A technical investigation into the first shot fired in JFK’s assassination 

Max Holland has a theory that the first shot first at President Kennedy came from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, grazed the arm of a street sign, and missed the limousine altogether.

Here is A Technical Investigation Pertaining to the First Shot Fired in the JFK Assassination | ACSR

246 comments

  1. Since Max Holland’s theory begins with the false assumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter his theory is wrong.

  2. ed connor says:

    Max Holland’s theory is possible, but unconvincing.
    First, The view from the sixth floor was obscured by the Texas Live Oak tree which still stands in Dealey Plaza. Why would a Marine “marksman” take a blind shot when he would have a clear field of vision in less than a second?
    Second, the Commission found that a shooter would need a minimum of 2.3 seconds to reload, aim and fire another shot. If JFK is hit at 224, as LN’s must agree for their SBT, Oswald only has 2.3 seconds to fire his next shot. But Connally insisted he was not hit until at least 234. He is seen holding his Stetson hat with his supposedly fractured right wrist until 280.
    Third, most of the witnesses said the shots were not sequential, but irregular, the last two coming in close order.
    The Holland theory is plausible, but unconvincing. As I tell juries, use your common sense. Look at the visual evidence. I have looked at the Zapruder film many times. I have also represented clients with rib and wrist fractures. Look at Connally. He was not hit by the bullet which had already hit JFK by 224. It is obvious to anyone with a brain and two eyes…except the late Arlen Specter.

    • Photon says:

      Ed, please refer to birthmoviesdeatg.com/2012/12/17/the-time-daniel-inouye-pried-a-grenade-from-his-severed-arm to see why your perception of what Connolly could and could not do with a wrist fracture is not correct.

      • Tom S. says:

        Photon, this is a clickable link, making it possible for readers to navigate to the web page I assume you are
        attempting to point them to?:
        http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/12/17/the-time-daniel-inouye-pried-a-grenade-from-his-severed-arm

        • And from that page we find this:

          Inouye said something that probably still rings in the ears of every conspiracy theorist:

          “[There exists] a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”
          \\][//

          • sgt_doom says:

            Like issuing an expulsion order so that a military aircraft could be requisitioned to fly Jean Souetre (for whom the expulsion order was issued) and cohorts back to Europe?

            Now why would anyone wish to pay attention to an expulsion order (which should have originated from INS but appears only from the CIA) to pick up and deport a member of a rightwing, fascist organization involved with a previous attempt on President de Gaulle’s life, on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, TX?

            What could that possibly have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy?

            After all, JFK wasn’t French!

            /sarc

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Sarge, can you provide a link on info about the expulsion order for Souetre or to a copy of it? I’ve been interested in him for a long time.

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Souetre%20Jean%20with%20aka's/Item%2012.pdf

      • ed connor says:

        Photon, we have had this conversation before.
        You contend that JFK could reach his throat with his hands only 50 milliseconds after receiving a soft tissue wound, at 225.
        But Connally, whom you say was hit at 224, shows no immediate reaction to a bullet which, according to Dr. Shaw, his orthopedic surgeon, shattered 10 cm of his fifth rib, as well as fracturing his right wrist.
        As I said, your (and Holland’s) theory is possible, but highly improbable.

      • Brian Joseph says:

        http://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comments

        Hi Photon,

        This what shot when hit who is the type of debate that could go on forever without resolution or reaching consensus as it has for over 50 years. I’m much more interested in any comment that you might have to contribute to this other thread that I pasted a link for that is above

    • Jean Davison says:

      Ed,

      The limo passed under the traffic signal before the oak tree came into view.

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3zBoFuItfYE/UpOyNS5PSkI/AAAAAAAALAw/473MYJGvGzQ/s1600/Sniper+Lair+Tree.jpg

      http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed-lg/public/2014/11/17/1121jfk16.jpg

      BTW, the tree never completely blocked the sniper’s view:

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Z2tn0IHzcKg/TQ3VvGQd-lI/AAAAAAAAADk/iPNgzMuy2Z0/s1600/WH_Vol18_0051a.jpg

      Connally reacts to a shot at the same time JFK does:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HesB3lzbV0E

      In Holland’s theory also the shots are irregular with the last two closer together.

      • “Connally reacts to a shot at the same time JFK does:”~Jean Davison

        You have attempted to pass this video loop off on us before as Connally reacting to being shot. The problem is if you watch the entire sequence you will see Connally turn back to his left in full control of his actions. You should note that Connally is still holding his white cowboy hat in his right hand which would be impossible if his right wrist had just been shattered.

        The face he is making is shock at seeing the president hit, and yelling, “My god they’re going to kill us all!”. He was attempting to turn the other way around to see closer when he was hit by as second bullet.

        Read and hear Connally’s own remarks about this, it is no secret, it is all over the web.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          I did read Connolly’s remarks , which seems more than you did.
          He never stated that he saw JFK get hit.

          • I said Photon. Connally saw that JFK *was* hit. Connally clearly looks directly at Kennedy as he turns around.

            At any rate Connally is obviously hit later, just second before the head shot to Kennedy. That is when he folds and fall down in his seat.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Connally saw that JFK *was* hit. Connally clearly looks directly at Kennedy as he turns around.”

            Connally told both the WC and the HSCA that he wasn’t able to turn far enough to see Kennedy before he himself was hit. The clip I posted illustrates that, imo.

      • J.D. says:

        Jean, if Connally reacts to a shot at the same time as Kennedy does, how is it possible for him to still be holding his hat after being shot through the wrist?

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Jean, if Connally reacts to a shot at the same time as Kennedy does, how is it possible for him to still be holding his hat after being shot through the wrist?”

          You’re assuming that being shot through the wrist prevents someone from continuing to grasp an object, but I think it depends on which nerves are damaged. From what I’ve read, the damage to Connally’s wrist didn’t affect his ability to hold onto his hat. According to his wife he kept holding it all the way to the hospital.

          In this clip, Connally is still holding his hat in Z frames 256-268:

          http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6765/nelliejcblood.gif

          I’ve read that he continues holding it even after the head shot but I haven’t found a good clip of that.

          • “You’re assuming that being shot through the wrist prevents someone from continuing to grasp an object, but I think it depends on which nerves are damaged.”~Jean Davison

            And I think Jean is stretching; grasping at straws.

            Viewing the Zapruder film one can see that Connally looks back directly an Kennedy. Why was Connally trying to see Kennedy? He heard the shot that he recognized as a rifle. To assume that Kennedy was silent as he gagged and struggled for breath is preposterous. Whether Connally saw him directly or not, Connally knew Kennedy was hit.

            Connally continually insisted that he was not hit by the same bullet that caused Kennedy’s throat wound.

            Yes, Connally is still holding his hat in Z frames 256-268, therefore Connally had not been hit yet.
            Connally was struck just a split second before the head shot to Kennedy.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Yes, Connally is still holding his hat in Z frames 256-268, therefore Connally had not been hit yet. Connally was struck just a split second before the head shot to Kennedy.”

            Connally collapsed into his wife’s lap after 268 and stayed there until after the head shot. Do you think Nellie shot him in the back?:

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z271.jpg

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z275.jpg

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z324.jpg

            Maybe there’s something wrong with the premise that Connally’s wrist injury prevented him from holding onto his hat. Evidently it didn’t.

