Seriously” … quite telling.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Both Tomlinson and Wright stated on June 12, 1964 that the slug (CE399) looked similar to the one discovered on Nov. 22, 1963. They simply were not confident that it was the exact same round.
            I have noted a rather disturbing pattern here. Tink Thompson is the source for the O.P. Wright pointed round story, but there is no transcript of the conversation that he claimed took place. There is no recording of it. Why would Thompson have brought a camera to the interview? There is not a single piece of information aside from Thompson’s claim that this interview took place. There isn’t a single piece of evidence that Wright ever made a similar claim to anybody else.or showed anybody the pointed .30 cal round.as a matter of fact, if you google O.P. Wright, you not find a single source that references this story that isn’t based solely on Thompson’s claim
            We see the exact same situation with the claim that Hargis was “struck with such force that he thought he was hit” Every story that references that claim has the same source-Tink Thompson. Hargis never said it to anybody else-and actually described running into debris, not being struck by it.Where is the transcript of this statement, or even a similar claim from a different source?
            Thompson’s claim of a shot from the front is based on a colossal mistake-the belief that the Harper fragment was found 25 feet to the left of the kimo’s position at the time of the head shot.But his source,Harper’s uncle actually said that it was found 25 feet to the SOUTH which would have put it ahead of the limo. Of course Harper himself puts the location where he picked up the piece of skull far to the front of the limo.
            Thompson has always pushed his comments to the edge of credibility. It has obviously been a good living But I didn’t realize that too many of his claims have no independent variation-leading me to question his whole line of claims.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon,
            Your concerns seem rather narrow and you may owe an apology to someone who you tactfully question the motive and integrity of.
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_ednref10
            The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
            Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
            ……
            Summary
            …..
            “….What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.

            In June, 1967, CBS News broadcast a four part news investigation. CBS commissioned Stephen White to chronicle this CBS News report broadcast in four segments over four evenings, in the form of a book titled, “Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?” Although the author included transcripts of telecasts of interviews of some Warren Commission witnesses, in the case of the telecast of a brief interview of O.P. Wright, only a reference to Wright’s statement (pg. 91) was included, but it seems consistent with Josiah Thompson’s representation of his Wright quotes in the same era.:
            The single-bullet theory has come under attack for still another reason. At Parkland Hospital, under circumstances in which the Report itself did little to make clear, a nearly intact bullet was found after the President and the Governor were carried to the emergency rooms. In the broadcast the manner in which the bullet was found is fully related. It is an interesting story, and one that does no credit to the Secret Service…..” Video of O.P. Wright’s 1967, CBS News interview.:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNP1kz2PJA#
            O.P. Wright’s statement gives little indication he gave the bullet he handed over to a Secret Service
            agent a close, visual inspection. According to Wright, the bullet was in his possession for less than an hour, most of the time in his pocket. He stated that neither he nor the Secret Service agent even exchanged names.

          • Photon says:

            Tom, I appreciate your comments. I actually think that the passage you have written vindicates my concern. “O.P. Wright’s statement gives little indication he gave the bullet he handed over to a Secret Service agent a close, visual inspection.” I have reviewed the YouTube video and agree with that conclusion. And yet Tink Thompson claims that Wright examined the round so closely that he determined that it was a pointed-nosed .30 cal bullet ( NOT a complete round) similar to one he conveniently keep in a drawer. Now why would a hospital security chief have a pointed rifle bullet ( not even a complete round) in his hospital office drawer? Was he reloading .30 caliber rounds in his office in his spare time? It doesn’t make sense. Coupled with the fact that there is no record anywhere that Wright made a similar statement to anybody else and the fact that on June 12, 1964 he went on public record stating that CE399 resembled the round found at Parkland on Nov. 22 we appear to have a serious contradiction-and even more so if he only gave the round a cursory examination. All we have to confirm Thompson’s claim is-Thompson’s claim. In nearly 50 years there has been no independent evidence to prove the story.Why is that?
            It is the same thing with the Hargis story. The whole scenario of Hargis saying that he was struck “with such force that he thought that he was hit” is contradicted at least 3 times by descriptions of the incident by Hargis himself.Can Thompson point out where Hargis made the statement? Can Thompson give us any evidence that he has a transcript of an interview where he said it? Or is that statement merely Thompson’s interpretation of the event? Why would he make a claim without anything to back it up?
            The 1967 Thompson interview on YouTube is also interesting. His medical knowledge is limited and apparently he does not understand that the autopsy is the final determinant of bullet wound direction in firearms murders. However, he bases his belief that the headshot came from the front in large part because of where skull fragments were found. He initially correctly states that the fragment was described as being found 25 feet south of the limo’s position at the time of the head shot.But then he brings up the claim that it was found 25 feet to the left. As the limo was going southwest that description is not accurate.Why would he do that? Of course this whole line of reasoning has been rendered obsolete since 1997 when Hargis posted the position of where he found the fragment on a map – several feet in front of where the limo was positioned for the head shot. Has Thompson ever brought up this discrepancy in any of his presentations since? Does he still base his claim for a frontal head shot on the erroneous position of the Harper fragment? Why?

          • Taking note of the argumentum verbosium made by
            Photon -November 7, 2015 at 7:16 am;

            I have just a few remarks. the first is that just a cursory glance at the Parkland Bullet is sufficient for anyone paying even the vaguest attention a smaller pointed tipped unjacketed slug.
            And second, and with finality, despite anything said by the WC apologists, the first 4 steps in the chain of custody are nonexistent.

            The Parkland Bullet is not CE399. Whatever CE399 is, it cannot honestly be said to be the bullet found at Parkland.
            The implications of this are staggering for anyone paying attention.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, do you have any evidence that the bullet pictured as Wright’s pointed bullet actually IS wright’s pointed bullet?
            Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?
            Remember, Thompson NEVER showed Wright a Carcano bullet, only PICTURES of it.
            Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”.
            But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.
            So I ask you ( and others) : how can Tink Thompson be possibly credible on this issue? How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?
            Why hasn the CT community looked into the accuracy of Dr. Thompson’s claims instead of a 45 year history of celebratiing his excellence as a researcher and accepting those claims despite an absence of corroborating evidence to support those claims? These are questions that I am sure CTers do not want to address, but the truth is a hard mistress.

          • “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”~Photon

            You claim the picture of the pointed bullet next to a key is “exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet”

            What picture of the Carcano has “exactly this type of background”?

            There were two other witnesses with Thompson when he interviewed Tomlinson, and he repeated what he had told Thompson while they were there with him.
            You keep asserting that Thompson has given contradictory stories, insinuating that he is a liar. I see no grounds for this; other than perhaps the facts he has brought forth spoil your day.
            \\][//

          • EDIT
            “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”~Photon

            You claim the picture of the pointed bullet next to a key is “exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet”

            What picture of the Carcano has “exactly this type of background”?

            There were two other witnesses with Thompson when he interviewed Wright, and he repeated what he had told Thompson while they were there with him.
            You keep asserting that Thompson has given contradictory stories, insinuating that he is a liar. I see no grounds for this; other than perhaps the facts he has brought forth spoil your day.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Where are the so-called witnesses? Do they have names?
            Why has there been no confirmation of this story in 49 years, nor any other independent source stating that Wright ever made a similar claim?

          • He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”. But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose..”~Photon

            No he did not state the it was a 30-30. he states it was a 30 cal. – I made the mistake of saying he said 30-30 – we have already been through this with Bob Prudhomme.

            >>Note to TOM S. can your remove my first comment that is a repeat of what I say before the one with EDIT? I just needed to replace Tomlison with Wright. Thanks, Willy
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            To quote the HSCA Critics Conference of 17 Sept 1977-as reported on JFKFacts13 Dec 14 entry” CSI JFK: The Chain of Custody for the Magic Bullet: Thompson : ” He said it looks just like that 30-30 round that I ave you to re-enact the finding of the bullet. A 30-30 round has a very sharp point to it and doesn’t resemble 399 at all.”
            Thompson was fortunate that he was among conspiracy theorists who would never question that ludicrous statement. It is also illustrative of the general ignorance of the CT community when it comes to firearms and ammunition-despite the claims of many “experts” who have never fired a weapon.
            Willy, Thompson made the statement. Either 1. Wright had no idea what a .30-.30 round looked like, which seems unlikely considering that it was the most popular deer round in the US during the first half of the 20th Century or 2.Thompson made up the quote and embellished it with a claim that he thought would give it an air of authenticity,-unaware that the .30-.30 had a rounded nose and resembles the Carcano 6.5 mm round after all.
            I hope that you can see beyond your CT point of view and accept that Dr. Thompson has been caught in some very serious credibility issues.
            I am merely pointing them out-as apparently nobody else has had the interest in doing so, despite 45 years of free passes by the CT community.

    • “How to you get around that? You can’t. You just ignore it.” ~Tim Nickerson

      To the contrary sir. I haven’t ignored those points at all, YOU are the one who ignored my disputation.
      David Reagan reminds you yet again of the facts of this matter, in his latest commentary.
      \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Tim,

      What is also known is that no one at Parkland could say for certain on which stretcher CE 399 was found. Most people involved seemed to believe it came from the stretcher of a youngster that had been brought into the hospital. So, for me, the chain of custody is far from certain.

  42. Tim Nickerson says:

    I’ll also note again that Frazier, Killion and Cunningham all initialed the bullet as well.

    • The chain of custody is already broken by then Nickerson. It is clearly not the bullet found at Parkland. This has already been established whether you are willing to admit it or not.

      This round’about you are running here is flagrantly obvious.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hilarious. Frazier, Killion and Cunningham were the FBI agents analyzing the ballistics of this case, and were the last in line to receive CE 399.

      What do their initials on CE 399 prove?

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Bob, their initials, together with Todd’s confirmation of his own and the Johnson letter and envelop, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that CE399 was the bullet that Tomlinson found on the stretcher at Parkland.

        • David Regan says:

          Really? Then why was Tomlinson never called to identify CE 399 before the WC considering he was the one who supposedly found it on the stretcher? Or Wright, Todd or Johnsen for that matter?

          You don’t think defense counsel would have had them on the stand at State of Texas v. Lee Harvey Oswald?

          According to WC Exhibit No. 2011, Chief James Rowley could not identify CE 399 as the bullet he received from Special Agent Johnsen and given to Special Agent Todd.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David,

            Since Tomlinson never marked the bullet he wouldn’t have been expected to be able to positively identify it. A Defense counsel would get nowhere in challenging the chain of custody and no competent Judge would allow Defense to carry on about it.

            The Johnsen letter, the envelop with Todd’s signature and the initials of RF JH and CK on it, the initials of RF JH and CK on CE399, Todd’s confirmation of his own initials on CE399, and Frazier(under oath) positively identifying CE399 as being the bullet he received from Todd on Nov 22/63. That is substantial. It more than meets a chain of custody requirement.

          • David Regan says:

            Nonsense Tim. That’s just par the course for WC apologists sweeping dissenting testimony under the rug.

            On the envelope that CE 399 was transported in Agent Elmer Lee Todd wrote “Received from Chief Rowley, USSS, 8:50 PM.11-22-63” and signed it. However, on the Laboratory Work Sheet compiled by FBI agent Robert Frazier and a list presumably written at a later date are references to Frazier’s having received the bullet from Todd an hour and 20 minutes earlier; at 7:30 PM. http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

            In a telephone interview in 1966, Parkland hospital engineer Darrell C. Tomlinson made it clear that he did not find the bullet immediately after he removed the stretcher from the elevator but only after having made a few more trips up and down between floors. A secret service report from December of 1963 states that Tomlinson said the stretcher was “left unattended for about an hour” http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1194&relPageId=121
            https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/tomlinson_darrell_c.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David Regan wrote:

            Nonsense Tim. That’s just par the course for WC apologists sweeping dissenting testimony under the rug.
            ==========================================

            Dissenting testimony? What dissenting testimony? A phone call made three years after the fact is not dissenting testimony. In his WC testimony, Tomlinson is confused and his memory is hazy. He’s not sure. One can understand that , with the passage of four months and him likely being nervous.

            How is the December report that you referred to a “dissenting testimony”? It’s not. Tomlinson said that he found the bullet on the stretcher that he had pulled off of the elevator.

            ==========================================
            David Regan wrote:

            On the envelope that CE 399 was transported in Agent Elmer Lee Todd wrote “Received from Chief Rowley, USSS, 8:50 PM.11-22-63” and signed it. However, on the Laboratory Work Sheet compiled by FBI agent Robert Frazier and a list presumably written at a later date are references to Frazier’s having received the bullet from Todd an hour and 20 minutes earlier; at 7:30 PM. http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
            ==========================================

            You must have forgot about this so I’ll repost it:

            We don’t know when he wrote that but I would guess that it was probably at a point when he was suffering from severe exhaustion from lack of sleep. Perhaps the 25th or the 26th of November.

            Frazier told us himself that he never got home until sometime on Sunday and then he only got 5 hours of sleep before starting again. Also, we know for a fact that some of the other “times” that Frazier scribbled on the sheet of paper are erroneous as well. Like the “Rec’d from Sibert and O’Neill}1:45pm” for example. We know from the White House Garage Logs, and from a schematic of the limo that Frazier drew and notated, that he was in the White House Garage at 1:45pm.

          • Tim Nickerson in post of November 6, 2015 at 7:58 pm,

            Your linking the testimony of Tomlinson to the Warren Commission with questioning by Arlen Specter is very odd.

            I seem to recall your arguing that there was only one stretcher in question in your commentary. I cite your comment of November 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm.

            However this testimony before Specter makes it very clear that there were two stretchers involved.

            Further you claim that Tomlinson seemed very confused. Well I ask all here who have read this questioning by Specter, how could such a confused manner of up and down back and forth disconnected questions as he put them NOT confuse someone?!?!
            I assert that Specter was confusing in his manner of questioning on purpose. He was also biding time and making it appear that Tomlinson had been thoroughly interrogated. the FACT is that Specter never ONCE asked Tomlinson to actually describe the bullet that he found – which in fact should have been of the essence of Specter’s questioning.
            I assert that this is a subtle form of badgering a witness by intimidation. Specter is quite infamous for these “lawyerly” tactics.

            So all of this begs the question: Why has it been left to independent researchers to finally question Tomlinson on the matter of the essence; the appearance of the Parkland Bullet?

            Allow me to answer that question with a most reasonable conjecture; the questioner, prosecutor Arlen Spector KNEW that the Parkland Bullet was not CE399, and he treated Tomlinson as a hostile witness to his covert agenda of falsification of material evidence.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            You’ve just conceded to my point. Thanks. Tomlinson was confused in his WC testimony. He was unsure. Fortunately , we have the report of the Dec 4, 1963 interview of him in which there was no confusion noted by the interviewer. Tomlinson found the bullet on the stretcher that had been on the elevator. The same bullet was given the designation Q1 later on that night and eventually would be designated as CE399 by the WC. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

          • “You’ve just conceded to my point.” ~Nickerson

            Hardly, I pointed out Specter as a badgering prosecutor – one who failed to ask the most pertinent question as to the Parkland Bullet.

            You go on to say:
            “Tomlinson found the bullet on the stretcher that had been on the elevator.”
            But you fail to mention that there were 2 stretchers, as revealed in the Commission testimony, and the fact that these stretchers had been moved back and forth in the hall in front of the elevator.

            And you go on with this:
            “The same bullet was given the designation Q1 later on that night and eventually would be designated as CE399 by the WC. The evidence for that is overwhelming.”
            Which simply skips all of the steps in between in the chain of custody!

            I have to say Mr Nickerson, I find your mode of commentary to be among to most disingenuous to be found on JFKfacts. You have in a single hand wave dismissed the entire conversation that developed here. And I find this extremely scurrilous.
            \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Bob Prudhomme wrote:

            That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
            ===========================================

            Closely examined by who Bob? Certainly not John Hunt. He examined four photos of the bullet, not the actual bullet itself.

            Just to repeat:

            Todd identified his initials on the bullet in 1964. That alone is enough to satisfy a chain of custody requirement. That his initials cannot be made out on it in photos some 40 or 50 years later does not alter that fact. Joseph Nicol’s initials can’t be seen on it either. In his WC testimony he said that he marked it. So, there are three possibilities as to why neither of their markings can be seen in the photos today: 1) The photos do not show the part of the bullet where they placed their initials. 2) The section(s) of the bullets containing their initials has been removed in obtaining samples for testing. 3) Their initials were not scratched on deep and, as such, have faded from view over time.

            #3 is the most probable. Carl Day gives us a perfect example of it. He marked the sniper’s nest hulls on Nov 22, 1963 and in June of 1964 he had to use magnification under enhanced lighting condition in order to be able to make out his own markings on those shells.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            So, how does this sound, Tim?

            Counsel: “Did you get a look at the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Tomlinson, and would you be able to identify him, if you were to see him again?”