          • “Do you think Nellie shot him in the back?”
            Jean Davison

            This assertion as a spurious question is quite disingenuous and tacky.
            \\][//

          • J.D. says:

            No, Jean, I’m not assuming that. I simply find it hard to believe that someone would continue holding onto a hat after being shot in the wrist. Even if he didn’t actually let go of it, it is a little hard to believe that he could continue holding it in the air, as he can be seen doing in the clip.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            This is one of the oldest CT factoids – that Connally was holding his hat and therefore could not have been hit in the wrist until afterwards.

            Is there an actual medical source for this claim? We’ve never seen it. Besides, as others point out, there are numerous examples of arms blown off still holding an object… there is Bob Dole, with his paralyzed arm and hand, holding a pen. There is Connally himself, photographed years later, holding his glasses with his right hand, no sign of paralysis or nerve damage.

            And then there is this, Nellie Connally’s testimony: “And he also, he has… he has… his hat in his hand. He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in
            his hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and he was holding that hat up against him. He closed up that
            wound that would’ve killed him before we got to the hospital.”

            Yet, we have this: “Yes, Connally is still holding his hat in Z frames 256-268, therefore Connally had not been hit yet.” – Willy

            Hi Willy: You have an unfortunate habit of embracing evidence which contradicts other evidence and belies common sense. At Z256, Connally has turned to his right, so his wrist is at a right angle to the direction of the limo. Yet the bullet entered the BACK of his wrist – therefore, as Jean points out, this requires Nellie to have shot him, an obvious absurdity. Further, the lead bullet fragments were indicative of the base of the bullet entering first – a tumbling bullet. But what did this bullet hit first to cause the tumbling? He has already clearly been struck by then in the back. The wrist wound, IOW, is entirely inconsistent with being a separate strike, and further ballistic evidence backs this up.

            What is Willy’s response to these glaring inconsistencies and the requirement for Nellie to have shot him? “This assertion as a spurious question is quite disingenuous and tacky.”

            Clearly, Willy, you have not applied logic and common sense – let alone ballistic evidence – to your claim of a bullet strike c. Z256.

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy taunts you, you reply in kind….anyone else enjoying this? Move on….

          • Jean Davison says:

            I disagree that Jeremy “replied in kind.” IMO, he presented a reasonable argument along with evidence to support it.

          • Here is the primary source for John holding the hat.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt

            It makes no sense to try to say he could not have done something he obviously did.

          • Tom S. says:

            Here is the primary source for John holding the hat.

            Actually you presented a link to a page of text that included a link to the original source, and Ms. Connally is not
            asked and does not describe which hand the Governor was holding his hat with.
            http://web.archive.org/web/20001013092436/http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/1998/nov/extra/transcripts.3.html

          • “Also, I’ve never been entirely sure that the blow-ups I’ve seen definitively show Connally *holding* the hat, as opposed to the hat
            laying there in view in the Z-film.
            But I’d say Nellie’s testimony seals this.”
            .John (McAdams)

            And I would say that Nellie’s testimony seals that her husband was shot AFTER Kennedy was hit in the throat.

            There is still no proof that one shot hit Connally in the back and the wrist at the same time, two shots close together could very well caused the back and wrist wound.

            If he folded up with his arms at his chest, he could have been less “holding it in his hands” as having his body wrapped around his arms and his hat.
            \\][//

          • J.D. says:

            Jeremy, you are evading the crucial point here. The issue is not whether a severed arm could continue to hold an object, or whether a person with a long-paralyzed arm would be capable of using a pen.

            The issue whether a man who had been shot through the wrist _would_ continue to hold his hat aloft with that same hand, as John Connally can clearly be seen doing in the Zapruder film at a moment when Kennedy has clearly already been wounded.

            Nellie Connally’s words do not settle this issue. She simply says that her husband continued to hold on to the hat. It strains belief to suppose that he continued to hold that hat with a shattered wrist all the way to the hospital, rather than holding it with his non-wounded hand or simply clutching it to him.

            And, of course, you, Jean Davison, and John McAdams completely ignore the rest of Nellie’s testimony, in which she argues that Kennedy was shot before her husband. It seems you only find witness testimony useful when it confirms your own opinions.

          • Jean Davison says:

            J.D.,

            I agree that Nellie’s statement alone doesn’t establish that Connally held onto his hat. I rely instead on other evidence — e.g., expert opinion saying that if Connally’s wrist had been hit by a pristine bullet it would’ve been more severely damaged, that after the late Z240s Connally was out of position to receive the injuries he had, and that the bullet exiting his chest would’ve retained sufficient force to damage whatever it hit.

            In addition, I can see Connally and JFK reacting at the same time (right hands flying up, shoulders hunching) following Z225. At that moment Nellie is looking at JFK but doesn’t see her husband’s reaction (his back is to her).

            Many things that are counterintuitive are nevertheless true. I think people make the mistake of judging by what they think is “common sense” when expert opinion is actually required in technical areas like wound ballistics. I haven’t seen any medical evidence saying that Connally’s injury would’ve definitely caused him to release his grip. (Connally wasn’t aware he’d been shot in the wrist until after he got to the hospital.)

          • ragnar says:

            one of the once in a million freak things about that day

            jc should have been in agony on the floor of the limo the moment he was hit with an obliterated wrist
            dud rounds issued to a sniper ?

    • Greg Arious says:

      Z film runs at 18.3 frames per second. Therefore, almost 5 seconds elapses between frame 224 and 313- plenty of time to reload and aim.

      • ed connor says:

        Yes, there is plenty of time to reload, aim and shoot between 224 and 313. The question posed by Max Holland is whether the missed shot (the “Tague shot”) occurred during that 5 second interval, which would put LHO on the tightest of clocks.
        Second, as Willy has noted, Connally does not appear wounded until at least 235 (when the governor himself said he was hit). The HSCA put the first hit at 190, and endorsed the SBT as well. That doesn’t appear likely, based on Connally’s appearance in the Z film. When you have a shattered 5th rib and a fractured wrist you tend to react immediately, although I recognize Photon’s reference to Sen. Inoye’s hand grenade story. I have also read about 98 pound mothers lifting automobiles on their side to free a trapped infant. Unfortunately the WaPost stopped running Ripley’s Believe it or Not long ago, so it’s hard to keep up with the latest “man bites dog” accounts.

        • Photon says:

          “When you have a shattered 5th rib and a fractured wrist you tend to react immediately…”
          Ed, Connolly didn’t even know he had been shot in the wrist until he came out of anesthesia.

          • “Connolly didn’t even know he had been shot in the wrist until he came out of anesthesia.”
            Photon

            Because he was shot in the back armpit and his rib was shattered. No mystery of why he wouldn’t notice the wrist shot, which was almost certainly another one beside the one that shattered his rib.