            Tomlinson: “Yes, sir, I got a very good look at him, but I’m afraid I would be unable to identify him, should I see him again.”

            Counsel: “And why would that be, Mr. Tomlinson?”

            Tomlinson: “Well, sir, it’s like this. I neglected to put my mark on this man and, for that reason, I don’t think I could positively identify him.”

            It may sound like a ridiculous analogy, Tim, but, if you think about it, the only ridiculous thing here is your belief Tomlinson could not identify a bullet, simply because he had not marked that bullet.

            For your information, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is a unique, freakishly long bullet that does not resemble the more popular of the common North American bullets. While being round nosed, as some (but far from all) 30-30 bullets are, it is FAR longer than any bullet ever made for a 30-30.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
            ==========================================
            Bob,

            If it’s untrue then demonstrate how or why.

            Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator. Whether or not Todd’s initials can be made out on the bullet today is not important. The fact is that he positively identified his marking on it in 1964. It’s part of the official record.

          • “Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator.” ~Tim Nickerson

            Absolutely preposterous Nickerson. Johnsen is the very first Federal officer to handle the Parkland Bullet. As per the rules of custody chains he was required to initial that bullet.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy Whitten wrote:

            Absolutely preposterous Nickerson. Johnsen is the very first Federal officer to handle the Parkland Bullet. As per the rules of custody chains he was required to initial that bullet.
            ==========================================

            Ok, that’s a claim that you’ve made previously. You said:

            “..despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.”

            I asked you to substantiate that claim. You failed to do so. Would you care to try again?

          • “I asked you to substantiate that claim. You failed to do so. Would you care to try again?”
            ~Tim Nickerson

            Last time Nickerson:
            Scene Protocol 1963
            It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
            “Police Markings”
            Second, an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique
            object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals. See
            Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
            http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications

            There is nothing in Secret Service protocols that exempts them from the standard crime scene protocols of all of the other arms of law enforcement.
            From the crime scene protocol handbook above, I reiterate:

            “an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable.”

            This means in 1963 it was standard practice for everybody…EVEN CIVILIANS as it is written. If you handled evidence in a chain of custody you marked it to make it unique.
            –IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE UNDER THE LAW–
            \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        That the FBI was trying to cover for the 1st 2 people to handle it who said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled?

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          That the FBI was trying to cover for the 1st 2 people to handle it who said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled?
          ===================================================
          Ronnie,

          The 1st 2 people to handle it never said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled.

  43. Bill says:

    Tim. I can’t be any more clearly explained and soundly reasoned that that. Actually, it can be but it wouldn’t be factual. Thanks for putting that nonsense to bed! 😉

    • Continued, 2

      From Mr. Frazier, FBI firearms expert:

      Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
      Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.

      Mr. EISENBERG. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?

      Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains–that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed— 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.

      Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

      Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

      . . .

      Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

      Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is–its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

      Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399.

      Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall–2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

      http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
      \\][//

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Can you pinpoint exactly when the WO was EVER concerned with being factual?

      Take your most recent position that LHO and Ruby and the mafia were in cahoots, which I believe is spot-on correct. However, that puts you in direct disagreement with the conclusions of the WO. They could not establish ANY link, even though Ruby was at Parkland and at police headquarters that day. According to the LN, the commission “did a most thorough and remarkable job” and “settled the dust, wherever it falls.”

      However, your revelation does not support the official version, which is a problem that a lot of people on this site share.

      • Steve stirlen,

        What does “WO” stand for in your posts?
        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Warren Omission? Some book references this. Was it Walt Brown?

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Willy,

          It is for Warren Omission, because the “work” (if you can all it that) they did, certainly did not include ALL of the information available, such as the small fact that the CIA and the FBI lied, manipulated, and deceived their “efforts.” And, here is the best part, David Slawson, the man charged with “investigating” the CIA, says that he was “naive” and “assumed” the agency would be straightforward with him and the commission.

          Uh-huh.

          And what is left is to us is an 800 plus page load of information not worth the paper it is printed on.

      • Bill says:

        My comments on what I feel are pretty straight forward. Yet, I’m still trying to figure out who the heck the WO is??? And what event you feel was the Crime of the Century that occurred in 1969???

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The WO is the Warren Omission. If my educational background is correct, leaving out critical information is called an omission. That is what happened in 1963-1964.

          I made a typo—first one all year—when referring to the crime of the century. I left out the word speaking, which, I believe, was when Mr. Curry, printed those words in 1969.

          However, I feel better, because Photon assured me earlier this year that Mr. Curry was just “trying to sell books.” So, that has been solved…

          Oh, wait. Someone trying to profit off of JFK’s assassination? Why, that is what the CT side does EVERY day.

          I guess I have just experienced, again, the double standard that exists in this case.

          • Bill says:

            Steve: Got it. And I was not breaking your chops. I thought that there was something else that occurred later on.

      • Bill says:

        It’s not a most recent position at all. You just feel that it was and then spout on incessantly about it. I do not care about the Ct’ers or the LN’ers (actually…I do care about the humanity within them…but not their views).

        Oswald and Ruby. I find it hard to believe that Ruby, who professed to love the President and his family, and was driven to carry out a death sentence through that ‘love’, is not a tenable outcome. Here is Ruby who loved the man enough on to kill Oswald on Sunday… for killing Kennedy on Friday….but yet he was too busy to walk the few hundred yards to see Kennedy drive past his position at the Dallas Morning News? Are you kidding me? Jack Ruby NOT wanting to see THE MAN?? Jack Ruby, who then decided to go to the News Conference…who was filmed outside the Homicide Bureau door….did not go see his hero go past??? Doubtful.

        Oswald lived on 621 Marsailles for a couple of days…Ruby for a long time before that lived on 223(?) S. Ewing. These streets intersect. All Oswald did after this move was head across the large park to the Rooming House at 1026 N. Beckley.

        Nothing on either side of ANY version is supported by anything.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The addresses you mention?

          I have been by them on multiple occasions.

          Which puts me SO FAR AHEAD of the members and investigators of the WO.

          • Bill says:

            Steve. These are the addresses that are attributed to Oswald. He sure must have like this side of town. Personally I think it is because Ruby was his buddy and driver. Interestingly enough, there is discussion in the WC/WO of the owner of the place, Mrs. Bledsoe who also witnessed Oswald getting on the Bus after killing Kennedy. She also noticed the tear in the fabric of his shirt (and the likely hood that this may (or may not have occurred in working the bold action is in play). I doubt that an Ex-Marine would wear clothes that had holes in them but ‘some’ may.

            Interesting note. Years later there is a discovery of an altercation that occurred at the 621 Address rented by Oswald. It was discovered in the police files (but I may be wrong about that). In any case it lists the name of Jack Rubenstein as being involved in a domestic dispute at that address.

            The issue of the document is that the time resorting hours are incorrect (DPD didn’t list the time the way the document did) and the feeling is that someone placed it into the files to connect Ruby to Oswald years later.

          • Bill says:

            I think it may put you ahead of the WC/WO investigators except for one thing.

      • Bill says:

        Pinpoint the WC/WO as looking for facts? Sure: November 29, 1963.

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Thanks Bill, even though I’m not sure which post you’re referring to.

  44. What the WC cult here disingenuously fail to admit, is that the first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found a Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
    They are:

    1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
    2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
    3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
    4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).

    A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.
    . . . . . . . . . .

    Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”
    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86
    \\][//

  45. Tim Nickerson says:

    Willy Whitten wrote:

    CE399 is some 3 inches long
    ================================

    Hmmm…that is rather telling.

    • Willy Whitten wrote: CE399 is some 3 inches long

      “Hmmm…that is rather telling.”~Nickerson

      Not as “telling” as you might hope. Yes I mistook mm for inches on the tape measure. Nevertheless Wright found a pointed lead bullet that was not jacketed. This cannot possibly be confused as the shiny jacketed CE399.

      You still have he first 4 witnesses who cannot identify that slug as CE399. The conclusion that the bullet on exhibit is in fact a planted bullet is undeniable.

      That bullet was never fired in Dealey Plaza.
      \\][//

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Willy,

        That bullet was never fired in Dealey Plaza.
        ========================================================

        The odds for that statement being true are astronomical.

    • Bill says:

      LOL…and another expert bites the dust. How to smoke them up Tim.

  46. Bill says:

    Photon. You have the patience of Job and I commend you for it. The other day I wanted to ask you what your view of the claims of Marina Oswald that Lee was always seeking ways to be a bigger man, and was angry with Russians who fled from Russia (whom he labeled as traitors) or even his discussion with her about possibly hijacking a plane to get to Cuba fits in. I know that she labeled him as being ‘a nut’.

    I find it terribly ironic that the life of JFK possibly came to an end because of his anger over Marina not speaking to him after he decided to use another name, or that he felt that she was happier with her traitorous ex-patriots than she was with him. He certainly seemed to be rapidly going over the cliff.

    Anyway, from his living in Ms. Bledsoe’s rooming house on Marsailles (if only briefly), to his shooting of Tippet only a few hundred yards from Jack Ruby’s Apartment on Marsailles keeps me wondering what he was up to. I think that, in the end, he was as crazy as his mom. Paranoid and subject to severe fits of panic and depression. His persona and flare for making up things belies his true motives. In the end…both his brother and his wife knew the deal.

    The small man finally made it to the big time.

  47. Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.”

    As it turns out this prediction by Dulles has turned out to be incorrect. Many of us do read. And luckily a certain district attorney read the entire record and realized that the “Summery Report” by the Warren Commission was not supported by the evidence and information contained in the bulk of the voluminous work.

    More information emerged largely due to the original efforts by this district attorney, Jim Garrison. A key piece of evidence brought out in the trial of Clay Shaw was the Zapruder Film. This evidence was never supposed to see the light of day. It had been sequestered almost as soon as it’s existence became known. The lies propagated about the film by the corporation that bought the film where revealed shortly after as bootleg copies of the movie began to circulate…

    So here we are, more than half a century later and the controversy still swirls . The controversy is not maintained so much by the historical researchers and analysts who have proven for many years now that the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963 was a military industrial coup d’etat. No, the controversy is maintained by the Public Relations Regime of that military industrial complex.

    And that controversy is maintained here on this site, JFKfacts, by the hard core agenteur of that military industrial complex, who will deny material facts, and the most sound reasoning to maintain this fiction, this preposterous myth of one lone gunman as the killer. This despite the fact that this “deranged individual” had no clear motive whatsoever. Despite the fact that there is not the slightest bit of real evidence that this individual fired any weapon or killed anybody on November 22, 1963.

    So here we sit at this impasse, just a few short weeks from the 52nd anniversary of the Amerikan Coup D’Etat; stuck on that same lame and tired old carousel of denial propagated by the vile fascist state that came to fruition in Dallas that day.
    \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Willy,

      May I just add that the same elements that were active in 63′ are still spinning the carousel in 15′?

      Beautifully written and beautifully said.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      “Amerikan Coup D’Etat”

      Amerikan? Really Willy? Really? Your use of words seem to support my theory that you use emotion and preconceived falsehoods to form your opinions on this subject.

      That is why you make false statements about NSAM 263.

      • “That is why you make false statements about NSAM 263.”
        ~Bill Clarke

        I have never made a false statement about NSAM 263. It is your OPINION that I have.

        Note that this argument is spun out beyond it’s shelf life and isn’t topical to this thread at any rate.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy; I have never made a false statement about NSAM 263.

          ————————————————-
          Willy Whitten
          September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am

          “I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.”~Bill Clarke

          Willy; Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by he end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.
          \\][//
          ———————————————–

          Please send evidence of JFK order for “all” the troops and “yes, come hell or high water”.

      • Mr Clarke,

        You seem to take umbrage at my spelling of “Amerika” herein.
        You seem to have an emotional reaction of “disgust” at such a term as that. And yet my use of the term is merely a logical extension of the distinction between the ‘America’ of the original Republic, and the ‘Amerika’ of the fascist panoptic maximum security state that has grown as a consequence of the coup d’etat.

        That we have a clear epistemological divide between us is very clear. I see your mind-set as stunted by state indoctrination, you see mine as grandiose and beyond the bounds of rational analysis.

        Which analysis is more valid in this world at this present date and state it is in? I would point out how obvious it is that the US imperial drive to Full Spectrum Dominance cannot be denied. That the System is driven by pathological realpolitik is simply unmistakable. The US is mired in the ancient regime of “Might Makes Right” and driven by the false agenda of “Means are Justified by the Ends”.

        The proximate cause of this shift from the republican form can certainly be put further back in history than the 1963 coup, to the institution of the National Security State in 1947, or further to the regime of Woodrow Wilson, who brought us the constitutionally ultra vires national income tax, and plunged the nation into the first world war … “The War to End War” as it was hailed by the PR of the day.

        It has been a long slippery slope to the advent of the Total State, that Hegel envisioned so long ago. Perhaps it is there in the Hegelian Dialectic itself that the real proximate cause of the loss of the Unalienable Rights to Liberty began. the serious historian has many dates to choose from. But they are all in a compound sequence, and all in that gyre must be considered.
        \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        This thread is not about NSAM 263. You wouldn’t be trying to hijack or derail it would you Bill?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          No Ronnie. Someone mentioned it and I took it up. My apologies.

          • “No Ronnie. Someone mentioned it and I took it up. My apologies.”~Bill Clarke

            Nonsense Clarke, you are the very first person to bring up NSAM 263. The sequence of commentary right on this very page shows as much.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            I thought JohnR had mentioned the NSAM earlier in this thread. I ran a quick review and can not find this so perhaps I am mistaken about not being the first to mention the NSAM. So my apologies for being incorrect as it appears.

            It was certainly not my intent to change this thread. I love ballistics.

  48. Bill says:

    Tim: I was referring to your post on Nov 5. At 903 pm

  49. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Earlier in this thread, discussion was erroneously based on the mistaken assumption that Parkland Hospital employee O.P. Wright had compared CE 399 to a 30-30 bullet, and that this automatically made CE 399 a round nosed bullet.

    It is true that 30-30 bullets are typically round nosed or flat nosed. The reason for this is that the 30-30 is a lever action rifle with a tubular magazine. In such a magazine, bullets are stacked end to end, with the nose of one bullet up against the primer of the next. If the bullets were pointed, there is a chance a sudden jar would drive the point against the primer, and set the bullet off.

    However, the first thing O.P. Wright told author Josiah Thompson, before being shown photos or asked questions, was that the bullet he saw had a pointed tip. He then retrieved a .30 calibre bullet from his desk, not a 30-30 bullet, to demonstrate what he meant. That bullet definitely had a pointed tip, as the photo of it in “Six Seconds in Dallas” shows, and it appears to be a spent FMJ bullet, likely from an M1 Garand.

    Now, this is what greatly disturbs me. It was Willy Whitten who mistakenly quoted Thompson’s book by labelling the bullet as a 30-30 bullet, and he can be forgiven for that.

    What cannot be forgiven is how Photon took this obvious mistake and ran with it, in an attempt to state this was proof that the bullet found was round nosed, as is CE 399.

    Is anyone here naive enough to believe Photon did not really know O.P. Wright was describing a pointed .30 calibre bullet to Josiah Thompson, and not a round nosed 30-30 bullet? Is Photon seeking truth, as we are, or is he attempting to generate disinformation?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      To avoid confusion, I should point out that the 30-30 is also a .30 calibre bullet; just not the particular .30 calibre bullet O.P. Wright was describing to Josiah Thompson.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        I’m often shocked that so many people do not understand this. As you say, you can go to the gun store and buy a box of .30 caliber bullets. Not rounds but bare bullets. You can then use this box of bullets to load a 30-30 or a 30-06 or a 300 magnum. In fact, Hornady list over 20 different rounds that use the .30 caliber bullets.

  50. Tim Nickerson says:

    I have read Dr. Martin Fackler’s flawed arguments base on his flawed experiments before. And this was discussed at great length on another thread on JFKfacts sometime last year.
    ===================================================================

    Whitten,

    Fackler wasn’t making an argument. Although he’s certainly among the most qualified to do so. He was presenting the results of a test that he assisted Failure Analysis Associates with. The results of that test destroys one of the main arguments that many CTs have against CE399. Reasonable CTs have accepted that and moved on.

    • “Reasonable CTs have accepted that and moved on.”~Tim Nickerson

      “CT” is a common and known term to this forum, and to some portion of the outside world. It means “conspiracy theorist”. SO let us get something straight for the record; I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, I am a conspiracy analyst. The conspiracy is manifest. My work is an analysis of that conspiracy.

      Now, As far as Martin Fackler’s flawed experiments. These were based simply on incomplete and uncontextualized theory. This being that it was simply a matter of guestimating the speed of the bullet when it hit a cadavers wrist.

      There are more complex integers to contend with than just the speed at the time the bullet hits the wrist. Some of those being the actual material encountered in the real life setting Fackler was attempting to illustrate.

      A’theory’ like a ‘hypothesis’ is a type of ‘argument’ in that it posits a point or points to be proven. Therefore the framing my original comment about Flacker are valid.

      As per your comment as quoted above, it is mildly humorous, nothing more.
      \\][//

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Willy Whitten Wrote:

        incomplete and uncontextualized theory.
        ========================================================

        Nope. An actual test using the same type of bullet and firing it into the wrist of a human cadaver at a velocity greater than that of CE 399’s strike on Connally wrist. Your claim that it was a flawed experiment is not based on anything specific that you could honestly breakdown. It’s much easier for you to just dismiss it with a wave of the hand than to explain exactly how it is flawed.

        • “It’s much easier for you to just dismiss it with a wave of the hand than to explain exactly how it is flawed.”
          ~Nickerson

          Lol.
          You certainly are not the one to speak of hand waving.

          I am moving on to another aspect of ballistics here for the time being before this thread becomes unmanageable and clogged.

          However, I will return to Flacker at my pleasure, not yours.
          \\][//

  51. Moving on…
    This article is worth extended and deep study; as here we have a primer for modern ballistics and crime scene investigation by a veteran investigator:

    When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI

    https://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/
    \\][//

  52. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Tim Nickerson
    November 6, 2015 at 7:14 pm
    That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
    ==========================================
    Bob,

    If it’s untrue then demonstrate how or why.

    Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator. Whether or not Todd’s initials can be made out on the bullet today is not important. The fact is that he positively identified his marking on it in 1964. It’s part of the official record.

    __________________________________________________

    Tim, I have a real problem here with your logic. SA Elmer Todd was only asked to ID CE 399 after the Parkland employees, Tomlinson and Wright, and SA Rowley and SA Johnsen would not ID CE 399 as the bullet they had seen.

    SA Elmer Todd positively ID’ed CE 399, but do you know how he did that? He ID’ed the bullet as CE 399 by his initials on the bullet! Yet, the only initials on CE 399 are Frazier’s, Killion’s and Cunningham’s, and Todd’s initials are nowhere to be seen on CE 399.

    Oh, and, once again, please explain to me how SA Robert Frazier, the final person to receive CE 399 for analysis purposes, can rectify the chain of custody problems for CE 399, beginning at Parkland Hospital.

    • Bob,

      I have a 380 bullet sitting on my desk that I marked with my \\][// sign more than three years ago. Such a mark simply does not vanish with time. This bullet has been sitting out in the damp and dusty environment of southern Indiana all this time.
      I would assume that the bullets stored for forensic evidence are cared for better than that, at least put in a plastic baggie to keep moisture from attacking the metal.
      It is to my mind absurd to assert that a mark etched into metal would simply disappear in time.

      Regardless of all else however; The government is responsible for proving their case. They have not done so in the matter of CE399. The break in custody from the proximate point, Tomlinson, and the three next steps of the chain of custody, puts CE399 in the category of INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, squarely and firmly with no doubt whatsoever.

      The implications here are also inescapable, The entire case against Oswald as the shooter falls – as does the entire Warren Commission case, which despite their disclaimer, hinges on the myth of their Magic Bullet.
      Case Closed.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      P.S.

      It’s not a matter of whether or not SA Elmer Todd’s initials can be “made out” on CE 399 or not, Tim. The simple fact of the matter is, Todd’s initials are just not on CE 399, and never were, and Todd told an outright lie by claiming they were on CE 399.

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Bob Prudhomme wrote:

      SA Elmer Todd positively ID’ed CE 399, but do you know how he did that?
      ===============================================================

      Because he documented it, that’s why. Keep in mind that he also documented that Johnsen and Rowley couldn’t positively identify the bullet.

      ===============================================================
      Yet, the only initials on CE 399 are Frazier’s, Killion’s and
      Cunningham’s, and Todd’s initials are nowhere to be seen on CE 399.
      ===============================================================

      Todd’s can’t be seen on the photos available to us today. Neither can Joseph Nicol’s. Here again are three possible reasons why:

      1) The photos do not show the part of the bullet where they placed their initials.

      2) The section(s) of the bullets containing their initials has been removed in obtaining samples for testing.

      3) Their initials were not scratched on deep and, as such, have faded from view over time.

      #3 is the most probable. Carl Day gives us a perfect example of it. He marked the sniper’s nest hulls on Nov 22. 1963 and in June of 1964 he had to use magnification under enhanced lighting condition in order to be able to make out his own markings on those shells.

      Barry Krusch made a big deal out of Day’s markings not being visible on the shells in the National Archives. He got the NARA staff to take hi-def photos of the shells for him. They pointed out to Krusch any markings on the shells that they could see themselves. Day’s were not among them. Krusch has made the hi-def photos available for others to view. I imagine that he probably still maintains that Day’s marking cannot be found on any of them.

      ===============================================================
      Oh, and, once again, please explain to me how SA Robert Frazier, the final person to receive CE 399 for analysis purposes, can rectify the chain of custody problems for CE 399, beginning at Parkland Hospital.
      ===============================================================

      Frazier’s own marking on the bullet would be enough to rectify any chain of custody problem. But you’re seeing a problem where none exists. There are numerous other “items” that bolster the chain of custody.

  53. Martin Fackler Carcano Bullet Tests

    ABSTRACT

    >PURPOSE — Tos show that a 6.5mm full metal jacketed (FMJ) Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, traveling at teh approximate speed of (1000 – 1100 ft/s) it would have possessed after perforating the junction of the neck and torso of one adult human, and the chest of another, would perforate a human radius bone just above the wrist without becoming deformed.
    >METHOD — Bullet velocities were measured while lowering powder charges until the appropriate powder charge was obtained. Cadaver forearms were then shot at this lower velocity and bullets were caught in a bullet trap.
    >RESULTS — One bullet traveling at 1108 ft/s and one at 1335 f/s perforated cadaver radius bones and were caught in the bullet trap. Neither bullet had any deformation whatsoever, except for firing impressions.
    >CONCLUSIONS — The FMJ Italian military 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullets perforated cadaver radius bones travelling at (or slightly higher than) the approximate velocity they would have had when striking Governor Connally’s wrist and remained truly “pristine” undeformed bullets.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf
    _________________________________________________
    CRITIQUE

    It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Fackler did not account for the other material that the bullet encountered on the way to the wrist.
    Merely lowering the powder charges to reduce velocity is a clear and willful misrepresentation of the actual circumstances of the bullet that actually hit Connally and is proposed to have traveled through Kennedy’s neck.

    The bullet would have encountered the skin, muscle and gristle of Kennedy’s neck.
    It would have encountered and passed through Connally’s clothing, skin, the muscles of his back, shattered a rib, gone through the muscles and skin, and encountered the clothing on his front side, before ever reaching the wrist.
    Absolutely none of this is taken into account in Flackers experiment.

    Note:
    Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck
    the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the
    fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle
    bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from
    injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of
    the bullet.
    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Shaw.pdf

    Also see: Melicent Cranor:
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2006.pdf
    \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      CRITIQUE

      It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Fackler did not account for the other material that the bullet encountered on the way to the wrist.
      Merely lowering the powder charges to reduce velocity is a clear and willful misrepresentation of the actual circumstances of the bullet that actually hit Connally and is proposed to have traveled through Kennedy’s neck.

      The bullet would have encountered the skin, muscle and gristle of Kennedy’s neck.
      It would have encountered and passed through Connally’s clothing, skin, the muscles of his back, shattered a rib, gone through the muscles and skin, and encountered the clothing on his front side, before ever reaching the wrist.
      Absolutely none of this is taken into account in Flackers experiment.
      ==============================================================

      Geez louise, didn’t you bother reading the Fackler paper that you linked to?

      “The reason for this experiment was to disprove the assertion by one of the foremost “conspiracy theorists,” that a full metal jacketed bullet could not have passed through Connally’s distal radius without becoming more deformed than the recovered bullet. This “conspiracy theorist” claimed that the US Government’s own studies proved that the Carcano FMJ bullet would be deformed by perforating the distal end of a radius bone, referring to studies done at Edgewood Arsenal in which a 6.5mm FML Carcano was shot through a cadaver forearm, just above the wrist, at the distance Governor Connally was from Oswald’s rifle when he was hit. This shot was made directly into the wrist without any intervening target and was considerably deformed in the process. The “conspiracy theorist’ apparently did not recognize, however, that the deformation of the Edgewood bullet confirms that the relatively undeformed (so-called “pristine”) bullet that perforated Governor Connally’s wrist had to be travelling considerably slower than if it would have been a direct shot. The only rational explanation for this velocity loss was that it had to have passed through something prior to passing through Governor Connally’s wrist.”

      As the Edgewood Arsenal experiment showed, the bullet wouldn’t have been deformed in passing through the flesh of Kennedy’s neck and the flesh of Connally’s torso. The longitudinal flattening that we see on CE 399 was due to the strike on Connally’s rib.

      • “Geez louise, didn’t you bother reading the Fackler paper that you linked to?”~Nickerson
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        But of course I did.
        https://i0.wp.com/izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-don-t-get-your-knickers-in-a-knot-nothing-is-solved-and-it-just-makes-you-walk-funny-kathryn-carpenter-289608.jpg
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        “As the Edgewood Arsenal experiment showed, the bullet wouldn’t have been deformed in passing through the flesh of Kennedy’s neck and the flesh of Connally’s torso.” Nickerson
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Dr Joseph Dolce, who was their emmidiate supervisor and advised those experiments as Edgewood, said this:
        “Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.” And; “The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy Whitten wrote:

          Dr Joseph Dolce, who was their emmidiate supervisor and advised those experiments as Edgewood, said this:
          “Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.” And; “The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
          =================================================

          Dr Dolce was NOT the immediate supervisor of Olivier and Dziemian. He was a consultant to them. Nothing more. And he was wrong wrong wrong.

          I watched a video of Dolce being interviewed and here’s what he said:

          “No, it could not have caused all the wounds because our experiments have showed beyond any doubt that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically and yet this bullet came out as almost a normal pristine bullet.”

          Did you get that? No wonder he was ignored.

          • ““No, it could not have caused all the wounds because our experiments have showed beyond any doubt that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically and yet this bullet came out as almost a normal pristine bullet.”
            ~Dr Dolce
            . . . . . .
            “Did you get that? No wonder he was ignored.”
            ~Nickerson

            Yes I get that, that is why I posted Dr Dolce’s comments!

            Dolce was ignored for the same reason that you hand-wave his conclusion; because it destroys your Magic Bullet Theory.
            \\][//

  54. “Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he “keep his mouth shut” about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital.

    This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

    Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o’clock – uh, excuse me, that’s Saturday morning – after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

    Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

    Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

    Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it’s pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say – was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn’t want you to talk about it period?

    Tomlinson: Just don’t talk about it period.
    […]
    In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399. Unlike many other issues related to the case, this one is not a tough call. It seems that J. Edgar Hoover agreed, because in recordings of telephone conversations between him and LBJ, he suggested that Connally was wounded because he came between the President and an assassin, and that if Connally had not come between them, JFK would have taken his bullet.”
    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

    \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399.
      ===============================================================

      Willy, that is FALSE. Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet. ===============================================================

      http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
      ==============================================================

      That Bob Harris article is a rather poor one. Not by his standards, mind you. But he has a hard time defending it when challenged. He still maintains to this day that Bobby M Nolan received a bullet, not bullet fragments, from one of the Parkland OR nurses assisting with Connally.

      • Earlier I said:
        We have confirmation that none of the four primary witnesses were able to confirm the bullet found at Parkland was C399 in a memo from the FBI.
        You have seen that memo as we all have seen that memo.

        Nickerson responds with “Willy, that is FALSE. Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet.”
        . . . .

        Look Nickerson, your opinion has no bearing on this whatsoever. The rules and law and evidence are all that matter. An item to be ruled legitimate must have a clear chain of custody. That there is a broken chain of custody of the Parkland bullet AT THE FIRST 4 LINKS is the only consideration there is.

        This issue needs to be put to bed. There is no legitimate chain of custody on the matter of the Parkland Bullet.
        CE399 shows up magically later in the chain and cannot legitimately be linked to the Parkland Bullet.
        That is ALL THERE IS TO IT. That is the bottom line.

        No mass!
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy,

          Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet.

          That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

          Anyone who seriously believes that CE399 has a real chain of custody problem is someone who is ignorant of how chains of custody are viewed in Courts of Law. If you had taken the time to read the Paul Giannelli paper ,that you’ve linked to a couple of times, you might have absorbed that.

          There is no real chain of custody problem with CE-399 that would prevent it from being admitted as evidence in any court of law. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

          Read the Giannelli Paper and learn.

          • Nickerson,

            I have read the Paul Giannelli paper, and there is nothing in it that supports your position.

            Your first 4 links to the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE399 – this gap is conclusive.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Tim, speaking of courts of law, WC staffer, Alfredda Scobey, pointed out major issues with the state’s case against Oswald from a legal standpoint.

            As you know, with the accused assassin dead and buried, the WC had carte blanche to print any unsubstantiated claims about Oswald as they saw fit, including circumstantial evidence that would never had been admissible at trial. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1scobey.pdf

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy Whitten wrote:

          I have read the Paul Giannelli paper, and there is nothing in it that supports your position.

          Your first 4 links to the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE399 – this gap is conclusive.
          =================================================

          Sorry Willy, but I cannot take you seriously.

          • Tim Nickerson Says, “Sorry Willy, but I cannot take you seriously.”

            Lol, and this is supposed to have some effect on me?

            You have cited a document on ‘Chain of Custody’, as if simply citing Giannelli as an authority is sufficient argument on your behalf. You make no specific argument derived from Giannelli work – you simply assume to make an argument from authority. And this no lucid thinker would take seriously.
            \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.
      ===============================================================

      I think that interview was in 1966. Marcus asked Tomlinson if the FBI had shown him the bullet:

      Marcus: And as far as you could tell— of course, you weren’t making a ballistics test of it— but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?

      Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one. July 25, 1966

      That same year or the year after, Tomlinson had no doubt in his mind that the stretcher that he found the bullet on was the stretcher that came off of the elevator.

      • Nickerson,

        In this interview Marcus asked only one question about the bullet “Did you notice if there was blood on it?”
        Tomlinson replied, “Well it was a copper colored bullet..and I couldn’t tell if it had blood on it or not..”

        The rest of the interview was about the stretcher.
        But again, this is an interview with a reporter and does’t have the validity of a sworn statement of testimony, as that given to the WC.

        Which I have to point out here is your bible, UNLESS it contradicts some point YOU want to make.
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Tomlinson’s WC testimony doesn’t contradict any point that I want to make. Don’t you remember?

          Mr. TOMLINSON. I told him that I was not sure, and I am not–I’m not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure.

          Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I’m just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off.

          Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been–I’m not sure whether it was A I took off.
          Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it was you took off of the elevator?
          Mr. TOMLINSON. I’m not clear on that—whether I absolutely made a positive statement to that effect.
          Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
          Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.

          You CTs needed Tomlinson and used him in your desperate attempts to rule out CE-399 as being the bullet that struck Connally. For a short period of time, he was your guy. If the stretcher that he found the bullet on was not one that he had taken off of the elevator then the bullet could not reasonably have been the one that had fallen out of Connally. Unfortunately for you, he was confused in his WC testimony and he ultimately ended up conceding to the fact that the stretcher he found the bullet was indeed one that he had removed from the elevator. And in reality, that concession was really just admitting to the accuracy of his earliest officially recorded statement.

          • David Regan says:

            Tim, it is WC apologists who fight desperately to defend the brainchild of Arlen Specter, since your case without it crumbles like a house of cards.

            Members of the Commission itself and other insiders didn’t even agree it was a valid theory.

  55. Mark Spitz says:

    Also…been on the fence about Oswald for years, but now do not believe he was an innocent. Most likely let one of the shooters into the building, but thought Connolly was the target, as to why he was discovered eating his lunch and not near the sixth floor.
    Shooter also brought Oswald’s rifle in with his own, an Oswald figured things out pretty quickly… So, who shot tippet?

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Roscoe Anthony White shot J D Tippit and after he fired the make-sure shot into JDT’s head, he said, “Poor dumb cop.” And then he didn’t go to his neighbor’s and fellow policeman’s funeral. I get this from several witnesses, esp. the supermanly brave Acquilla Clemmons, another woman like Jean Hill, though not white.

      Don’t feel too sorry for Tippit’s widow. He was an especially dirty, racist policeman; though, to his credit, he balked at killing LHO and that’s what got him killed. The survivors of the Tippit family received nearly a million dollars in donations, six million in today’s money. So JD really did provide for his family.