            Dal-Tex Bldg from the rear, grassy knoll shot from the right side – wrist.
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Connally knew exactly when he had been hit.
            He told LIFE Magazine (vol.61, no. 22 11/25/66):
            “It felt as if someone doubled his fist and and came up behind you…and with about a 12 inch blow hit you in the back, right below the shoulder blade.”
            He reviewed the Zapruder frames and stated he was hit in 234. “He might have been hit a frame or two earlier, but no more.”
            Mrs. Connally told LIFE:
            “First I heard the shot, or a strange loud noise…Then I turned to my right and saw the president gripping at his throat. Then I turned back towards John, and I heard the second shot that hit John…I must have been looking right at him when it hit because I saw him recoil to the right…so you see I had time to look at the president after he was already hit, then turn and see John hit by a second shot.”
            Eyewitnesses trump cartoonists or doctors with no verifiable credentials.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Dal-Tex Bldg from the rear, grassy knoll shot from the right side – wrist.” – Willy

            Again, an assertion which belies logic and common sense. Look at where Connally is situated at Z256 where Willy claims the entry shot was from. He is facing the knoll – but the bullet entered the REAR of his wrist, not the front. And, if you are so ready to accept he was already hit in the back, then where did this bullet go if fired from the knoll? Another vanishing bullet! It exits Connally’s wrist, probably two inches from his chest… and vanishes into thin air! Or did the conspirators somehow cover up a second wound to Connally’s torso?

            And we are also faced with the inconvenient fact that while this scenario requires – what? – 4, 5, 6 shots,- 95% of the witnesses heard THREE shots, maximum, from ONE direction.

            Bottom line is, none of these claims are supported by any of the forensic evidence, period.

          • Tom S. says:

            Again, an assertion which belies logic and common sense.

            Great point! Would you consider trading email addresses with Willy, and leave the rest of us
            out of this?

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “He reviewed the Zapruder frames and stated he was hit in 234. ‘He might have been hit a frame or two earlier, but no more.'”- Ed

            Yes, but he was looking at the crappy blow-ups from LIFE, not the enhanced Zapruder film we now have, where Connally is CLEARLY hit at Z224 – as we see a lapel flap, his shoulder immediately buckle, his hand flip and his cheeks puff out.

            Further, JFK has already reacted by 234, and if the bullet which hit him did not go exit his throat and enter Connally (which is precisely what CTers claim), then we have problems with the bullet which did enter Connally’s back – it was tumbling, and slow enough to cause the particular characteristic wounds he suffered. IOW, it had already hit something So, what did THAT bullet hit before Connally? And, oh yeah, the position and trajectories of the two mean the bullet could only have come via… JFK. There was only some 36 or so inches between the two. So where is the extra back wound for JFK?

            As for J Connally’s testimony, he only testified to his BELIEF he was struck by the second bullet (we see him turn c.Z160 where he said he reacted to the first shot) and Kennedy by the first – but he had no way to actually know that (JFK being hit) first-hand. He surely knew he was hit by the second, but how could he know what happened to the first? He obviously repeated what his wife believed as there was no way he could have independently known JFK was hit by a separate bullet as by the time he turned to see him, he (Connally) had already been struck.

            John and Nellie’s testimony contradict each other, as John heard the first shot well before Nellie reports JFK was hit by the first shot. This is glaringly obvious.

          • “Great point! Would you consider trading email addresses with Willy, and leave the rest of us
            out of this?”~Tom S.

            Not a chance in Hayo that I would agree to this Tom!
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Jeremy, you have failed to refute the accounts of Gov. and Mrs. Connally.
            Whether he was shown “crappy” frames of the Zapruder film, or whether he “obviously repeated what his wife believed” is YOUR burden to prove.
            The Connallys were the nearest eyewitnesses to the shooting. Their accounts are presumed to be correct. You have drunk the Dale Myers kool aid, believing that a 2,000 fps missile could pass through Connally’s lapel (it never came near his lapel, BTW) at 224, and JFK could be clutching his throat at 225. The human nervous system cannot react within 50 milliseconds to a gunshot wound suffered at 224. It is impossible. The medical literature confirms this.
            Ms. Connally’s account is consistent with the film evidence. The Myers confection falls of its own (lack of) weight.

          • Their accounts are presumed to be correct.

            Says who? No witness accounts are “presumed to be correct.”

            believing that a 2,000 fps missile could pass through Connally’s lapel (it never came near his lapel, BTW)

            You are correct that it didn’t touch the lapel, although it may have caused a wave in the cloth that caused the lapel to flap outward.

            JBC reacted in other ways:

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

            at 224, and JFK could be clutching his throat at 225.

            He is not clutching his throat at 225. He is bringing his hand down from a wave, and 225 is the low point.

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

            Only in the frames after that is he “clutching.”

            And it’s not actually clutching. It’s a neuromuscular reaction.

            If you look at Nellie, you can see that, long after John is hit, she is looking back and forth between JFK (whom she can see it hit) and her husband (whose grimaced face is turned away from her) whom she does not know is hit.

          • ed connor says:

            Professor, I am looking at 225. JFK has both hands at his throat.
            In 224, his LEFT hand is at throat level. Before passing the Stemmons Freeway sign, he was waiving with his RIGHT hand only.
            The Commission said he was fist hit behind the sign – before 224. The HSCA said he was hit by 190. Your analysis is out in left field.
            Did he have a “muscular reaction?” Yes, of course. But he could not have had a visible reaction at 224 without having been hit several frames earlier. 50 milliseconds (one Zapruder frame) is inadequate to allow such a reaction.
            You are technically correct that the witness statements of the Connallys are not “presumed correct” under the Federal Rules of Evidence. But, unrebutted, they will be accepted as true by the jury. Having tried over 500 jury trials, I can assure you that the unrebutted testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses will prevail in every case.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Whether he was shown “crappy” frames of the Zapruder film, or whether he “obviously repeated what his wife believed” is YOUR burden to prove.”

            Hi Ed: It is quite easy to demonstrate that the frames Connally would have used in 1964 or in 1966 for LIFE Magazine were inferior to the quality of images which have been available from circa 1990 on. Are you seriously arguing this is not so?

            It’s true I can’t prove John claimed he and the president were struck by separate bullets because of his wife’s testimony, but it IS easy to prove he couldn’t have known this independently and first-hand. He himself testified that after the first shot, he turned to his right, but didn’t see the president, then was about to turn to his left when he was struck. (I’ve already posted his testimony here). The Zapruder film clearly shows him looking back and seeing the president only AFTER they both had been struck. IOW, there is no way he could know, first-hand, if the same bullet struck him and the president, or if that first shot he heard struck the president. It is my presumption, true, that as a married man, he took the word of his wife as to whether they were struck separately. That seems obvious to me.

            “You have drunk the Dale Myers kool aid, believing that a 2,000 fps missile could pass through Connally’s lapel (it never came near his lapel, BTW) at 224, and JFK could be clutching his throat at 225.”

            He’s not clutching his throat at 225 – or ever, for that matter. And since he was in a motorcade raising and lowering his arm, and passing behind the sign at the moment of Z224, we can’t know if he was raising his arm at that moment, only to continue to raise it after being struck in the odd blocking clenched-fist posture he took on. As for the lapel flap, there is no requirement for the bullet to pass through it – a quick snap of the jacket would have been manifest by the only relatively loose part of it – the lapel – like the wind flapping a flag instantaneously. Besides, what else would explain the single-frame movement?

            “Ms. Connally’s account is consistent with the film evidence. The Myers confection falls of its own (lack of) weight.”

            It’s not consistent with John’s testimony, though, as he reported a first shot, a turn to the right and back, then being struck. Which is what we see in the film. If we go by his testimony, Kennedy had to have been struck by the second bullet, the same as he, as there is no sign of it hitting anything when Connally starts the turn circa Z160.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Professor, I am looking at 225. JFK has both hands at his throat.” – Ed

            No, he doesn’t Ed. His right hand is above the middle of his chest, his left across his chest and below the right hand, both below the level of his throat. (Maybe you are looking at the old crappy LIFE blow-ups?) As John points out, his arm movement here can’t be distinguished from the one he was already carrying out from behind the sign. He quickly raises both arms, clenching his fists, but in front of his throat, not touching it.

          • Professor, I am looking at 225. JFK has both hands at his throat.

            Then you should also look at 224, and you will see that he moves his hand downward between 224 and 225.

            The Commission said he was fist hit behind the sign – before 224. The HSCA said he was hit by 190. Your analysis is out in left field.

            He was hit before 224. He was hit at 223.

            As for “out in left field:” just because the HSCA disagreed with me doesn’t mean my analysis is “out in left field.”

            They disagreed with you too. Does that mean you are “out in left field?”

            Did he have a “muscular reaction?” Yes, of course. But he could not have had a visible reaction at 224 without having been hit several frames earlier.

            Since the low point of his right hand is 225, 226 is the first frame showing a “reaction.”

            Having tried over 500 jury trials, I can assure you that the unrebutted testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses will prevail in every case.

            Not if the jury can see a film showing the witness was wrong.

        • Greg Arious says:

          Connally’s appearance in the Z film tells me he was hit at 224; he lurches forward and his chest and jacket puff out.
          235 is only a half second later, not that unusual to see further obvious reaction there as well.

        • Greg Arious says:

          Oswald certainly did not want to be caught shooting, and waiting until the limo was off Houston increased the odds of him not being spotted.
          First shot likely happened at 160 and missed.
          Who knows why. It’s entirely possible Oswald got into the snipers nest thinking he would just fire at JFK and not try to hit him. Nobody knows what was going through his mind.

          • paulf says:

            Nobody knows a lot of things, including if he was in the nest or had a gun.

          • pat speer says:

            The first shot miss is a myth, Greg. Everyone looking at Kennedy when the first shot was fired saw him react to this shot, and not continue waving to his right. Everyone that is but one…So, of course, the WC decided to give weight to this man’s statements…without even interviewing him to see if they’d properly understood him. (This was far from a coincidence, IMO.)
            http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5%3Athejigsawpuzzle

          • Jordan says:

            In truth, no-one actually knows exactly where he was.

          • Pat.

            Thanks for this article! It certainly is jam packed with information:

            [pat speer June 7, 2016 at 5:40 pm]

            This is particularly illuminating:

            “CBS initially approached a legendary marksman, Jim Crossman, and asked him to replicate Oswald’s purported shooting (2 hits in 3 tries in 5.6 seconds). In 6 attempts, he was unable to do so. When interviewed by Dan Rather, Crossman said “To hit this target in the short times we were talking about-around 6 to 7 seconds-to hit the target consistently, you would have to be a pretty good shot, but to hit it maybe a couple of times, he could have zigged when the target zagged and vice versa. So it’s a large element of luck gets in there.” Not surprisingly, CBS never aired this interview.”
            . . . . .
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I’ve never read your “First Shot Miss Myth” stuff before Pat. Excellent witness quotes I’ve never seen. Thanks.

          • Greg Arious says:

            The first shot miss is not a myth. We have the Z film to thank for showing spectators and JFK alike reacting to the sound of gunfire. They had 3.5 seconds to consider if it was a firecracker, before the 2nd shot hit JFK in the back.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “CBS initially approached a legendary marksman, Jim Crossman, and asked him to replicate Oswald’s purported shooting (2 hits in 3 tries in 5.6 seconds).”

            What?! That Oswald’s “purported” feat was 3 shots in 5.6 seconds is a big fat MYTH.

            That number would only be true if the missed shot was fired between
            JFK’s reaction at c. 225 and Z313.
            If the missed shot was fired earlier or later than that, the time span would be longer than 5.6 seconds. And that’s what the WR said under “TIME SPAN OF SHOTS,” that the total time could be as much as 7.1 to 7.9 seconds, or even longer, depending on exactly when that third shot was fired:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=141&tab=page

            Since the location of the missed shot is debatable, the total time is debatable, but it definitely wasn’t 5.6 seconds unless you claim that shot came between Z210-225 and Z313.

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            “and waiting until the limo was off Houston increased the odds of him not being spotted.”

            ============
            Why? Are you saying that the only people who have a neck and eyes are the ones in a car/limo?

            Those are the only ones whose position changed between Houston and Elm locations.

            This is the reason the shoot from behind was ordered:

            http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/jfk/Tangential-Shot-Symmetric.png

          • pat speer says:

            Sorry, Greg, but the first shot miss is not only a myth, it’s a bit of a con. Connally studied the Z-film and said that he was not reacting to gunfire when people claim he was, but was straightening out in the car. He said Kennedy wasn’t hit till around Z-190, and that he wasn’t hit till seconds later. Posner and others later tried to twist this into his saying he was reacting to a shot at z-160. They lied about the reactions of Rosemary WIllis when doing so, and hid from their readers that the HSCA Photographic Panel concurred with Connally’s analysis Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign in the film, and that the HSCA placed this shot around–by golly–z-190. They then hid that the jiggle analysis supported a shot at z-190, and that the most prominent jiggle–by far–outside of the jiggles related to the shot at z-313 and just afterward–correlated to a shot at z-190. In short, the HSCA and its experts concluded Kennedy was hit by a shot circa z-190, and this was accepted by the likes of Bugliosi (he pushed this in the 1986 mock trial) until Failure Analysis started pushing that Connally was hit circa z-224. Then–shazam–Kennedy’s being hit at z-190 was made to disappear from the record, never to be mentioned again (by those in on the first shot miss con). Dale Myers, for example, never mentioned the hit at z-190 on his website and, by his own admission, only animated every ninth frame in this sequence. Well, this served to hide Kennedy’s hurky-jerky movements after Z-190 from those viewing the animation. As did his failure to animate Mrs. Kennedy… who turned to look at here husband just after z-190. This is all discussed in detail in chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com, but most especially in chapter 6. I also helped create a video on this subject for blackopradio, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gcTOr7WfN8

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Everyone looking at Kennedy when the first shot was fired saw him react to this shot, and not continue waving to his right. Everyone that is but one…So, of course, the WC decided to give weight to this man’s statements…” – Pet Speer

            Hi Pat: Connally testified he turned to the left after the first shot, then was hit as he turned towards the front – we see him turning to the left suddenly at ~Z160 then complete his turn to the front by Z224 – when the WC states they were hit.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “They then hid that the jiggle analysis supported a shot at z-190, and that the most prominent jiggle–by far–outside of the jiggles related to the shot at z-313 and just afterward–correlated to a shot at z-190. In short, the HSCA and its experts concluded Kennedy was hit by a shot circa z-190, and this was accepted by the likes of Bugliosi (he pushed this in the 1986 mock trial) until Failure Analysis started pushing that Connally was hit circa z-224.” – Pat Speer

            This is highly misleading, Pat. No one had the high-resolution Zapruder film until after 1986 when it is clear when Connally was hit. Further – though I may have this wrong, I will admit – the Z190 was fixed as a shot in part to match the acoustic evidence for the HSCA. The “jiggle analysis” doesn’t get us anywhere as we have many more “jiggles” than shots heard by the witnesses – a maximum of three, say 95%.