      • Photon says:

        ” he was an especially dirty,racist cop…”
        Please post any reputable source for that statement.Please post any Dallas PD or State of Texas records that confirm in any way the claim that Tippit was a “dirty cop”.
        Please post any evidence that Tippit was a racist, even in the climate of 1963 Dallas.
        Please post any source aside from Ricky White that Roscoe Wright was anywhere near Tippit at the time of his death. Please post any source aside from Ricky White and Geneva White (who had been getting intermittent shock treatments since the late 1950s) that Roscoe White even knew Tippit.
        If you can’t make your case without smearing an honorable man praised by the President’s widow and brother, perhaps you showed rethink your case.

        • David Regan says:

          Dirty or not, Edgar Lee Tippit (JD’s father) tells an interesting story to Joseph McBride http://www.ctka.net/2014/mcbride_01.html

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Photon,

          Was Tippit an “honorable man?” Let me play your game. Give me an example of Tippit being honorable? Here is a fact. Tippet was having an affair and did father a child out of wedlock. Here is another fact. Dale Myers does give a portion of the money from his website to Tippit’s widow, or helps her in some financial way.

          If Oliver Stone was James Tague’s PR man, you would be howling at the moon. You would bark so loudly as to drown out all of the noise on the entire website.

          Double standard, Photon?

          Or, a classic example of Photon’s mantra (or double standra)?

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          Photon, my brothah,
          You misquoted me but who’s counting? It was “dirty, racist policeman” not “cop” which is gangster talk, like from JDT’s murderer as he leaned over his dying body.
          Racist–JDT wore on his sleeve the insignia of some KKK organization, as did the majority of DPD. They might’ve called themselves The Mighty Brotherhood of Stonewall Jagass or The Sons of Marse Robert. I forget, but they were KKK, the most cowardly, racist organization that this old world has ever known.
          You may say, “Consider his milieu” or “Gotta go along to get along.” No excuse. And that milieu ruined this nation, all because they didn’t get their stupid way on every single idiotic thing they wanted. We gave em the Military Industrial Complex, royal treatment on oil, and on and on. Made em rich as Croesus. Let them make us their slaves. But that still wasn’t good enough.

          “Dirty” — I feel bad about that now, if only for one small anecdote. The morning of 11-22-63 when JDT left for “work”, he hugged his son, unprecedented, and said, approximately, “No matter what happens today, (name), I want you to remember that I love you.” JD was no new-agey type of guy. He knew he was taking a big chance that day, that his life could change for the worse. Sure, compared to Roscoe White and Larry Crafard, the LHO lookalike who also shot Tippit dead, JDT was an OK guy.

          PS: I waded through a lot of your David Perry’s “investigation” regarding RAW. I think you owe me at least a cursory Google of Adele Edisen’s most excellent work RE Roscoe A. White.

          • Photon says:

            Adele Edisen is a fraud and I would question everything she says. In an attempt to prove her claims she made certain embellishments related to the D.C. area which were obviously false It was the same tactic used by CT fraudulent witnesses over and over-claim to have experienced or witnessed something and then going into details which actually turn out to be false.
            Is your fantasy interpretation hereditary ? In the 1950s there was a fantastic sci-fi writer named Kornbluth .As I recall there was only one episode of Rod Serling’s disappointing series “Night Gallery” that was enjoyable-an adaptation of a Kornbluth story about a set of medical instruments from the distant future inadvertently sent back in time to the present. As I recall it was one of Chill Wills’ last roles. If you are related to that masterful author I can see how you can believe in fantastic stories and impossible theories.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Photon old chum,I don’t know what you’re talking about Edisen embellishing. She’s too careful and polite with her reporting and analysis. More like understating.

            “CT”–haven’t you heard? That’s so 2 years ago. It’s been CR for a while, Conspiracy Reporter or Researcher or Realist. Our dear Mr. Whitten authored and codified that, and has recently nominated “CA”, for Analyst. It’s taking the community by storm.

            I will have to check this out, that OUR Willie had anything to with my literary father’s most anthologized short story, “The Little Black Bag,” maybe the greatest short story of all time, sci-fi or not. I KNEW there was something super chill about WW that cannot be entirely explained by his erudition, comity, patience, perseverance, ad infinitum.

            Sorry, Kornbluth is a pen-name, a nickname, like Photon. I believe you’re the same Photon I attended college with in the late 1970s. I was there when a great good friend of ours gave you that nickname, and I believe I was the first to second that emotion. Of course the Cosmic Charge Account will never let me reveal your true identity because I’m still in your debt, treatment-wise.

            C. (Cyril) M. Kornbluth was the Shakespeare and the Nostradamus of the 20th century. His novels with Frederick Pohl, starting with The Space Merchants, and his solo novels ending with Not This August, predicted the assassination and The New Dark Age. But we’re going to come out the other side stronger, better.

            Someone asked Cyril what the M stands for. “Middle name” he said.

        • leslie sharp says:

          “In an attempt to prove her {Adele Edison} claims she made certain embellishments related to the D.C. area which were obviously false ” — photon

          “Please post any reputable source for that statement.” — photon

      • David Regan says:

        Roy, what is your take on the Wes Wise allegation and Tippit’s association with Carl Mathers of Collins Radio? http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_OswaldTippit.pdf

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David Regan,
          Wow. That is the most clear, concise brief about LHO and JDT associates, and what happened in Oak Cliff around 1:00 and after. It’s a gold mine as rich as Vittorio Peak. I glanced through it. It’s #1 in my bookmarks now and I will study it very closely and soon, and get back to you. For now, what strikes me, random thoughts:

          I haven’t considered the greatness of Wes Wise in some time. If not for him…I shudder to think. Also he almost singlehandedly stopped the demolition of TSBD, I believe when he was mayor.

          Larry Crafard (Jack Ruby’s live-in handyman at The Carousel) was the guy in that red and white car, waiting in the parking lot of the Mexican restaurant, who the mechanic saw and took down the license plate #. (I don’t believe that LC is mentioned in this precis.) He looked so much like Oswald that, when Ruth Paine saw a picture of LC, she was sure it was her sometime housemate LHO. LC was at the Tippit murder-scene with Roscoe White. LC impersonated LHO many times. LC fancied himself an expert on cars, both the driving of and mechanics of. Serviced JR’s cars and took the wild test-drive from Downtown Lincoln-Mercury.

          Carl Mathers and Collins Radio–in a nutshell, what’s worst about America. You probably know LBJ was given carte blanche to give CM carte blanche for fixing up Air Force Two with all the latest electronic communication gizmos. No telling what he did for LBJ after usurping the presidency. CM was probably key in the walkie-talkies for the assassins. There’s a lot more but I’m going from memory, pretty vague at this point.

          Crafard, Tippit, White, and Mathers knew each other all too well, though their stations in life cannot explain that. Oswald knew all of them except maybe Mathers, but even that wouldn’t surprise me. CM probably knew to keep hapless LHO at more than arm’s length.

          Thanks so much for that, David. If there’s anything I can do…

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David,
          One mistake in my previous post: the car in the El Chico parking lot right after the murder of JDT, owned by Tippit’s close friend Carl Amos Mather, was a light blue over medium blue 1957 Plymouth, NOT red and white. The very important red and white car happened upon the murder scene.
          Haste makes waste.
          It seems strange that bigshot, electronics wizard CAM, who lived in Garland, was such good friends with JDT. There’s probably an innocent explanation. Still perusing HSCA Oswald–Tippit.

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David,
          Haste makes waste again. Lord have mercy.
          The upshot, final: the car, with LHO lookalike in it, at El Chico’s around 2:00 (when the real LHO had just been arrested not too far away) was a red 1961 Falcon with Mathers’ license plate PP4537 on it, which was registered to CAM’s blue 1957 Plymouth. Nearly an hour previous, a red Ford was at the murder-scene parked in front of the pickup truck of Domingo Benavides’, whose lookalike brother was shot dead, in the head, not long after. A month? Two?

          All the car-loving Larry Crafard had to do was use Mathers’ plates for a couple hours. Maybe he switched them, maybe not.

          If not for 1.)the mechanic, TF White, walking across the street to check out the suspicious Larry Crafard, half-hiding behind a billboard but with a panoramic view in both directions; and taking down that plate number (LC peeled out immediately), and 2.)Wes Wise taking mechanic TF White’s story seriously, and pursuing it…….it could be a different ballgame.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            The Tippits and Matherses had known each others since 1958, when they were neighbors on Glenfield St. The older, brighter CAM ‘moved on up’ soon after and had a high security clearance at Collins. But the families stayed good friends. Kind of the odd couple, ey?

          • Photon says:

            What are you trying to state with the above?

          • David Regan says:

            Roy, though you would be interested in the following on Wes Wise and Carl Mather: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.ca/2012/02/wes-wise-and-carl-mather.html

            As you mentioned, it must have been an Oswald double the mechanic spotted in the Thunderbird at El Chico. Perhaps the same man seen by Robert Vinson on his flight from Dallas? http://22november1963.org.uk/robert-vinson-jfk-assassination

          • David Regan says:

            Certainly makes you wonder, Roy. The Tippit-Mather friendship was just as unlikely as the Oswald-Paine/de Mohrenschildt association. Nothing to see here, right?

          • leslie sharp says:

            David Regan, … ‘the Oswald-Paine/de Mohrenschildt association’ involved a series of encounters that seem to have been dismissed as insignificant or purely coincidental over the years.

            Ruth Paine, according to a composite of the testimony, did not meet Lee and Marina thru the deMohrenschildts except circuitously. She met them through her friendship with Magnolia Labs employee Everett Glover. Glover and the Paines had met while singing in the same church choral group.

            In early 1963, Glover met Sam Ballen at the home of Lauriston Marshall, president of the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest, founded by Eric Jonsson and his business partners in Texas Instruments. Ballen – a close friend of George deMohrenschildt – suggested to Glover that they take up doubles tennis with M/M deMohrenschildt.

            Over a period of weeks Glover, thru the deMohrenshildt’s, met Marina. Oddly enough, Sam Ballen testified that he only met Lee Oswald in his downtown Dallas office, yet his doubles tennis partner Everett Glover had encountered Marina on several occasions that spring.

            Glover then decided to host a dinner gathering and invited Marina and Lee and also invited the Paines but only Ruth could attend. These are the circumstances under which Ruth Paine met both Lee and Marina Oswald.

            The deMohrenschildts did not arrange the meeting between Lee and Ruth, and in fact they were vague in having attended the event at Glover’s at all.

            There is no indication in testimony that the deM’s knew Ruth Paine prior to that evening. There is no indication in Ruth Paine’s testimony that she even met the deMohrenschildt’s that evening because they arrived rather late and stayed only a short time.

            So the direct conduit for the fateful connection between Ruth Paine and Lee Oswald can be distilled down to Everett Glover and ‘by pure chance’ Sam Ballen.

            Was deMohrenschildt hung out to dry along with so many in this saga? Was he another obvious patsy? Did his friend Sam Ballen betray him as Jeanne deMohenschildt argued. Have the shadow characters in a compartmentalized conspiracy been overlooked for decades?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            David R 8:04p, that first link RE Wes Wise and Carl Mathers via Bill Kelly really rounds out the picture. BK is only one of a thousand serious researchers, yet the last few years it seems that he’s doing about half the good work. If you know Mr. Kelly could you ask him for me and a thousand others, “When the heck are you coming out with THE book?” Maybe you could team up with him.

            For me, a good thing about that link is it shows the confusion surrounding that piece of the puzzle, the red 1961 Falcon with Mathers’ plate, which was supposed to be on his blue 1957 Plymouth. I don’t feel so bad now about my own confusion evidenced in the posts above. Even Wes Wise and HSCA had trouble getting it straight.

            RE your second link, the 3:30p Robert Vinson flight from Dallas with another LHO double. This has always been major to me. I’m not married to it, but now I’m pretty certain there had to be (at least) two LHO impersonators. One, the real Larry Crafard hitchhiked out of Dallas on Sunday after JR shot LHO in the DPD basement; he ended up in places around Lake Michigan. So if the “LHO” on Vinson’s strangely marked cargoplane was LC, he had to return to Dallas from Roswell, NM in less than 36 hours. I guess it’s possible. Also, the LHO double who was with Roscoe White (“the stockier man with dark bushy hair”) at the Tippit killing, who was definitely Larry Crafard IMO, was busy a boy in that hour and a half from 12:39 to 2:00—
            1.dashing into Ruth Paine’s Rambler at TSBD
            2.at the Tippit murder scene at 1:08
            3.hustled out of the Texas Theatre, from balcony and out back door around 1:50
            4.in El Chico’s parking lot around 2:00
            I guess it’s all possible.
            But then again, the “Leon Oswald” at Sylvia Odio’s, the LHOs at target ranges, the other LHO in Mexico City, the loud attention-attracting LHO at the Mercury dealership—–If they were all Larry Crafard, that was one busy boy leading up to, during, and shortly after the assassination. Nearly as busy as his boss, Jack Ruby. Maybe Jack gave Larry some of his Prellies.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            David Regan, to your 8:32 post, the unlikely Tippit-Mathers friendship. It has always mystified me.
            From your great posts the last few days, I have a new theory. Both had a “spook” bent. I blame TV and the James Bond movies. They both loved gadgets, though JDT was inept with them, and they fancied themselves ladies’ men. Birds of a feather, right? Hardscrabble JDT looked up to the older, wealthier CAM.
            CAM saw JDT as a useful, willing tool, though he must have felt awful when the panicking RAW and LC gunned down his trusting friend. Mathers was nearly inconsolable; he was probably a driving force behind the munificence showered on the surviving Tippits.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Sam Ballen testified that at the behest of his friend George deMohrenschildt he interviewed Lee Oswald at his office located in the Southland Centre in downtown Dallas.

            Earlier this year, jfkfacts.org featured a story about an individual who claims that he and his girlfriend encountered Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas prior the assassination. What makes his claim distinct from others is that he alleges he witnessed Oswald in the company of two men he believes were David Atlee Phillips and Antonio Veciano. The building where this encounter is alleged to have taken place was the Southland Centre.

  56. leslie sharp says:

    Photon on Nov 7: “How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?”

    An exemplary question that tens of thousands of Americans have posed since the publication the Warren Commission Report

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Leslie, the vast majority of those who gripe about the Warren Report have never actually read it or it’s supporting volumes.

      • “….the vast majority of those who gripe about the Warren Report have never actually read it or it’s supporting volumes.”
        ~Tim Nickerson

        Are you implying that you have read the Warren Report and the supporting volumes?

        I have read the complete Report myself, at the San Diego Library. As well as quite a few references in the supporting volumes. This at the urging of Jim Marrs, whom I met in San Diego.

        As other researchers have discovered, there is much in the Report that flatly contradicts the body of the supporting volumes.
        \\][//

  57. Mark Spitz says:

    Lived about a mile from a restaurant in suburban Melrose Park, Illinois where another prominent mobster was executed near the time of Sam Giancana. Name of the restaurant was the “Golden Horns”

    Mob hits are usually up close and personal, like Ruby to Oswald….Mob was probably used again as disinformation and cleanup…not who paid for the bullet.

    United Fruit, who the Dulles bros law firm represented= Domino Sugar who lose Sugar cane investments in Cuba due to Castro, and Chicita Banana in Guatemala…hummmm

    George Orwell protected the interests of “the East India Trading Corporation” in the far east long before he wrote his book “1984, and guess who’s Tea our founding fathers threw into Boston Harbor in the Boston Tea Party…yup, The east India trading Corporation’s tea…we fought Vietnam over rubber trees for Michilan tire.

    Multinational corporations will do anything to protect their interests…and the Dulles broths represented them legally!

    More information needs to be extracted about Dulles and the CIA priject MKULTRA, and any connection to Sirhan Sirhan

  58. Bill says:

    Photon/Leslie:

    I was looking for this link to help understand the actual position of JFK’s car for descriptive purposes. I had not really paid much attention to it until after looking over frame 161 as the starting point. Anyway…this link is pretty interesting. One can see Robert Groden just about crying in his beer about being proven wrong…and Tink Thompson is not far behind. Especially in light of the length the assassination took from missed shot to head shot. ( About 8.3 seconds total time. This does NOT including the sighting before the first shot..that missed….another shot at 223/224 3.38 seconds later that hits both JFK and the Governor…followed 4.9 seconds later at z-313 ). Sound of first shot/reaction by Jackie, the Governor is the starting point. Since the Zapruder Camera was thought to have been operating at 18.3 fps it is just basic subtraction and then division by 18.3 to determine the seconds required.

    Interestingly. Run a stop watch from those places and you’ll have a vivid timeframe for the shooting. Here is the link. Of note is the decision by the Engineers, Dr. Vincent DiMayo (who wrote the book on forensics btw) and the Surveyors using laser sighting scopes TO NOT USE THE GOVT. (WC) NUMBERS AT ALL. They used the Zapruder film and landmarks visable on the film, in agreement with Groden, to conduct the analysis. The bottom line: WITHIN AN INCH of the WC valuations.

    Pay special attention to the logic used by the investigators. The discussion of what positions to use begins at the 2:55 minute mark.