            “Connally studied the Z-film and said that he was not reacting to gunfire when people claim he was, but was straightening out in the car. He said Kennedy wasn’t hit till around Z-190, and that he wasn’t hit till seconds later. Posner and others later tried to twist this into his saying he was reacting to a shot at z-160.” – Pat

            This is what Connally testified to at the WC: “”I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd…”

            “So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.”

            These are the precise movements we see Connally start to do beginning at ~Z160 to Z224, therefore the “Z160” claim for the first shot is entirely consistent with what he testified to.

    • But Connally insisted he was not hit until at least 234.

      But the evidence of the Zapruder film says he was hit at Z223.

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

      • You have posted the same nonsense countless times McAdams.
        This has all been rebuked for years.

        Connally wasn’t hit until at least 2 seconds after Kennedy, who was struck just as the limousine started behind the sign.
        Connally was hit just a split second before the final head shot to Kennedy.
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          You have posted the same nonsense countless times McAdams.

          If your comment is not approved and it includes more than four words and less than 501 words, is not only an unexplained link, consider if it amounts to merely, “I disagree with you,” or, “you’re wrong,” or, “I really don’t like you.”

  3. Fearfaxer says:

    Actually, it’s more like Holland is guessing that’s what happened, and doesn’t have anything even remotely like proof to back it up. BTW, this is yet one more example of an Oswald Did It! partisan spouting an idea (pulled from thin air) that contradicts the WC findings, proof positive that even the ODI! crowd considers the Warren Report to be a shoddy piece of work (something they would never really admit).

  4. Anthony Martin says:

    I’m curious, were any photographs taken of the crime scence taken (the interior of the limo) that relate to ‘blood splatter’ or did that sort of evidence ‘disappear’?

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      There you go, Anthony:

      https://goo.gl/nnjUDT

      A few minutes later, a bucket of water was brought in and the limo was washed and wiped clean.

      The name of the agent(s) who did this is unknown. If you ask a Warrenista, their justification is based on aesthetics superseding the imperative need to avoid destructing the scene of a crime.

      Somehow, one of my favorite maxims comes to mind:

      “Those who are afraid to offend, are not interested in the truth”.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        “The name of the agent(s) who did this is unknown. If you ask a Warrenista, their justification is based on aesthetics superseding the imperative need to avoid destructing the scene of a crime.”

        I’d call it incompetence. And stupidity. Too often, CTers seem to deny those basic traits we humans have, even those “highly trained” individuals who many CTers seem to feel wouldn’t have done that stupid thing or couldn’t possibly be mistaken about that obvious thing. And when they DO admit they were wrong… Conspiracy! You can’t lose with logic like that!

        • “CTers”~Jeremy Gilbert

          A very strange construction Mr Gilbert, that would translate to “conspiracy theoristers” using the full term. Only awkward thinking can create awkward phrasing.

          “I’d call it incompetence. And stupidity.”~Ibid

          As has been pointed out many times, the excuse of “incompetence and stupidity,” is standard plausible deniability used as a revetment in covert operations.

          The Neo-Nazi’s in West Germany used to say they were just “drunk and stupid” when they ganged up on “liberals” and ‘socialists’ during the Adenauer period. And many judges (who had once been in the Nazi regime) would often let these thugs go for “lack of intent”
          \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “As has been pointed out many times, the excuse of “incompetence and stupidity,” is standard plausible deniability used as a revetment in covert operations.” – Willy.

            That may be so, but there seems to be very little room in any of these scenarios for everyday incompetence. Which this case surely had its share of. For example, the Dallas police failing to secure the safety of Oswald.

  5. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Holland is full of crap as a Christmas turkey. The first shot hit JFK in the throat. Watch the Zapruder film. See him reach towards his throat with his hands before he is hit in the back and rocks slightly forward. See Dr. Malcom Perry’s statement about a throat wound that afternoon.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=zapruder+film&view=detail&mid=D31D8B6034956BDDB93AD31D8B6034956BDDB93A&FORM=VIRE

    http://www.ctka.net/2010/mop_obit.html

    DiEugenio discusses Holland much better than I can.

    http://www.ctka.net/reviews/lost_bullet.html

  6. Max Holland, your theory, along with those of Posner, Bugliosi and Myers, betray a lack of experience in competitive rifle marksmanship. Those of us with that experience need not theorize when solving the JFK assassination.

    You don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting! First, you must always zero, or sight-in, your firearm as Lee Oswald knew well and took to heart. The first shot missed because Oswald used it to zero his Mannlicher-Carcano, aiming at the south curb of Main Street and causing that fresh bullet mark. Privately and from the very beginning, the FBI knew the true cause of this curb gouge and they destroyed evidence, spliced films and lied to the Warren Commission to cover up an early first shot. A shot fired immediately prior to the seven-frame splice in the Tina Towner film and more than three seconds earlier than this ‘light-pole’ theory.

    The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578

    • “You don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting! First, you must always zero, or sight-in, your firearm as Lee Oswald knew well and took to heart.”~Edward Bauer

      Are you proposing that Lee Harvey Oswald had experience in competitive rifle marksmanship? That is one of the most absurd arguments I have heard as per the rifle shots yet.
      \\][//

      • Oswald shot rifle competitively in the U.S. Marines nearly every day for three years. Read and understand his Marine Corps Score Book. The clearest, most concise explanation is in The Final Truth.
        http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CPSBM7U

      • Oswald’s Marine Rifle Marksmanship Scores

        In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:
        Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
        Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
        Marksman: 190 to 209.

        According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was *tested twice:

        In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
        In May 1959, he scored 191: *one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.

        Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

        The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

        Folsom agreed with his questioner that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311).

        http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

        \\][//

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          And if one guy took those three shots, as claimed by the WC, Willy, he wasn’t a particularly good shot. If we take the Z160 as a start point, as per most LNers today, then for shot 1, he completely missed not only his presumed target (JFK’s head), but the entire limo! Shot 2 he actually hit his target… almost. In the back, which by the WC was a miss of about four or six inches, even worse of a miss if we accept your T-3 claim. This was not a great marksman, by any measure.

          Finally, he accomplishes the feat with the final shot.

          “Folsom agreed with his questioner that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311).

          Got that one right. If he was a good shot, he would have got two bullseyes (the head) from that range and timing, and at least struck his back with the third, as numerous reconstructions using the Z160-Z313 timing have shown.

        • ragnar says:

          rather than recycle the obnoxious pest, they either got someone else to shoot for him or they simpley signed off on the test to get rid of him

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Mr. Bauer: Can you please provide an opinion about this recent contribution and proposition?

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22877

      TIA

      • Just like Max Holland’s theory begins with the false assumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter, so does Edward Bauer’s.
        It is the original presumption that is then extended from there into utter absurdity.

        There is no need to follow Mr Bauer after grasping his first assumption. It would be like reading a theory that begins:

        “The reason that the sky is red on a clear day on Earth is…
        bla bla bla..” We already know that the sky is in fact blue, therefore we do not have to follow that author’s logic any further.