  59. Mark Spitz says:

    Also…after I read that Oswald’s brother had said after Lee was accused of the murder of President Kennedy, “I’m not Surprised”. i traveled to Arkansan and the brick company he worked at, at the time of the assassination, it is near near Fort Smith. I had the grand tour, and i can tell all that Arkansan is a poor state, and the working conditions there are not so good. I can only imagine how they would be in the 60’s… with some pressure, I think he (Oswald’s brother) would say anything against Lee to improve his life…what do we know about him? especially after the assassination?

  60. Bill says:

    Photon. At the 3:00 minute mark of this link is a very clear view of the actions of Paul Landis. He was the Secret Service Agent on the right rear running board of the follow-up car. I happened to be reading his Statement about the Shooting and he also begins to do exactly what he said, react to a shot being fired at 161 (so slightly before), the same instant that Jackie and Connally begin to move. So does Agent Jack Ready.

    This link is from a very high definition of the Zapruder Film. It’s obviously the most clear. Actually…incredibly clear.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

    And Lastly. About Ejecta. There is also a copy of the Nix Film that was also subjected to digital clarification. It shows the material exploding out of the front of JFK’s Skull. Please pass this on to Silly Willy who, the other day had an issue of my describing the fatal head wound path. Apparently he is a better forensic pathologist than Dr. DiMayo. Who knew??

    Here is the link. Watch for Jackie to start her turn…then watch for Landis and Ready to do just as they said. Reaction at 161 tells it all. They all line up perfectly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

    Peace.

    • Bill says:

      The Nix Ejecta pattern is seen at the 25:56 mark.

      Later.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      What about Agent Ready. He was ready to try but was stopped.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        See Survivor’s Guilt.

      • Bill says:

        And he was stopped because of two reasons. One, Hill had already made his move and number two is the SS Vehicle began to move away from Hill (who jumped off the left running board) which caused the SS Limo Driver to veer slightly to the right (cutting of the path of Ready).

        It’s that simple.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Not quite. “Agent John Ready was recalled by Agent Emory Roberts to the follow up car when he started to react to the gunfire on 11/22/63. Mr. Roberts had ordered the men not to move even after recognizing the first shot as gunfire”. Survivor’s Guilt, pgs. 9-10. Why? Their job was to protect the President with their lives if necessary. They were gong 12 mph. Why the hell didn’t Roberts yell GO, Go, Go!!! if he recognized the first shot as gunfire?
          As Jackie’s personal requested agent Hill disobeyed the order.

  61. The Magic Bullet Theory is Dead

    This issue needs to be put to bed.

    The rules on ‘Chain of Custody’ is explicit and final.

    There is no legitimate chain of custody on the matter of the Parkland Bullet.

    CE399 shows up magically later in the chain and cannot legitimately be linked to the Parkland Bullet.

    That is the bottom line. That is ALL THERE IS TO IT.
    \\][//

    • Bill says:

      No Willy. What is dead is Groden’s Claims, Thompson’s nonsense, and your dissertation of CE 399.

      Sorry.

      • Bill, Mr. Brown is it?

        Your current comment that I herein answer has no substance other than an empty assertion.

        It is proven beyond the slightest doubt that the chain of custody of the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE # 399.

        Your complaints to the contrary simply have no merit.
        Your aim here is clear. That is your attempt to create a controversy out of a matter that is firmly settled. It is a redundant carousel of blather, meant as a simple diversionary tactic to conceal the facts of this matter.

        You fail to reason, and fail again, and yet you persist. This can only be accounted for in that you are a toady carrying putrid water for the illegitimate state.
        \\][//

        • Bill says:

          Mr. Brown???? Only two ways to interpret this one Willy. The Dood way: As in there is a Mr. Brown who had something to add/detract from the subject OR, the Bad way: As in you think my name is Brown.

          In both cases, as in this one as well. You are simply, totally, and completely dead wrong.

  62. Bill says:

    Leslie: I had to break up my response to your questions so bear with me. 🙂
    1. Leslie: the ’tilt’ in the box actually insures a more stable perspective for the shooter for one…and the second thing it does is allow for the gun to be rested further from the shooters eye/face. It also allows for a bit more screening from below.

    I think there may be a few shooters here who understand that there is a way to sight a gun by actually having it further from their face/sights. It is an illusion that the target is actually bigger than it appears. Almost as if it ‘fills up’ the sight/scope (whichever was used). I once had some hunting friends who would actually lay on their backs and place their guns between their crossed legs/feet and sight from more than 3 feet away from the gun. I don’t suggest that occurred here…but it is just another way to improve shooting skills.

    An example is this: Hold up a pencil about 2 inches in front of your eye and pretend you were looking at the ‘a’ in the “Leave a Reply” box here. Now move the pencil point about a foot closer to it and look again. You’ll see that now you can actually target the grey o in the middle of the word ‘a’. Perspective. Aim Small Miss Small. 🙂

    • leslie sharp says:

      Bill this is an impressive and concise précis. You have embellished on the narrative offered by the SS .

      I’ll try again: Is the replica of the boxes exactly as they were discovered on 11.22.63 and if so, what would a shooter have done if the 3rd box perched at that precarious slant had slipped?

      Your explanation of the barrel in proximity to the right window frame as the limo disappears from sight is unsatisfactory for me regardless of how the SS staged the reenactment. It would only make sense that the barrel would tip the window frame at some point, and the likelihood that a shooter could be assured he would get off exactly the shot that would kill the president before the barrel made contact with the extremities of the window is beyond calculation. I argue he would have had to stop shooting because of the window frame. I argue that he did stop shooting and that Kennedy’s lethal wounds came from another direction. Some even posit that no shots were fired from the window for the precise reason that the position a shooter would have to assume – that you say is entirely feasible although Agent Howlett appears reluctant to depict (I still don’t understand that) – and the configuration of the window frame and brick façade makes all of the shots unlikely and a shooter would not have taken the risks.

      I’ll tell you what else I see – just one example – without you or the SS narrator telling me what I see:

      At minute 12:15++ I see a curve to the 6 stacks of boxes that appear to have created the outer extremity of the ‘nest’. From the other perspective, it appears there are other boxes at approximately the same height, but they do not appear to be the ones that are placed in a curve. If there are at least two separate rows of stacked boxes, one of which is curved, that would allow a space between them for a shooter to hide until the critical time. Why weren’t all of those boxes simply shoved up against the windows in the first place as are many others along the South wall?

      I’ll refer back to the curb, and the filming of the curb in another comment.

  63. Bill says:

    Leslie, the Scope was mounted for a camera to be allowed to be fit onto a box because, as a shooter using the sights/scope, in the position the boxes were discovered, you wouldn’t see the hand holding the stock (part of gun under barrel) as it would be obscured. So, what you are seeing is the way it would be seen.

    2. Howlett leaning forward: Keeping it real here. Howlett can be viewed as someone sitting on the toilet to keep it simple. All he needed to do was lean forward a few inches and get nice and cozy on the pedestal he built. He even had the box not he window there to help him rest his arm onto something firm while shooting (it cuts down on wavering the gun up or down slightly…as in support). So, in the end all that Oswald had to do was lean forward and shoot. The smaller box on the window, the one that was tilted meant that Oswald would not have had had to move his entire torso to balance the guy. Just his right hand. He never had to make any of the moves that one would typically associate with sighting his target (such as violently and hurriedly reacquiring the target.

  64. Bill says:

    Leslie: 3. Curbing Question (?). I’m not sure of what you are referring to. I see the film of the underside of the Triple Underpass and the reason for it being called that (Elm Street, Commerce Street, Main Street) and then it goes on to show the Court Building etc. Is this the part you mention here for discussion? If it is…the reason for the car taking the kill zone (your words) route: There is no way for a car to get onto the correct road to get to the Trade Mart (the target for the Luncheon) that day. The Limo would have had to jump over a curb to do so. This is why it took the turns in such an awkward manner.

    Note: The car did not have bullet proof tires. It has special rims and the SS was very wary of the weight of the car and the curb-jumping idea was nixed. Apparently the car was not the safest vehicle for a President to be in protection-wise (i.e., no bullet-proofing). But the testimony of the curb-jumping was part of the WC report so I don’t believe it was missed as far as discussion about the street/route was investigated.

    • leslie sharp says:

      No Bill, I’m referring to footage later in the video where we are shown the right turn onto Stemmons, after the motorcade passed thru the underpass. David vonPein has several photos of the curb as it appears at that juncture posted on his site. I drove that route dozens of times so I know the possibility that if you fail to stay right as directed (and the traffic cops don’t stop you first) that you can actually jump the curb at the very end of it and easily catch the exit to Stemmons. The exercise I describe was in full traffic; we are here deliberating a similar maneuver under conditions that were present for the parade motorcade. No traffic to the left, no traffic to the right, a clear route from that centre lane with a bump over the curb to catch Stemmons, avoiding the kill zone by a significant number of yards at a speed that would ensure appropriate safety of the president. Instead, the motorcade took two slow turns and passed thru a kill zone.

      • leslie sharp says:

        “But the testimony of the curb-jumping was part of the WC report so I don’t believe it was missed as far as discussion about the street/route was investigated.” –

        Bill, If you turn from watching the video and only listen to the narration – a reverse process from the one earlier – you will hear that virtually every question that could have been posed in those early months following the crime is anticipated, including the question of the curb. Clearly some Warren Commission investigators recognized the failure of the Secret Service to protect the president when they did not insist that a diversion thru Dealey represented a kill zone. You acknowledge that jumping the curb was on the table which insists that the SS knew there was a problem with the route. You argue that the tires weren’t bullet proof and the limo wasn’t either. Why didn’t the SS insist they install proper tires that would allow the jump if they were cognizant of the problems with the route? Times are different now, but it is reasonable to ask why didn’t the SS demand the curb be removed for that occasion and then replaced? If the FBI or whoever was able to extract the curb where evidence existed of shots fired (Tague), why couldn’t they have preempted the tragedy in the first place by removing the curb for access to Stemmons if it was such an impediment?

        • Bill says:

          Really simple reason: Busses and other cars weren’t going to be fitted that a way. You’re really reaching on this issue Leslie. I am wondering why, at every point, you become paranoid about some plot? The issue is/was well discussed. In fact, it WAS KENNEDY’S Parade…in Texas…a State that was at war with it’s own political bosses and that KENNEDY NEEDED. AND KENNEDY wanted the parade and he wanted that motorcade and the press and everything that goes with the production of it.

          But thanks for your questions. Have a great Holiday Season.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Signing off with blaming the victim? That is a real stretch, Bill. When advocates of Oswald’s guilt become frustrated that they have failed to spin the facts, they walk away. Good for your mental health perhaps as it’s unsettling for some to have a fixed belief challenged. No, I’m not reaching. I am calling attention to your own acknowledgement that the route down Elm was as it should have been a very significant issue for those planning the motorcade precisely because they knew it would expose Kennedy unnecessarily, a slowing of the limo AND placing him in the crosshairs of any number of positions in the kill zone. If the SS knew that jumping the curb was unfeasible, then every measure should have been taken to examine the buildings surrounding Dealey, closing off windows, sealing manhole covers and positioning law enforcement as deterrents. That’s 101 stuff is it not? It was an appalling failure and precisely because it was so far outside ordinary procedures, it suggests a deliberate decision on someone’s part.

          • Bill says:

            Leslie. Are you seriously saying that the Secret Service, IN 1963, had the manpower to do as you suggest????

            Yeah. It does suggest a deliberate decision by someone else. Lee Harvey Oswald.

            You are confused with a seething desire to blame this entire event on anyone other than what/where the facts lead. And, by the way, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that the path down Elm Street KNOWINGLY PUT KENNEDY into a kill zone. That is your view of the world not mine.

            This was 1963 dear. The crazy world that JFK told his wife was ‘real nut country’. There were only 350 SS Agents in 1963 and only a few of those were actually on Protection Detail. Most were in the PRS (Protective Research Section). Agent Hill worked worked by jumping one city ahead of the President just to be ready for a visit. The Budget in 1963 was 5 million dollars. Today it is 1.6 Billion dollars and to follow it there are about 3500 people in the SS.

            That’s 101 stuff. Here is a link to some interesting stuff on the Secret Service. Especially Mr. Hill…who is tortured to this day. EVEN his story changes, sadly. I’m sure one day he will actually put himself onto the back of that Limo by this own words. Over the years he has moved closer and closer to the shot point at 313..but the reality is that he was as slow as everyone else and was really only at the front wheel well of the Follow up car.

            Oh. Please pass this on to Willy. It’s another photo of the ‘glob’ of tissue he insisted was Skull Tissue on the trunk after the last shot. Looks like one of the radio antennae to me.

            Peace.

            http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/19/how-secret-service-has-changed-50-years-lafter-jfk

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill, A “seething desire”? Surely you wrote that in a pique of frustration; and “This was 1963 dear.” Condescension is equally unbecoming of you.

            The Secret Service worked in tandem with local enforcement authorities; the Dallas Police Department and the Sherriff’s department were well staffed on that day and equally responsible for ensuring their president’s safety. So the numbers game simply will not wash. Distracting the discussion by introducing Agent Hill is transparent.

            ‘”the crazy world that JFK told his wife was ‘real nut country’.”

            If Oswald is your assassin and you agree with Jean Davison that he was a Communist (or was it Marxist?) who decided to murder the president because of his political views and did so in a spontaneous act, are you then arguing that Kennedy was referring to Dallas as communist-infested nut country? If you do your research you’ll discover that he was reflecting on the earlier assault on Adlai Stevenson, the Bruce Alger/ Edwin Walker/JBS alliance, the extreme right independent oil cabal, the segregationists (and in the extreme), the KKK …. not the potential threat of a 24 yr old former Marine who had defected to Russia.

            “That is your view of the world not mine.”
            I wouldn’t exactly characterize it as a “world view” – a term as inflated as “seething desire”, but aside from those taunts, would you concede that the Elm Street detour was tantamount to a kill zone whether Kennedy was placed in it wittingly or not? If not, can you give a definition of kill zone, and perhaps provide a link to diagrams that fall within the category.

        • Bill says:

          Because, unlike the conspiratorial mindset that you insist on demonstrating…they never consider it. Just as simple as that.

  65. Bill says:

    Leslie:4. Yes. I can see the window frame that you mention. But the car had already gone far past the place where Kennedy was killed by then. Try to think the of Scope as a device which ‘zooms’ in onto the target and the dissimilarity of it to a ‘fisheye’ view that you eye would have as compared to it. Not that an eye is a fisheye, not by any stretch…but in this case the ability of the scope to demonstrate a target vs. the human eye is apparent. But please notice that the sign that comes into view at the very end is far past where kennedy was killed. I’m going to put a link that some person took of the view coming down the steps onto the Elm from the knoll. Keep in mind that JFK was killed at about the mid-point of the two light poles (or about directly opposite Zapruder).

    Here is that link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOpUYJAbGnA

    In the Moorman Photo, Nix Photo, Zapruder Film, Bronson Film etc the shot that killed JFK was fired long before the little stairs that lead up/down to Elm (where the men were standing) from the knoll. In the SS Film you can actually see the Stairs come into view as the car is headed into its sweeping turn.

  66. Bill says:

    And for some closure on the clarity of the film used. It is useful because you can see the reactions of the Agents on the Follow-up Car running boards. Landis was the Agent closest to Kennedy to the TSBD. His statement describes exactly what he said he did..just as Mrs. Kennedy’s describes what she did at the sound of the first shot…just as Governor Connally’s statement describes what he did at the sound of the first shot.

    In conclusion, the EVIDENCE you can read and see with your own two eyes, that can be corroborated by a stop-watch experiment as well, certainly points to a very easily accepted view of the following:

    1. First shot at or about frame 160 + or minus 2 frames.
    2. That the Oak Tree did obscure the path of the bullet in/at that time.
    3. The first shot missed (as Kennedy continues to wave and Connally/Jackie/Landis/Ready begin to react.
    4. The second shot hits both Kennedy and Connally about 3.3 seconds later, just as the Engineers and ballistic experts, and FORENSIC EXPERT concluded without having to use one single WC/WO factoid (they used only the Zapruder Film’s landmarks) that could only come from the 6th Floor window.
    5. That Kennedy was killed by another shot which was fired about 4.9 seconds later, also fired from the 6th Floor window proven by…the Nix Film showing Ejecta..and.
    6. Discussed by Dr. Vincent DiMayo, who wrote the ME Book on Forensic Investigations, describing how the bullet angle could only have come from the 6th Floorl and strock the top portion of JFK’s skull and caused the eruption of brain and materials that is also shown on the NIX FILM in front of KENNEDY’S SKULL in vivid detail.

    Which of course makes short work of the nonsense most allegations described by willy, ronnie, bonnie, tommy, davey, et al, try to propagate.

    The clear, stabilized, and enchanted version of the Zapruder Film, with the ability to see the data between the sprocket holes, establishes the statements of those in the first two cars as totally congruous and valid. Right down to Landis, Ready, Jackie, Gov. Connally.