        Do we know that Oswald didn’t fire that rifle with the certainty that we know the sky is blue? Only with caveats such as the fact the the sky is gray on dreary days. But we also know the reason that the sky is gray on overcast days, because we grasp the science of Meteorology.
        \\][//

      • Mr. Herrera: Thank you for your comment. The reason this case has not been solved in over 50 years is theorizing by those with no rifle marksmanship or film editing/splicing experience. The loudest mouths are those with the least experience, those who have never fired a rifle. And the meanest-spirited minds are those with the greatest fear that the case will be solved by those with that experience.

        • I have film editing experience Mr Bauer.

          I know several expert marksmen. Being a good shot however does not equate to being an expert in ballistics.

          What is your reference to film mean?
          \\][//

  7. Steve Cearfoss says:

    Max Holland, an overt CIA mouthpiece (see among many other articles: “The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination — The Power of Disinformation.”) should simply be ignored instead of treated as though he has something worthwhile to contribute to the JFK assassination discussion. Peter Dale Scott has already effectively relegated him to the trash pile of history in http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scott_reply.htm. One other question regarding the Holland/The Nation cozy relationship needs to be addressed, and that is why The Nation continues to keep him on as a contributing editor. By doing so only calls into question the magazine’s bona fides as a ‘liberal’ political journal. Caveat lector.

  8. Anthony Martin says:

    Does anybody know, did Marine Corp training in the 1950’s include specific training in shooting at moving targets and training in shooting up or down slopes at moving targets?

    • Pat Speer says:

      Oswald received no training on firing at moving targets, firing from elevation, or even using a scope. He fired in basic training. He did not attend sniper school.

      • Tom S. says:

        Thanks, Pat

        http://jfkfacts.org/technical-investigation-first-shot-fired-jfks-assassination/#comment-880328
        Edward Bauer – 2016/06/04 at 2:08 pm
        ….
        Oswald shot rifle competitively in the U.S. Marines nearly every day for three years.

      • Photon says:

        So obviously he couldn’t hit a target that was moving away from him at a minimal rate of speed with no lateral translation -ie , his target didn’t move left or right and he didn’t have to lead it. It just got smaller. So Marines can only shoot stationary targets?
        Marines never shoot at human targets. Ergo, by the same assumption you can’t prove that Marines have the ability to shoot people.
        This “Oswald couldn’t do it because he wasn’t trained in shooting at moving targets” poppycock can be refuted in two words-Charles Whitman. He had the same training as Oswald, he had the same ” Marksman” badge. So by the same logic Whitman could never have pulled off the Texas Tower incident. Since nobody actually identified him doing the shooting we can assume that the resisting arrest story ( a cop shot him) was only a lie to help cover up the fact that he was a patsy.

        • Tom S. says:

          Photon, uncanny….a carbon copy of Oswald. I applaud your research abilities!

          Date: Wednesday, August 3, 1966 Paper: Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana) Page: 4 :
          Link to .pdf file of article page:
          http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_006052016_0935_15821_221.pdf

          • Some lone nuts kill presidents, some lend PR to restrictive gun legislation. Some actually need to know weapons and be good shots. Some just need to be in the right building on the right day.

            Wonder what ticked this boy off? Was there a gal in a polkadot dress dancing in the parking lot?
            Ne’er can tell…
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Whitman’s USMC shooting score was 215.
            Oswald’s same score was 212.
            The “crack shot ” Whitman was only 5 points above the minimum for “Sharpshooter”; how often do we here from CT sources that Oswald was only 2 points above the minimum for the same badge? Is there even a statistical difference between those two scores?
            If Whitman’s father stated he was a crack shot, by the same objective standards Oswald must be considered a crack shot also.
            Of course, one can consider the source. According to Wikipedia the elder Whitman repeatedly abused Charles physically, apparently even almost drowning him on one occasion. Being interviewed almost immediately after his son committed the crime of the century may have colored some of his comments. If Charles was the crack shot that his father thought he was he surely would have made Rifle Expert.
            On the other hand, Marines that make “Sharpshooter” are more than adequate marksmen. As demonstrated by Oswald and Whitman they certainly have the skills to do what so many CTers think is impossible.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, are you denying Whitman was likely experienced at shooting and hitting moving targets, i.e., hunting, and that there is no evidence of Oswald hunting with a rifle or shooting at any living target before 22 November, 1963? He did possess a shotgun in Minsk. What can actually be drawn from that, compared to Whitman’s rifle hunting experience and proficiency?

            Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery – Page 116
            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=oswald+%22your+rabbit+scared+me.%22
            Norman Mailer – 2007 – ‎
            his gun crooked in his arm. Then, a rabbit practically jumped out from under his foot, and he went, “Aooaoh!” and shot into the air. Tzagiko said, “God, Oswald, you’re going to kill me with that gun!” And Oswald said, ‘Your rabbit scared me.

            I selected a verifiable, primary source as a courtesy to readers. There are other sources supporting Whitman’s father’s claims.

            http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/whitman-charles.htm

            A Sniper in the Tower: The Charles Whitman Mass Murders
            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=charles+whitman+%22exact+measure+of+altitude%22
            Gary M. Lavergne – 1997 – ‎Preview – ‎More editions
            The Charles Whitman Mass Murders Gary M. Lavergne. audible mumble … Tragically; the signs also gave him an exact measure of altitude; he knew precisely how to set the four-power scope on his 6mm Remington for maximum accuracy.

            You compared Whitman to Oswald. Admit you made a poor comparison and move on.

        • Jordan says:

          Oswald was soooo good at hitting moving targets that General Walker knew enough to sit still so Oswald would miss….Who knew…?

          • Anthony Martin says:

            Out of curiosity, not being a expert with firearms, etc, still learning about Oswald, etc., and wanting a perspective:

            http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/27/marine-corps-hones-moving-target-shooting-skills.html

            http://www.snipercountry.com/InReviews/SlopeDoper.asp

            https://warisboring.com/top-army-marksman-explains-why-gun-nuts-shoot-better-469f8dfd917f#.55f11e8sb

            IMHO: Arguing ‘for Oswald’, would be like arguing that a ‘duffer” could be put in a championship game and hit a hole in one in his first shot to the green. Note: Where’s the hard evidence that currency was maintained?

          • Photon says:

            Tom S., as I stated if Whitman was a crack shot as described by his father, why didn’t he make Rifle Expert? The only way to objectively compare his skills to Oswald’s are to compare their Marine scores-and they are nearly identical. I am sure that Whitman’s father encouraged hunting, but your reference for his skill is only a family member, although I have no doubt that he was an accomplished hunter-as are millions of other Americans, including a fellow Marine: http://www.ctka.net./2015/JeffCarterBYP1-3.html.
            While I will always take a DiEugenio site with a grain of salt, pictures don’t lie (unless they are taken at the Forrestal Memorial Diving Platform-a Jones Bridge Rd. inside joke). ” Marguerite’s observation ‘anybody can own a rifle, go hunting…’ ” goes into a line about Oswald’s hunting experiences with his brother, particularly rabbits-a small, fast target often difficult to spot in the grasses of east Texas. Hunting rabbits with a .22 is not necessarily an easy task ; varmint shooting actually can be more difficult than hunting deer or pheasants, particularly with a .22.
            Of course I prefer a .223 when hunting Jackalopes, as they tend to charge when wounded.