    When you rule out the rumors by using practical evaluation methods you will wind up with the probable.

    Peace out.

    • jeffc says:

      The Single Bullet Theory is patent nonsense, as even those who devised the theory surely knew.
      The wound on the President’s back is too low for the theory to have any validity. Critics had established this fact many many years ago, forcing autopsist Humes to appear on national television in 1967 and tell the blatant lie that the Rydberg drawings were accurate. Since that moment, all attempts to validate the SBT have been, in effect, swirling winds of hot air and b.s.
      Time wasters, as Salandria noted.

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Jeff, the wound on Kennedy’s back is not too low. We can view its location for ourselves in the black and white autopsy photo of the back. The Clark Panel, in viewing the autopsy photos, measured the “back” wound to be approximately 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the front. That would be with Kennedy in a fully upright position.

        • David Regan says:

          According to sketches drawn for the HSCA by FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill, who were both present at the autopsy, Kennedy’s back wound was considerably lower than the throat wound. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md85/html/md85_0009a.htm

          According to a summary sent a few hours after the autopsy and the Sibert-O’Neill report,Dr. Humes probed the wound in Kennedy’s back and “determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees” which would make it impossible to exit from the throat. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625&relPageId=6 http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

          • JohnR says:

            Mr. Regan, I want to agree with you, I really do. If a bullet hit JFK in the back at a 45 degree angle where did the bullet come from?

          • Bill says:

            And apparent it is all waived of because you say so. So the study led by Dr. DiMayo and looked over by the (ex) Hero of multiple shooters Robert Grodin, is incorrect?

            So we have Sibert and O’Neill who did just as much guessing as to what they were looking at as did Humes and Boswell. Now the entire thing hinges on the sketches drawn for the HSCA by these two almost 17 years later?

            OMG.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David,

            Sibert and O’Neill said that Humes probed the wound with his finger. Based on the size of the wound, we know that the finger couldn’t have went in very far. Humes et al did not attempt to accurately measure an angle of declination. Nor did they record such an angle. They did however determine and record that the wound was one of entry. The x-rays revealed that no bullet remained inside of Kennedy’s body. It had to have exited his throat.

            The drawing that Sibert and O’Neill placed their markings on of where they recalled that the wounds were is a very poor representation of a human’s physique. And especially a poor representation of Kennedy’s physique. Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on the 14 year old recollections of Sibert and O’Neill. We have the pertinent autopsy photos available to us.

        • Nickerson,

          The Rydberg drawings are absolutely worthless as per accuracy in depicting any of Kennedy’s wounds.
          This, like the broken chain of evidence, has been established for years now.

          “The Commission was expected to draw its conclusions based on palpably unreliable information, when the most accurate images existed and should have been utilized. This failure to scrutinize the best evidence is a glaring example of the Commission’s obviously preconceived agenda.

          These drawings were for many years the only visual representations of Kennedy’s wounds the public were allowed to see. They gave a misleading impression of the injuries sustained by Kennedy bolstering the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the sole assassin, if indeed he fired any shots at all.”
          ~Barry Keane
          http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/
          \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Tim,
            “very few people have read the WO report.”

            With all due respect, I think the question should be “Why would anyone want to read that piece of fiction/crap/deception?

            A close look at the “distinguished members” of the WO should have led any free thinking American to realize that the government was about to again screw us. Why would I read something that I knew was going to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Take a look at the “facts” and you can see why no one read that hunk of crap.
            1. LBJ was the president. The single most corrupt president in the history of the US. Right there, people should have known it was going to be a whitewash. In case you have forgotten, LBJ led this country into the most disastrous war in the history of this country. And he did so with a lie. Why did he never see a jail cell? I am supposed to believe anything he said? Nope, not for me.
            2. J. Edgar Hoover. I know, let us have an investigation led by a man who kept his job not because he was good at it, but because he had a picture of me having sex with a donkey. Quite a resume, huh? In addition, he was supposed to be helping keeping the president safe. He failed. Now, I am going to let him investigate his failure? Oh yeah, let me have a copy of that! And get this: his actions were so repugnant to other politicians that there is a move afoot right now to have his name taken off the FBI building. Wrap your head around that, Tim. Politicians are so disgusted by the actions of a fellow government employee they want his name removed. YES, I will believe ANY thing he has to say.
            3. Gerald Ford: The biggest lapdog in US politics. The man who chided people for trying to make money off of JFK, and then wrote a book about LHO and his motives. The man who pardoned RMN, to allow the country to heal. Uh-huh. Not to uncover the dirty secrets in Washington, but to let me heal. Brings a tear to my eye! Oh, yeah, the man who fed info to JEH so that Hoover could provide the info the WO needed. Yep, I MUST HAVE that book!
            4. Allen Dulles: The man who was NOT elected to any job. The man who believed HE should overthrow ANY foreign government that would not prostitute itself to the greedy American businesses that paid Mr. Dulles. Reming me, Tim, where in our constitution does it allow the CIA director to overthrow a foreign government because he is on the take? I am supposed to believe a WORD that CRIMINAL has to say? Oh, I know. Mr. Dulles, did his dirty work for national security. YES! Honduras (see United Fruit Company) was on the VERGE of rampaging through Texas had not Dulles acted!

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Very few people have read the WO report.”

            With all due respect, I think the question should be “Why would anyone want to read that piece of fiction/crap/deception?

            Perhaps this is true Steve. But cannot we say the same about the other side also? Why would anyone want to read “JFK and Vietnam” by John Newman? How about “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James W. Douglass? Both are “fiction/crap/deception too but they receive high praise from the conspiracy side. They are just as predictable as any other propaganda.

            The first attack in the Tonkin Gulf was true. The second was a mistake; it was not true. So I think most we can charge LBJ with here is One half a lie. Some think we went to war in Vietnam over the Tonkin Gulf incident. This is very foolish and shallow scholarship at best.

            The United Fruit Company was also in Honduras but it was Guatemala that we overthrew their government by force. I have never seen any evidence that we feared an invasion by Honduras. Do you have any?

            I’m shocked that you actually think Allen Dulles could go around overthrowing foreign governments without approval from the president. I write this off as the common blame the CIA so you can keep Camelot shining propaganda that is so common.

        • jeffc says:

          The Clark Panel was convened specifically to deflect or refute criticism of the Warren Report. The Panel met for two days in early 1968, reviewing the medical evidence, and then issuing a report which has since required corrections by later official panels.

          The black and white autopsy photo clearly shows the wound as below the clavicle and therefore below the location of the tracheotomy. The Clark Panel had no basis to determine relation between wounds in the front and back, particularly as the measurement of the back wound was not properly located (instead of the spine, the autopsy doctors measured from a location on JFK’s head). However, the autopsy FAC sheet , the death report, and the Sibert-O’Neill report place the wound as near the T3 level of the spine, which is clearly far below the tracheotomy. These three reports match the holes seen in Kennedy’s shirt and jacket.

          http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/NeckAndTorsoXrays/NeckAndTorsoXrays.htm

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc,

            If the Clark Report was corrected by later official panels it certainly was not on their placement of the entry wound. The only “correction” that I’m aware of is their misinterpretation of “shadows” seen in x-ray of the neck as being metal fragments.

            The black and white photo does NOT show the wound as below the clavicle. In fact, the black and white photo doesn’t show the clavicle at all. The wound was at the base of the right side of the NECK. It was above the T1 vertebrae.

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N: “The only “correction” that I’m aware of is their misinterpretation of “shadows” seen in x-ray of the neck as being metal fragments.”

            The Clark Panel’s “misinterpretation” was precisely the evidence you cited as proving the back wound was 3.5. centimetres above the alleged exit wound in the throat.

          • Kennedy’s back wound was at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae
            JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound:

            https://i0.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/-oyKHM5l7VQI/UEehgNrnG0I/AAAAAAAAAEE/M8CeG0p2NEw/s1600/JFK+Autopsy+face+sheet.jpg
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc wrote:

            The Clark Panel’s “misinterpretation” was precisely the evidence you cited as proving the back wound was 3.5. centimetres above the alleged exit wound in the throat.
            =========================================

            Jeff, that doesn’t make sense. The misinterpretation was of the shadows seen on an x-ray, not in the placement of two wounds using photographs of the exterior of the body.

            The wound was 13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process, as measured by the Bethesda pathologists. I believed that they rounded it up to 14 in their report. In using the photos of the back, the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP determined it to be 14 cm below and 13.5 cm below respectively.

            “the base of the right side of the neck”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            If you have ever read ANY of my posts, you would know I was not, nor have ever been, a fan of JFK. He was a serial womanizer, with connections to the mob, all fueled by his dad’s money, which was also obtained illegally. So, I really don’t know what a “Camelot shiner” is. However, I would rather be a Camelot shiner than a butt-kissing Warren Omission believing lapdog. You?

            So, LBJ is guilty of only “half a lie?” You mean the half of a lie that cost 58,000 innocent American lives and an estimated 3 million Vietnamese lives? Is that the mistake you are referring to? Does it bother you that most of the Americans who perished in Vietnam were the poor and less fortunate? Does that mistake bother you at all, Bill?

            The fact that you believe Vietnam was fought to stop the “domino theory” is even less than scholarly as to be insipidly stupid. I am guessing that you also believe the Gulf War’s 1 and 2 were fought to protect American lives, as well? If so, you are the kind of American our government relishes!

            I am shocked that you think Allen Dulles was allowed to have his job, keep his job, and have any influence in American society. Maybe you should re-read what Harry S. Truman said about the agency he created. You see, Bill, Harry was ACTUALLY there. You and I were not. If he thinks it was an out of control agency that answered to no one, I tend to believe him—not you.

            Why don’t you take a moment and read Naomi Klein’s book, Shock and Awe. Then we can talk about the CIA and its role in “helping” foreign countries experience the joys of “American democracy,” after refusing to prostitute their resources out to greedy and soulless American corporations.

            The big difference between the WO report and Newman and Douglass? Their books are their opinions. You and I can buy them, or not buy them. They are not part of the public record. The WO is. The WO report, is, much to a large majority of the American population’s chagrin, the ONLY thing we have for “official truth” about the killing of a US president. Gee, Bill, how have their conclusions played out over the past 50 plus years? They certainly did “settle the dust” didn’t they Bill?

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N – “The misinterpretation was of the shadows seen on an x-ray, not in the placement of two wounds…”

            The Clark Panel identified metal fragments as evidence of the track of a bullet: “There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-ray…”

            Tim N = “the placement of two wounds using photographs of the exterior of the body.”

            The Clark Panel identified a “transverse fold in the skin of the neck” seen in the autopsy photo of the back wound, and then observed the same fold was viewed in a “lateral view of the neck” which also showed the tracheotomy incision. The Panel claims that, using this “fold”, the levels of the two wounds can be compared. This is specious. In one photo, the body is face down on a table and held in position by a gloved hand. In the other photo, the body is face up with the head placed on a metal stirrup. The body is therefore in two differing positions and no accurate measurement can be made from such a malleable landmark as a fold of skin.

            Just like no accurate information is transmitted by stating the wound was “13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process” because it is not a fixed landmark. The autopsy doctors were either incompetent or were deliberately creating a document which prevented a true understanding of the wounds. Dr Humes lied about the back wound on national television in 1967.

            The true nature of the back wound is revealed by the autopsy FAC sheet, Dr Burkley’s death report, the observations of Siebert and O’Neill, and the holes in Kennedy’s shirt and jacket. It was in the back, too low to activate the SBT. This can be seen in the autopsy photo, the wound is below the line of the shoulder – in the back, not the base of the neck.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            However, I would rather be a Camelot shiner than a butt-kissing Warren Omission believing lapdog. You?

            Actually I’d rather not be either one. And I’m not, never have been and never will.

            Does it bother you that most of the Americans who perished in Vietnam were the poor and less fortunate? Does that mistake bother you at all, Bill?

            What bothers me, Steve, is when someone takes it upon themselves to tell me about our fallen warriors in Vietnam. I lived with these men 24/7 for the year I was in Vietnam. No offense but you won’t be telling me anything about these men.

            The fact that you believe Vietnam was fought to stop the “domino theory” is even less than scholarly as to be insipidly stupid.

            I hope I’ve never claimed the war was fought to stop the domino theory. You form a theory in 1954 (speech by Ike) and you fight until 1973 (January 27, 1973); a total of 19 years. In reality the theory had been in effect long before Ike gave it a name in 1954 but 19 years is good enough. Now what I find insipidly stupid is the thought that since the DT didn’t work in 1975 it was a failed theory. Does one having these thoughts think nothing changed in those 19 years? Have you ever thought the theory was true in the early years? But that is another story.

            I am guessing that you also believe the Gulf War’s 1 and 2 were fought to protect American lives, as well.

            You guess wrong. If you know any combat veteran they will probably be the most anti-war person you know. It breaks my heart when I watch them send our young men and now women off to war. I know what they face for the rest of their lives. Gulf War 2 was particularly offensive to me since we had a bunch of Vietnam draft dodgers that started it. There was no need for that.

            I’m well aware of Truman thoughts on the CIA. Harry was quick to bust up the OSS and didn’t want the CIA. I think this a bit naive of old Harry. Harry was retired when he made those comments but if the CIA was out of control then it was the job of the president to begin firing people. The CIA has long taken the blame for the president, plausible denial being one of the main reasons the CIA was formed.

            I’ll just have to pass on your thinking that Dulles went around overthrowing foreign governments all on his own. Do you think Dulles “slipped” these operations by the presidents or what?

        • The wound on Kennedy’s back is located at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae. That would be approximately six inches below Kennedy’s collar line.

          The wound to Kennedy’s throat was an entry wound, according to Dr Perry who performed the Tracheotomy.
          Before that procedure he described the wound as a small puncture wound.
          \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The back wound placement at T-3 is further verified by simply looking at JFK’s shirt and suit coat in the National Archives. A shot from the sixth floor entering there would have come out in his lower chest or abdomen.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-JFKCLOTHES

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc wrote:

            The Clark Panel identified a “transverse fold in the skin of the neck” seen in the autopsy photo of the back wound, and then observed the same fold was viewed in a “lateral view of the neck” which also showed the tracheotomy incision. The Panel claims that, using this “fold”, the levels of the two wounds can be compared. This is specious. In one photo, the body is face down on a table and held in position by a gloved hand. In the other photo, the body is face up with the head placed on a metal stirrup. The body is therefore in two differing positions and no accurate measurement can be made from such a malleable landmark as a fold of skin.
            ===========================================

            There’s a perfect illustration as to why you should leave photographic analysis wounds up to the experts. Kennedy’s body is not face down on the table in the photo that you are referring to. He has been turned on his side.

            The two photos accurately show the placement of the two wounds and allow for an accurate determination of the vertical distance between the two wounds. Your complaint about the Clark Panel’s use of those photos is without merit.

            =========================================== Just like no accurate information is transmitted by stating the wound was “13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process” because it is not a fixed landmark.
            ===========================================

            The tip of the mastoid process is not best point of reference to use, that’s true. But no amount of movement of it will put the wound down close to where you purport that it was. The photos tell the true story.
            ===========================================

            The true nature of the back wound is revealed by the autopsy FAC sheet
            ===========================================

            Notations on the autopsy face sheet say 13.5 cm below the tip of rt mastoid process. Thornton Boswell, who filled out that facesheet, said that notations were correct but that the marking on the diagram was not accurate. Placement accuracy is not the purpose of those diagrams. Boswell then placed an x at where he recalled that the wound was. In actually, the x is probably a little high.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sun.gif

          • Kennedy’s back wound was at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae.
            JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > This is exactly at the spot on Boswell’s sheet. It is exactly where the hole is on Kennedy’s coat. It is exactly where it is on Kennedy’s shirt.

            For whatever reason, the story about Boswell changing the position of the wound at the dot to the position now called [X]; simply does not wash. This is one of those shifting stories that is infamous in this case. All adjustments to the tale lending towards verifying the magic bullet theory.
            This can not be coincidence and positing that such shifts in the story such as these are clear evidence of pressure being put of Boswell, like it was put on Dr Perry. like it was put on Tomlinson in that early morning threatening phone call he received.
            As this fits in with the wholesale coercion manifest in this obvious whitewash–and the fact that this is a clear indication of what is called ‘Habit Evidence’:

            “The proponent may also introduce evidence of habit or routine practice to establish the chain of custody. Federal Rule 406 provides that evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization “on a particular occasion was in conformity with the … routine practice.” — Giannelli (1996)

            That such coercion and intimidation is in fact the “routine practice” of the intelligence agencies, gives us again the MO of those running the assassination, and it’s subsequent cover-up.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N- “The two photos accurately show the placement of the two wounds and allow for an accurate determination of the vertical distance between the two wounds.”