        • Brian Joseph says:

          Photon,
          Isn’t your comparison a bit like comparing apples and watermelons ? Even if Holland is right and the first shot came from the TSBD that doesn’t prove that Oswald fired that shot. For the sake of argument let’s assume he did. How do we know that miss wasn’t intentional? It is possible that as far as Oswald knew KFK wasn’t going to be hit by him or anyone else and that as far as Oswald knew he was part of a false flag, would escape, be reported as being in Cuba, and that would result in an invasion.

          So where the first shot came from and whether or not Oswald was or was not capable of hitting JFK from the 6th floor ofthe TSBD doesn’t really mean a whole lot. That debate has been going on for 50 years without a consensus being formed or general agreement one way or the other. Just because someone is capable of something doesn’t mean they did that something. It’s a blind alley debate. No winners, no losers, nothing concrete comes of it.

          It is however a comfortable blind alley to many conspiracy theorists as well as lone nutters. A sort of, “Hey let’s rehash the whole thing and each of us will declare ourselves winners.” A nice dance to a familiar old song.

          I’ve read many of your comments and you seem pretty inteligent. Why not dance with some conspiracy buffs to a different song by sharing a comment or two on the Hardway thread ?

          • Steve says:

            Oh Photon,

            Since you dodge this question all of the time, let’s see if the 40th time is a charm.

            If LHO was the crack shot you say he is, how in the world did he miss what was by far the easiest of the three shots?? Since I have been to Dallas and have the proof to show you, I can assure you that the first supposed shot would have been soooo easy for me, and I have never fired a gun in my life.

            PLEASE don’t give me your standard “he was nervous” bs. Remember, your beloved WC goons said LHO was a “cold blood killer with hate in his eyes.”

            Tell me, Photon, how many cold blooded killers miss such an easyshot? I mean, knowing you have never been to Dallas, i can assure you that I could have tinkled on JFK’s head from the “supposed sniper’s nest.”

            By the way, I have noticed that you have been unusally quiet about Mr. Hardaway’s revelation about CIA obstruction.

            Coincidence, or more of your hypocrisy?

          • Photon says:

            Steve, exactly what evidence do you have that the first shot always hits its mark?
            On Oct 25, 1957 at least two cold blooded experienced killers entered the Park Sheraton Hotel barbershop in NYC. How do I know they were experienced? Well, their employers faced retribution from the “Mad Hatter” himself if they weren’t successful-and he was the ” Lord High Executioner” for La Cosa Nostra .
            Guess what? From about 10 feet away they fired 10 shots into a sitting helpless man. Not only did their first shots miss a vital area, the victim was able to get out of his barber chair and attempt to get a bead on his assailants-only to be confused by the mirrors in the facility and assuming that reflections were his assassins.
            It was only the FIFTH shot that struck the target in the head-and apparently the ONLY fatal shot.
            Your claim of ” always making the first shot” is as bogus as your phony Agent Orange victim.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Steve to Photon: “If LHO was the crack shot you say he is, how in the world did he miss what was by far the easiest of the three shots?? Since I have been to Dallas and have the proof to show you, I can assure you that the first supposed shot would have been soooo easy for me, and I have never fired a gun in my life.”

            Steve, you seem to be admitting that the sniper in Dallas was NOT a crack shot! The simple truth is that the sequence of shots shows that the marksman wasn’t the best rifleman around, but the feat wasn’t a particularly hard one to pull off in the end. Oswald definitely showed he had the ability and training to carry out the task.

          • “Oswald definitely showed he had the ability and training to carry out the task.”~Jeremy Gilbert

            Oswald ALLEGEDLY showed he had the ability and training to carry out the task.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Oswald ALLEGEDLY showed he had the ability and training to carry out the task.” – Willy

            Are you now denying that he achieved his shooting status as a Marine, Willy? Because that is all I am claiming here.

            Read more carefully what I actually say – I have NEVER said that Oswald fired the shots. Just that a sniper did from that vantage point, and that Oswald had the demonstrated ability to carry out what was done that day, which are separate things.

            Who was in the TSBD is a separate question I’ve not addressed on this board.

        • Steve says:

          Oh Photon,

          Good to hear from you!

          I notice you didn’t mention the Hardaway thread. Sorry, Photon, but it appears that your CIA may have obstructed justice. Care to comment or remain in your hypocrisy?

          As far as the wonderful story of the barbershop, I must admit it has NOTHING to do with the JFK case. NOTHING.

          LHO had plenty of time to hit JFK. A baseball could have been the weapon. But he whiffed. Now, you have said he was nervous. Or do you think it was JFK’s steel neck? Or chicken bones on the windowsill? Or did he see Howard Brennan and became worried about ol’ Howard’s eagle eye vision?

          OR, could you be full of it?

          As far as phony, I would say the only thing phony on this site is your bogus name and the fact you are not required to have a working e-mail address?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I noticed that you have not taken my offer to provide Tom S. your working e-mail address. Tom S. has mine, and he has my permission to share it with you. Then, you could contact Richard, an ACTUAL Vietnam Vet and discuss his physical condition with an ACTUAL person who walked the jungles of southeast Asia. Of course, that would require you to do something that you have never had to do on this website: be honest and transparent.

            I also noticed that you have not responded to any of the “disgraceful” REFERENCES I posted on the memories of a Parkland doctor. Of course, you can call Dr. Aguilar disgraceful and you can criticize Dr. McClelland all you like, but when it comes to defending the actions of the heroes of the WC, you grow strangely quiet. I wonder why that is?

            I also notice that you have not said much about Mr. Hardaway and his problems with the CIA during the HSCA investigation. You and your LN friends brag on and on about the “medical experts” that “verify” the crap the Mr. “I can burn anything I want” Humes gave us, but when it comes to the CIA ands it lying and stonewalling and felonius activities, again, you grow strangely quiet. I wonder why that is?

            Finally, have you had a chance to travel to Flint and enjoy a nice glass of gasoli…oops, I mean water? As you have said, there is no link between Agent Orange and any physical malady except a rash, and Erin Brockovich was a big sack of propaganda. Well, put your money where your mouth is an d drink a glass of Flint water.

          • Photon says:

            You still have not posted anything that confirms your claim that an assassin has to hit his victim with the first shot. I gave you an example of TWO assassins who missed with the first shot -from about 10 feet.
            Did Sara Jane Moore miss with her first shot?
            Did John Hinckley miss with his first shot?
            Why did they miss?

          • Photon says:

            As for Hardaway I think that his claims are irrelevant . I simply do not believe that there is any significant information relating to the assassination or Oswald among confidential records still not made public. I think that the Agency saw extremely valuable intelligence sources go down the drain because of revelations made during the Warren Investigation without any proof that the agency had any information contradicting the Warren conclusions. By the time of the HSCA they obviously saw the potential for further compromise of active intelligence assets.From prior releases there has never been any bombshells, only mundane information of limited value that has never been supportive of a conspiracy. But heck, knock yourself out if you think that there is something there.
            I really don’t need you to give me pointers on Vietnam vets.It started in May of 1967 when I was an altar boy for the funeral of my next door neighbor killed at Con Thien with 44 other Marines. It ended with the kid across the street who went into the Marines with my brother getting shot down over Koh Tang island and seeing half of his helicopter crew getting killed in the last battle of the Indochinese war. I have seen Vietnam era vets with WP scars, chronic pain from retained shrapnel and yes, even genuine Agent Orange victims with chloracne.Despite the stereotype most of the Vietnam era vets that I have known have been extremely NORMAL despite the trauma of the battlefield. If I am skeptical about Agent Orange claims it is because I know vets with documented exposure who have medical problems but have never sought any compensation. In my experience those vets that blame all of their maladies on Agent Orange usually have no real documentation of exposure and usually have medical problems not documented to be associated with AO even based on the most lenient standards of association.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Of course you think Hardway’s claims are irrelevant. That would force you to re-examine the bs we call the WR. Heaven forbid that should occur.