            The photos expressly do not allow for an accurate determination at all. For the reasons stated – the body is in a different position and the neck fold is malleable.

            The autopsy photo shows the wound in the back, not the neck.

            Boswell’s notation matches the Burkley death report, the Siebert-O’Neill report, and the holes in the jacket and shirt.

            No matter how many times you assert the above is “without merit”, or whatever, you are incorrect and, obviously, will continue to insist on being incorrect. Good luck with that.

      • Bill says:

        And apparent it is all waived of because you say so. So the study led by Dr. DiMayo and looked over by the (ex) Hero of multiple shooters Robert Grodin, is incorrect?

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          jeffc wrote:

          The photos expressly do not allow for an accurate determination at all. For the reasons stated – the body is in a different position and the neck fold is malleable.
          =================================================

          The neck fold is malleable? WTF?

          ==================================================

          The autopsy photo shows the wound in the back, not the neck.
          ==================================================

          The autopsy photo shows the wound in the neck. The Bethesda Pathologists and the two official forensic investigations that came later all determined that the wound was in the neck. The Clark Panel showed us how we can see for ourselves that the wound in the back of the neck was higher than the exit wound in the front.

          Jerry Organ illustrated it rather nicely:

          http://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif

          =================================================
          Boswell’s notation matches the Burkley death report, the Siebert-O’Neill report, and the holes in the jacket and shirt.
          =================================================

          Boswell’s notation is the notes on the side, not the marking on the diagram. As Boswell himself has told us, the notation is correct, the marking on the diagram is not. Burkley, Sibert and O’Neill were not forensic examiners and it’s likely that none of them ever saw the wound close up. The jacket and shirt were both bunched up at the time that the bullet went through.

          Your whole argument is laughable.

          • David Regan says:

            Bill, the holes in the rear of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were both approximately 5 3/8 inches below the collar, far too low to account for the exit wound in his throat and the subsequent wounds to Governor Connally. Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. President Kennedy’s buttoned-up shirt had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. It could not have bunched up significantly. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=85
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/88/Photo_naraevid_CE394-3.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/e/e8/Photo_naraevid_CE393-2.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_naraevid_CE393-1.jpg

            Vice Admiral, George Burkley, the personal physician to JFK, signed a death certificate on the 23rd stating that the second wound was located in the back “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587&relPageId=2

            The third thoracic vertebra is typically 4-6 inches below the point at which the shoulders meet the neck.

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N – “The neck fold is malleable? WTF?”

            Determining an anatomical position based on two photos in which a body is positioned differently is voodoo science. The neck fold is malleable because it cannot serve as a fixed point in these conditions. The Clark Panel supported their voodoo science by incorrectly asserting metal fragments could be seen in an X-ray.

            Tim N – “The Clark Panel showed us how we can see for ourselves that the wound in the back of the neck was higher than the exit wound in the front.”

            By using voodoo science. Their assertion seems to be the origin point of any number of highly deceptive diagrams, including the one you linked to.

            Tim N – “As Boswell himself has told us, the notation is correct, the marking on the diagram is not.”

            Boswell, along with Humes, directed the creation of the Rydberg drawings, which depict a neck wound that is wildly incorrect and misleading. Boswell would claim, in late 1966, that the autopsy photos clearly showed a wound in the neck. Humes, in 1967, appeared on national television and claimed that the Rydberg drawing was accurate and matched the autopsy photo. Neither man has any credibility on this issue.

            The autopsy photo does not depict a wound in the neck. It does not. It is plain to see. Your argument is that Boswell’s drawing, Burkley’s report, and Sibert-O’Neill were not only wrong, but somehow coincidentally wrong in exactly the same way. And equally coincidentally wrong in a way which matched the holes in the jacket and shirt. That’s five interlocking evidential items, which you claim are vitiated by say-so of a man with proven credibility issues.

            The SBT is wrong before it even starts, and then wrong again in multiple ways. It was deliberately concocted BS, and those responsible knew it. The fact that later “experts” would sign on to this nonsense simply demonstrates that fealty to establishment doctrine often overrides loyalty to the truth.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Speaking only for myself, I remain unconvinced by your expert, and your conclusions. I know you were talking to Willy and David and others, but your “expert” can be ruled out by other experts with a different view. So, for me, the issue of Oswald and the head wound and the ballistics is just as clouded as they were in 1963. The fact the easiest shot was missed, whatever reason you would like to give—the tree, the sign, the sign pole, someone farting in the crowd, Billy Lovelady wearing a dress— still has not been explained to any degree of satisfaction.

      A word of help for you. Please don’t tell Photon that you believe Ruby and Oswald and the mob and the DPD were in concert on the big event. The WO is his bible and hope, and to tell him that you believe that Ruby drove Oswald ANYWHERE might send him into a tailspin…

      • Bill says:

        Steve. It is perfectly fine for you to remain unconvinced. But it’s not a fair evaluation of the ‘evidence’. Maybe you haven’t thought of it like that? Only you know the answer to that.

        I don’t tailor my views on theories, or cherry-picked points, etc. I’ve seen so many people just run from argument to theory every time a new one is formed. So, I JUST USE THE EVIDENCE that was collected. The evidence is what the CT’ers can’t produce. Not a single shred of any ‘evidence’ that can point to any other conclusion exists. What is left is only another theory that a CT’er will embrace. They keep coming all the time and, one-by-one the new Theory falls to the wayside.

        Dr. Vincent DiMaio be ruled out? I don’t think that observation is valid. Dr. DiMaio was actually one of the Doctors who participated in the Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald. He completely and firmly establishes that any mention of a right/frontal shot at JFK is purely ‘make-believe’ and ‘out of an Arnold Swarzenagger’ movie. He is nationally recognized as an expert on this case.

        The Tree. Look. I didn’t put the tree there. It is seen to be EXACTLY where it appears to be, from looking at the FBI frame-by-frame- recreation and the SS recreation. At frame 161 +/- it was in a position to impede a shot and therefore deflect the first shot.

        The fact is that the Governor, Mrs. Kennedy, Agents Ready and Landis, all say the same reactions they are seen doing were begun at PRECISELY THAT MOMENT. We call it evidence.

        As for Photon. Is it important for you to tell me what I can say or not say?? Is it SUCH A BIG DEAL? News Flash: People are allowed to formulate their own opinions based on EVIDENCE (me) or Ridiculousness (willy/Ronnie/Dave/et-al), or Gut.

        The issue is being able to state the opinion.

        I’m sorry that the EVIDENCE given by two Agents and an ex-First Lady, and a Governor aren’t enough. The adage is true: It’s not the ruler that lies…it’s the guy reading it!

        Peace.

        • JohnR says:

          Bill, no matter what “evidence” you think is pertinent, you still can’t place Oswald anywhere above the second floor anytime after noon. Everything else you call evidence is just as likely to have been planted as not. No one else but Oswald was ever investigated. So how is this other evidence supposed to exist?

          • Bill says:

            John. Thank you for the note. But the issue is that there is plenty of time for Oswald to have gone back up to the 6th floor after being seen in the Lunchroom area.

            Carolyn Arnold gave two statements about seeing LHO in the Second Floor Lunchroom. One time she said 12:15…and another time she said 12:25 (near the front door). However, he motorcade viewing partner told the WC that she went out to see the motorcade, with Arnold at 12:15.

            4 Employees, Arce, Givens, Lovelady, and Williams ALL put Oswald on the 6th Floor asking for an elevator to be sent up. One Employee, Givens, had to return to get his cigarettes and actually asked Oswald if he were going down.

            So, his gun, his work-schedule vs. his work out-put that day, his co-workers, and his own actions and lies (come on…why lie about being outside with Shelley in the first place.

            The evidence that was collected is just exactly what it was. Part of the totality of evidence that physically puts LHO in that window pulling that trigger.

            I’d say that Givens, returning to grab his smokes, where he see’s Oswald standing with his Order Clipboard does him in pretty good. 12:15 or so. Interesting that the Clipboard was found right near where the rifle was discovered after the shooting.

            Everything was just as likely to be planted???? Ok. No one else but Oswald was ever investigated? Ha. The man killed a cop. He ordered a rifle. He was on the floor.

            I have no idea as how to interpret your last sentence? Why investigate anyone else when you have everything within you need?

          • David Regan says:

            Bill, the FBI report on November 26th states that, Carolyn Arnold caught a fleeting glimpse of someone she thought might be Oswald, standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor when she was leaving the building around 12:15, however, Arnold was not given the opportunity to check and did not sign that report and has since challenged its accuracy regarding the time. http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44

            According to his Warren Commission testimony, Bonnie Ray Williams arrived on the sixth floor with his chicken sandwich and a soda-pop about, or shortly after, 12 noon. Williams testified that he neither saw nor heard anyone else on the sixth floor and left at approximately 12:20 http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=181

            So, when exactly did Oswald have time to get back upstairs, build the snipers nest, assemble the rifle (with a dime as Photon has postulated) and been ready to fire by 12:25 – which evidently was when the motorcade was scheduled to pass through Dealey Plaza.

            Not to mention, Arnold Rowland claims to have seen a man with a high powered rifle standing a few feet back of the southwestern window of the 6th floor of the TSBD about 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived. He could not identify this man as Lee Harvey Oswald.

            On January 4th 1964, Richard Randolph Carr told the FBI that from the sixth floor of the new court house under construction on Houston Street he had seen a white male, wearing a hat, glasses, and a tan sportcoat looking out from the top floor of the TSBD. http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0042a.gif

          • JohnR says:

            This is for Bill: You may want to rethink the degree of incrimination you assign Charles Givens. It might not have occurred to you, but I can read.
            You wrote “…Givens, returning to grab his smokes, where he sees Oswald standing with his order clipboard does him in pretty good. 12:15 or so…”
            I’d like to present to you Given’s Warren Commission testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
            According to his testimony, the last time Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor was 11:55. I don’t know where you got 12:15, but I’m guessing it’s where you keep your wallet. So, do you want to admit being wrong, or do you prefer being known as a liar?

          • JohnR says:

            Bill, another sentence with which you seem to taken exception referred to my suspicion that the evidence against Oswald could have been planted. This suspicion is buttressed by it being shared by none other than Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, whom I would assume even you would not consider an Oswald supporter.
            The famous Katzenbach memo:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
            If you can interpret “seems too pat, too obvious” in some other way that doubt about whether or not it could have been planted, you’re more creative than me. Then again, if your posts are any indication, you are indeed more creative than me.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          Did Dr. DiMaio exhume Kennedy’s body? No? Well, crap. Pssssss…Bill, hate to be the first one to tell you, but LHO was shot with a revolver in the stomach, NOT in the head with a 12.99 high powered rifle preferred by all assassins because of its wonderful reputation earned on the battlefields during WWII…oops, wrong thread.

          EVIDENCE, you say? The CT’ers have no evidence. Well, that is troubling, because the federal government and the WO has been soooooooo forthcoming with their “evidence” collected during the crime of the century. Let’s take a look, shall we:

          1. Let’s start with the note that LHO himself—cold blooded killer, crazed madman, ready to make a name for himself—delivered to James Hosty, FBI man in Dallas. Why that note contained threats and all kinds of mean things that would “prove the case.” Let us see the note! LHO is guilty! Oh, wait….the note has been flushed down a toilet? Help me, Bill, what FBI procedure calls for flushing EVIDENCE down a toilet? Maybe they wanted to scrub his fingerprints off of the note? Hope they used Tidy Bowl because it contains the most bleach. Hmmmm…

          2. Let’s get the CIA voice recording of LHO in MC, where he visited two embassies and made all kinds of vague threats and drew cartoon animals on the walls. That recording, which JEH, lead cop of the world, tells LBJ that it is NOT Oswald’s voice—will surely put LHO behind bars! Oh, wait…the recording has been destroyed as a matter of “routine practice.” Well, crap. The CIA must know better than anyone that EVIDENCE like that cannot be used in a court of law. Oh, wait….LHO did not make it to a court of law….

          3. Well, since the CIA destroyed the voice recording, let us look at the picture of LHO entering or leaving the embassy, because as everyone knows, MC in the 60’s was THE place for espionage. The photo will clearly show the “lone nut” and “crazed madman” with ice in his veins, murder in his heart, and a condom in his back pocket (OK, the condom part I made up). Oh, wait, that EVIDENCE has also been destroyed? Routine practice? Thought it was a recording of Oswald the rabbit TV show? Well, crap. That photo would have surely helped. The CIA surely must know what it is doing destroying EVIDENCE.

          Gee, Bill, I am not quite sure which EVIDENCE you are using to come to your conclusions… . I guess you must be right. When you destroy or throw away critical pieces of information, one HAS to depend on those same agencies that has given us the REST of the evidence…

          • Bill says:

            Looks like a lot of yelling going on around here.

            1st Para? Seems kind of crazy so I’ll pass on trying to figure it out.

            2nd Para? I don’t deal with wild speculations. But you go right on. By all means.

            3rd. Para. Hosty. Do you think that any Agent would not burn that note. If so…about that bridge in N.Y.

            4. Voice. Pure speculation. Dealt with in 2nd Para. But do continue. By all means.

            I do think I would be doing you a solid by advising you to calm down a bit. I am truly sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I actually feel very poorly about that. Sorry!

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          More EVIDENCE you say? Goody! I am READY to hear how the small man made it to the BIG TIME!

          4. The chunk of concrete that the stray bullet hit before sending a piece into Mr. Tague’s cheek? The one the FBI said did not exist? The one they were finally forced to travel to Dallas and dig up, then send it to Washington for “analysis” by the world’s greatest sleuths? Wait, what? The concrete had been patched before they dug it up? Really? The city of Dallas is that concerned about the appearance of its streets that it must patch bullet sized indentations in curbs? That is what I call community pride! I want to live in Big D!!!! Clean, bullet patched street curbs for everyone!!!! Wait, what? The FBI refuses to release its findings until Harold Weisberg files a FOIA lawsuit? What??? A chunk of concrete is protected by the FBI??? It requires a FOIA lawsuit? Man, I take that back. There is NO way I can afford to live in Dallas! If a chunk of concrete is that protected, hell, how much does it cost to walk on a sidewalk?

          5. How about photos? Better yet, how about X-ray photos? Surely they will prove that LHO had crossed the Rubicon into deranged state of madness, driving him to kill gophers and presidents. Wait, what? Saundra Kay Spencer says, under oath, that the photos she took are not included in the ones she is looking at in her deposition? What? Bad lighting? I know, someone burst into the developing room to yell “Happy Festivus” as they were being developed, causing their ruination? No? They can’t be found? Well, crap… .

          6. How about Win Scott’s personal notes about LHO, in his safe in MC. Mr. Scott falls of a ladder, and tragically dies. Surely, Scott’s notes will give us keen insight into MC and the assassination, because it is well known that Scott is a highly astute and seasoned veteran of espionage. Let us look at this notes—they will have clues that will solidify LHO as the wild eyed lunatic that traveled across Dallas with a 30.06 to shoot Gen. Walker while riding his Back to the Future hoverboard. Wait, what? His notes have been confiscated by his friends, Angleton and Phillips? That’s okay. They are honest CIA men who have given the WC “everything they asked for and then some.” Oh, wait. Scott’s notes have never seen the light of day? Oh, yeah, I know! National security concerns, right? Mexico City was about to raise the price of Coca-Cola 5 cents a bottle, and the CIA was going to send in the goon squad to beat anyone with a Coke with a piece of macaroni.

          Good gosh, this EVIDENCE thing is sure hard to pin down, especially when it comes to the CIA and FBI’s part…

          • Bill says:

            Looks like you’re reaching pretty deep into a magician’s hat.

            Tague: Felt he was hit by SECOND SHOT. I don’t know why you insist on moving the curbing issue to the first shot? Interesting misuse of EVIDENCE isn’t it. Actually, Tague was sure he was hit by something that flew up off the curb at LEAST upon the 2nd shot or the 3rd shot. At NO TIME does he feel/state that material hit him in conduction with the 1st shot. That is just a convenient way for you guys to play games with EVIDENCE.

            You cite Ms. Spencer. Two things that may cloud the issue: One is that she herself, goes into great detail about the body being cleaned and presented in a reverent manner. And as a reason for this she then points out that there may well have been two sets of ‘autopsy’ photographs. She even went into detail about the possibility of Mrs. Kennedy (family) wanting to reduce the shock-value of any autopsy photos that may or may not ever become public.

            The other issue is that she cites ‘runs’ of paper. To buttress her remarks she bought along a photo which she had taken and printed 10 days before. Well. Has it occurred to her that, possibly the paper that her ‘photo’ was printed on had run out and more was ordered? Apparently not. So, she gives two entirely plausible explanations.

            And Let’s not even go over that she was reviewing materials taken 34 YEARS EARLIER for crying out loud.

            But more on Ms. Kay: She states no blood. Obviously he memory is incorrect because there is a dramatic about of blood on Kennedy’s wounds. She does state that she took photo’s of others who didn’t ‘make it’. She seems to not understand that Kennedy’s body was cleaned and wiped down in Dallas BEFORE being sent out. Hello? Mr. Lifton???

            Scott: Comical. Oswald was acting so strange in the month before the assassination. He wanted to go t Cuba. In fact, EVIDENCE presented to the WC by his own wife, depicts a man using false names (A Hidell…remember him?? Hmmm?) who wanted to hijack a commercial airliner to get there. Is it so preposterous to speculate that Oswald would have had someone pretend to be him to see if he was being followed? He was more paranoid than you guys apparently.

            But, as I said, thanks for allowing me to review the facts. Simply put. You have none.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The tree? Yep, know it well. Stood underneath it on four separate occasions and looked up into it, looking for that sinister, bullet deflecting branch that dared to blow in the wind, causing the crazed LHO to miss his chance at destiny… . Oh, wait. The FBI or the DPD did not cut the tree down and take it to headquarters to search every inch because? Oh, I know. The FOIA the FBI needs to release information only applies to concrete, not fruit or flowering trees of any kind. Whew, problem solved…

          • Bill says:

            No. They didn’t. They had no reason to do so. They had all the answers they needed plainly put out before them and gathered through evidence. All we’re doing is speculating on EVIDENCE. Seemingly…you have a problem dealing with it. Oh well.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          As far as Photon, I was trying to do you a solid, not cause you any grief. He was about to ask you to “give him one example, one shred of evidence that can be found in the WO report that indicates that JR gave LHO a ride to any Dairy Queen in any suburb of Dallas or Dallas itself…. ” Sorry, trying to help you.

          • Bill says:

            Who needs a solid? Photon is dead on with his presentation of facts and in addressing the issues. He doesn’t need help with a single thing as far as I can tell. It appears to me that he feeds lunch to the bears here often. Ha Ha. As for me needing a solid because of what YOU THINK PHOTON WAS GOING TO ASK???

            Now you’re able to predict the future???? Amazing.

            Anyway. The issues as to the physical assassination of JFK are clearly played out when ‘real’ evidence is aired. I don’t have time for silencers (willy), bullet characteristics (bubbly), or just plain fanaticism.

            Solid? Funny stuff.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          You said that you believe that JR and LHO and the DPD and the mafia were in on the crime, and that LHO pulled the trigger by himself. Remind me, which member of the DPD did the WO bring up on charges for helping LHO, that nutty, deranged, crazed, doughnut loving SOB, gun down Kennedy in broad daylight? If you could, remind me of ANYONE that the WO brought charges against, or at least recommended for investigation by the Hoover and the FBI—(assuming Hoover had his dress picked out for the night.) None? Gosh, that is a head scratcher. So, your theory cannot be proved by the “official version?” The version that settled “all the dust, and followed every lead?” Uh-oh! Sounds like the CT’ers are going to foam at the mouth, howl at the moon, and run to Starbucks for a “Conspiracy Spiced Cider.”

          • Bill says:

            I think you are stabbing yourself on your own petard. What I said was: “I Believe”. This does not constitute anything more than what I believe. Right? There is no fact that has turned up to link any of the figures together. This however, does not affect what ” I believe”.

            I have no thesis. No Agenda. No grand scheme of conspiracy (that grow and grow and grow…lol). No Silencers. No multiple shooters. Nope. Just my belief based upon Oswald’s actions and J. Ruby’s movements and Tippet’s movements.

            So, unless I’m mistaken, my belief is therefore my own and since it is simply my belief, would not cause a single investigative effort to be initiated. But that is not what happened here is it laddie?

            There is one flaw to your little diatribe here: You asked if the FBI investigated others: Why YES. THEY DID.

            Jack Ruby. If I’m not mistaken the WC looked into his associations and found none. And Stevie….isn’t that the Official Version??

            I thought so. So THANK YOU. Once again..

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill:

          How about this for an adage?

          “What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

          • Bill says:

            I agree with that. Especially when they adopt every last crazy conspiracy theory…or better yet: Ask which conspiracy theory they like best.

      • Bill says:

        No they can’t be ruled out be any true expert. Opinions are always welcomed. But they are, like rear-ends…everyone has one and they all stink.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill:

          To help you for the FINAL time about the issue of your EVIDENCE that was collected by liars, crooks and men of deception.

          Page 542:

          “While Oswald visited MC, someone impersonating him made phone calls to the Cuban and Soviet embassies—calls that were intercepted on CIA surveillance tapes. The agency later claimed that these tapes were routinely destroyed. But J. Edgar Hoover listened to them immediately after the assassination and the FBI chief informed Lyndon Johnson, the new president, that the voice on the tapes was not Oswald’s.”

          I posted this last week on this thread, but you did not respond. Here is but ONE example of what you refuse to acknowledge, or, to use your words, “play in that park.”

          I have no EVIDENCE you say? You have tainted and manipulated evidence. Which is worse, Bill?

          You may continue to believe what you wish to believe and I will do the same. I really don’t care what you believe, as you don’t care what I believe. That is okay, as this is still America. Just know that as you continue to try and “tell” people about the evidence, I will continue to tell people about the deceit with which your “evidence” was collected.

          • Bill says:

            Which is fine by me. Just make sure that you aren’t creating falsehoods with what you present.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Bill,

            No need to worry about me and falsehoods. I don’t use the WO report as a reference.

            The best to you.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          “why YES. THEY DID.”

          You mean the same FBI that was headed by JEH, and his band of thugs? The same FBI that said “we have the basic facts of the case” by the third day after the assassination?

          WHY YES, BILL, YOU HAVE NOW CONVINCED ME…

          • steve stirlen says:

            Bill:

            Let me leave you with a last piece of information that may help you with your EVIDENCE. This information comes from Tom, the moderator that so graciously allows us to have this debate by posting our views so quickly. Please enjoy what Tom has to say, and I wish you the best of luck!

            Your concerns seem rather narrow and you may owe an apology to someone who you tactfully question the motive and integrity of.
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_ednref10
            The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
            Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
            ……
            Summary
            …..
            “….What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle. ”

          • Bill says:

            Steve. You asked a question to me. I gave you the answer. If you don’t like it then deal with it. As I said. I’m sorry you are injured by evidence and rebuttals.

            Happy Holidays to you.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Bill,

            You gave me an answer based on tainted and/or tampered evidence. I don’t believe you, or anything that comes from the WO report.

            I wish you the best.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      As the autopsy results tell us, the Magic Bullet purportedly cleared the outside tip of the right transverse process of JFK’s C7 cervical vertebra, and grazed the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 thoracic vertebra. It then, supposedly, continued on through the muscles of the right side of JFK’s neck, passing through the right side of his trachea before exiting his throat.

      As the official investigation revealed that Oswald would have been 9° removed, laterally, from a centre line running the length of the limo, and that JFK was facing forward at the time he was shot, and that to follow the path this bullet supposedly did through JFK’s neck required it to be travelling at an angle of over 26°, how could this bullet have originated from the SE corner of the TSBD?

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        JFK was not facing forward when he was shot. His head was turned to the right. His upper torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          That would reduce the number to 21°, Tim. You’re still a long ways from 9°, but keep trying.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            I’m not trying anything Bob. I’m merely correcting you.

            You seem think that 21° is a number that I need to conquer. But you haven’t actually explained why. You’ve also said that the autopsy results tell us that Bullet purportedly cleared the outside tip of the right transverse process of JFK’s C7 cervical vertebra, and grazed the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 thoracic vertebra. I believe that that is the postulation of some pathologists of the HSCA panel but it’s not one that I would see as a settled conclusion.

          • Photon says:

            It certainly wouldn’t have graze the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 to cause the disruption seen. The shock wave of the round passing through the neck can easily account for any fractures noted on the radiographs.
            What I find amusing is that none of the “experts” posting can understand why exact landmarks on JFK’s neck were probably altered from those seen on typical males of the same size. None of these claims about exact location of the back wound bring up the problem that I am mentioning.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Bob Prudhomme wrote:

            Anything less than 21°, and it had to go THROUGH JFK’s cervical vertebrae.
            ===========================================

            Really? You mean actual bone? You’ll have to forgive me for not taking just your word on it. I’m going to need some numbers. What would be the maximum vertical spacing distance between C7 and T1 on someone with a physique like Kennedy’s? Be it in between the transverse processes or any other section of the vertebrae. We’ll start with that and we’ll consider other factors later if need be.

            In case you’re wondering, the 5 degree right rotation of Kennedy’s upper torso comes from the HSCA. I’m not sure, but I think that Canning may have come up with the figure.

          • “None of these claims about exact location of the back wound bring up the problem that I am mentioning.”~Photon

            Because the trajectory is impossible for the bullet to hit both Kennedy and hit Connally, The “problem” you are mentioning isn’t the essence of the real problem. The bottom line is your argument is a moot point by a penumbra of reasons. First there is no chain of evidence supporting that the bullet in question was even fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

            Secondly no one has ever been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald fired either of the weapons claimed to be used to kill officer Tippet, or President Kennedy.
            Plus, the many other problems spoken to in this thread; including the present argument about the trajectory from the 6th floor window.

            All of your commentary turns out to be scurrilously out of context of the actual facts of the case.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What I don’t understand is how if ,every forensic scientist to review the findings has no problem accepting the the back -neck trajectory and subsequent wounding of Connolly from the same bullet, you can’t . Are you claiming to be more knowledgable about wound ballistics and post-mortem evaluation then the most experienced and prestigious forensic pathologists in the U.S.?

          • “Fracture Patterns

            When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).

            The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.

            The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Paul, the autopsy photos and the president’s clothing clearly show a wound of entry in the region of the upper thoracic spine, not the cervical spine (neck).
            If LHO is shooting from a 30 degree incline and if Elm street is on an 8 degree decline, a round entering at the thoracic level cannot cause a neat wound, first described as a wound of entry, above the knot of JFK’s necktie.
            Moreover, any missile fired from the rear and exiting in the centerline above the knot of the necktie would cause obvious fractures to the cervical vertebral bodies (NOT the transverse processes).
            Your “shockwave theory” cannot explain these missing fractures.

          • Photon says:

            The round did not pass through a normal neck.Therefore, many of the assumptions made by Mr. Prudhomme are simply not correct.

        • “His upper torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right.”~Tim Nickerson

          And you take these measurements from where Nickerson?
          And you adjust these measurements to the exact angle of the rear seat of the car by what perspective?
          Are you an expert at Photogrammetry Nickerson?

          Perhaps you are going to claim your are a physicist? A medical practitioner? Maybe a detective in law enforcement?

          Why do I keep thinking you might be a used car salesman?
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            It is a VERY critical number, Timbo. It presents two unassailable problems with the SBT:

            1. If the bullet travelled at a right to left angle of 21° through JFK’s neck, it would emerge following a path that would take it far to the left of Connally’s right armpit. In fact, it likely would have been to the left of Connally’s left armpit, as well. Anything less than 21°, and it had to go THROUGH JFK’s cervical vertebrae.
            2. Any lateral angle greater than 9°, such as 21°, and the bullet had to be fired from a point further west in the TSBD than the SE corner of the 6th floor.

            Why not just admit it was impossible, instead of making yourself look foolish with senseless arguments?

  67. Audio/Video Sync

    5 shots:

    shot 1. a miss, curb hit (??)
    shot 2. JFK throat hit (frontal shot),
    shot 3. Kennedy hit in back (shot from rear) ,
    shot 4. Connally hit in the back (shot from rear),
    shot 5. Kennedy head-shot (frontal shot).

    Also, there may have been more shots from silenced rifles (??)
    https://youtu.be/pgHllYzzFWc
    \\][//

  68. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Why did Humes spend the majority of the time occupied by the autopsy slicing up JFK’s organs in search of a bullet, if it was so obvious the bulet did not go into JFK’s pleural cavity? Humes was not an idiot, and he would have had strong indications the bullet impacted JFK’s back below the top of the right lung, in order to prosecute such a lengthy and involved search.

    • Photon says:

      Sorry Bob, it is called an autopsy.That is what you do during an autopsy. The prosector, after making an incision identifies the principle organs of the chest and abdominal cavity, removes them, weighs them, takes tissue samples of selected organs. He wasn’t searching for a bullet, he was completing the standard protocol for an autopsy. Every standard autopsy includes evaluating the lungs, pleura, mediastinum just as Humes did. Trying to make the routine unique?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Yes, Proton, we are quite aware of the fact they were performing an autopsy. You get no extra marks for that astute observation.

        2nd Lt. Richard Lipsey assisted in the autopsy and, in an interview with an HSCA investigator, related his observations regarding the autopsy. He had already, in his short career, assisted in a good number of autopsies, and had come to understand what is normal and what is abnormal in an autopsy.

        According to Lipsey, Humes was quite convinced a bullet had gone into JFK’s right upper pleural cavity, and was quite surprised when no bullet showed up on any thoracic or abdominal x-rays. Lipsey stated that Humes et al then proceeded to slice up all of the organs into small pieces in what he was told was a search for either a bullet or fragments of a bullet. This “slicing and dicing” of JFK’s organs was, Lipsey felt, rather a lot more than what would normally be required in an autopsy, and took up most of the time spent in the autopsy.

        Don’t you think it odd they would go to this extent, and yet not explore a potential wound track from back to throat?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          It appears I have confused Lt. Richard Lipsey with one of the lower ranks assisting in the autopsy. While Lipsey observed most of the autopsy, he was not a trained medical person. Rather, he was an aide-de-camp to General Wehle, and his duties involved movement of JFK’s casket from Andrews to Bethesda.

        • Photon says:

          Bob, you are making things up.FIRST Lieut. Lipsey was a military aide who had never even seen a dead human body before Nov. 22, 1963. Assisted with the autopsy? Where did you get that information? Lipsey himself stated that he was overwhelmed by the situation and didnot understand everything that was going on, except that he noted that the prosecutors were extremely thorough and came to conclusions unanimously. He stood 12-15 feet away from the autopsy table-hardly a place to make close observations.
          Bob, your position must be pretty weak if you have to make up false stories to support it.

          • steve stirlen says:

            But, Sibert and O’Neill were a mere two feet away, and you discredit them because they lacked “medical knowledge.” Tell us, Photon, your medical knowledge is based on what exactly? A reading of the WO?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            However, lipsey was present for almost the entire autopsy. His HSCA interview relates his memory the autopsy doctors were quite confused that they could not find the bullet that caused the back wound, and that they had extensive discussion about where it might have ended up. Because of the steep angle of the shot, and the location of the back wound, Lipsey stated the doctors believed the bullet would have gone into the pleural cavity, and possibly as far as the abdominal cavity.

            According to Lipsey, Humes was obssessed with finding this bullet, and spent two hours of the autopsy doing so. While no intact bullet was found, Lipsey recalled them finding “traces”, “pieces” and “particles” of a bullet.

            Another strange thing reported by Lipsey; he stated the bullet entering the rear of JFK’s head “blew away part of his face” when it exited.

          • Photon says:

            That should be enough to tell you how accurate his perception really was. Also, as he had never seen an autopsy his interpretation of spending ” two hours looking for a bullet” is nothing but mistaking standard autopsy procedure for something else.
            Why do CTers have to resort to peripheral figures at the autopsy who had limited if any contact with the body or procedure to support their claims? Since when is a military aide who had never seen a dead human body an expert in autopsy procedure, let alone a credible witness for anything more than general impressions of the event?

  69. The throat wound to Kennedy was described as an entry wound by Dr Perry on the first day, just after he had been working on Kennedy:

    PRESS CONFERENCE PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS
    NOVEMBER 22, 1963 – 2:16 P.M. CST

    QUESTION-
    Where was the entrance wound?
    DR. MALCOM PERRY-
    There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
    QUESTION-
    Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
    DR. MALCOM PERRY-
    It appeared to be coming at him.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

    “In the criminal trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969, one of the pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, was cross–examined by an assistant district attorney, Alvin Oser. His testimony, part of which is reproduced below, is remarkable for two reasons:

    He states that senior military officers had taken an active part in proceedings, and he implies that they were in charge of the autopsy.
    He admits, after trying hard to avoid the question, that the pathologists were forbidden to dissect the president’s back and throat wounds and the connecting tissue.

    Dissecting the wounds was a basic procedure, and would almost certainly have determined whether the president’s non–fatal injuries had been caused by one or more bullets, and from which direction or directions the bullet or bullets had come.”
    http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds
    \\][//

    • J. Thornton Boswell, revealed three decades later that the Justice Department was greatly concerned by Finck’s testimony. Carl Eardley, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, got in touch with Boswell:
      He was really upset. He says, “J, we got to get somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he’s really lousing everything up.” … They showed me the transcript of Pierre’s testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim [Humes, the chief pathologist] said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.”(Boswell’s testimony to the ARRB, pp.208ff)

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=786#relPageId=210&tab=page

      \\][//