            I am curious about one thing you have said. If LHO was the “lone nut” and the “deranged loner” that the WC liars said he was, what “intelligence operations” would be compromised by fully disclosing what they knew? The LHO liked Dr. Pepper over Coke? That Underdog was his favorite cartoon? That claim, like so many that you have brought here, simply holds no water, and, once again, shows you have no real interest in a “complete and thorough investigation.” You simply want the whitewash to stand, and your heroes like Ford, Dulles, Specter to remain lily white, instead of the corrupted men of deceit they really were.

            I also notice that you can slam Dr. Aguilar and Mr. Talbot for what you perceive to be “lies,” but given a DIRECT REFERENCE about Gerald Ford LYING to a commission that he created, you are strangely silent. That is a hypocritical double standard that you have had from day one on this site, and you have been allowed to get away with until recently, when Tom told you to do your own research and stop using the links provided by others.

            Care to comment on Ford’s lying? Here is the LINK again:

            Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – “The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.”

            Remind me, Photon, doesn’t “significantly altered” mean the same thing as lying or destruction of evidence or perjury or whatever word or words you would like to use that mean “lying scumbag?”

          • “As for Hardaway I think that his claims are irrelevant .”~Photon

            Gee! What a surprise!! grin

            The only relevance I see is proof that George Joannides and CIA committed criminal obstruction of justice by interfering with the congressional investigation of the assassination of President John Kennedy.
            Certainly high crimes and misdemeanors, likely treasonous.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I will do what you usually refuse to do: I will answer your question directly. I don’t know about your barbershop gunfight, or about Hinkley. They are wonderful tales, but are really irrelevant to the murder of JFK.

            Have you even been to Dallas, Photon? Have you even stood next to the sixth floor window? Have you looked down to the street? Have you thought about a slow moving target COMING towards you, absolutely defenseless, and having a “sharp-shooting rabbit hunter” with cold blood running through his veins ready to “cross the Rubicon” completely missing EVERYTHING? From that distance? When a person could lob a softball onto JFK’s head? Remember, LHO had a wonderfully tuned “scope,” whereas the other folks in your fantasy stories may or may not have had.

            So the car kinda creeps toward LHO, and there is JFK’s head right in the cross hairs AND…nothing. A big zilch. So, what is it, Photon? Nerves? (cold-blooded killer) Poor shot? (sharpshooting stud, pick off a gnat’s butt from 200 yards) Crappy rifle? (practiced EVERY day all the time. Even slept with ol’ Bessy) Wind? (precision scope to take that away) JFK’s steel/carbon fiber neck? (LHO could not have known that, unless he was a third year medical student) Jackie’s pill box hat? (have to admit, very stylish) Street sign pole? (Uh, perfectly tuned scope should have brought that into focus) Worried about “eagle eye’ Howard Brennan? (see JFK’s neck above) Tree? (see street sign above) Smell of chicken bones on sixth floor? (certainly would be hard to concentrate).

            Again, a load of crap from the WC, and one that you would wish every American to swallow. Uh, won’t be me. But heck, have that bite, and then wash it down with a good ol’ cup of “CIA knows nothing about it kool-aid.”

            (Or Flint water since you are now a disease specialist.)

          • Photon says:

            Steve, you have a lot of opinions, but don’t back them up with facts.
            Aguilar claimed that the US sold Sarin gas to Saddam. That is not true; when challenged he posted references that didn’t even mention Sarin gas.
            Talbot claimed that Allen Dulles spent the weekend of Nov. 22, 1963 at a CIA facility near Yorktown,Va. which he claimed was in Northern Virginia- not true. In addition, months ago I presented photographic evidence that Dulles was in D.C. during that weekend. He has never clarified the inconsistencies in his claims.
            No matter what your opinion of what Gerald Ford did, are you claiming that it is ok to lie if you think that someone holding a view contrary to yours lies? And what exactly does Gerald Ford have to do with the statements of Aguilar and Talbot?
            Give me just one reference that states that assassins always hit their victims with the first shot. I gave you three examples where they missed with the first shot- including one involving shots from around ten feet- or approximately 1/15 of the distance from Oswald to his target.
            The Warren report compromised the intelligence gathering operation at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. It made external surveillance much more difficult and alerted the Cubans such that they could change their travel patterns to escape detection. More importantly, it compromised sources inside the Embassy, including SIGINT as well as HUMINT resources.Ever wonder what the fate was of Embassy staff who were involved in supplying information to the CIA? As soon as the Cubans were made aware of the level of surveillance they changed policies destroying that source of intelligence-less than 2 years after the Missile Crisis.
            Why did Oswald have to conform to what YOU think that he should have done? The results of the shooting proved that he was able to execute his task, no matter what his shooting solution was. Not only that, he was able to be concealed long enough to complete his shooting sequence, which would have been unlikely if he exposed himself while taking a sho at where you think he should have begun.

          • Photon says:

            In addition, any shot taken from the sixth floor while JFK was on Houston would have been directly in the line of site of every car behind JFK’s limo; while I doubt that Oswald had any idea where JFK’s security detail was located it was evident that everybody on Houston and in the motorcade behind the limo would be looking directly or indirectly at his position with the first shot. Perhaps Oswald considered that, although the positioning of the boxes that he used to support the rifle and his sitting position are oriented for a shot down Elm St. ( No Steve, I have never looked directly out of the window that Oswald fired from-and neither have you. It is glassed off from the rest of the sixth floor, with boxes as arraigned when discovered by police-even the box with the open top. But you are right about one thing-it was an easy shot.)
            As regards to Flint I fail to see what that has to do with JFK, Agent Orange, the Federal government , the CIA, Erin Brockovich or the price of soybean futures. Perhaps you enlighten us as to what connection you are trying to make..

          • Photon, HEADS UP:

            “United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, …. that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. …. Equipment for this plant appears to have been supplied by the Latrobe, … Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

            “Nerve agents can be manufactured by means of fairly simple chemical techniques. … The volatilities of soman, tabun and GF are between those of sarin and VX.”

            https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/nerve-agents/

            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            And now for some Orwellian “entertainment” brought to you from the conservative/Neocon side of the land of the free, and the home of the brave….

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
            The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
            Published: October 14, 2014
            By C. J. CHIVERS
            ……..Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq…

            You can’t be exposed to sarin….the Bush admin. denies its existence in Iraq….are you on drugs?
            See deep in article at link above…..

            U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq – Newsweek
            http://www.newsweek.com/how-us-nerve-gassed-its-own-troops-then-covered-it-317250
            Mar 27, 2015 – Strictly speaking, they were right: No weapons were used. The nerve agent sarin was in the fallout from the U.S. bombing or detonating of Iraq’s …

          • Photon says:

            Exactly where in any of these references is there a statement that the US sold Sarin gas to Saddam?
            It is interesting to see all of these soldiers being exposed to nerve and mustard gases without the reporters asking a simple question-why aren’t any of them dead? Nerve gas agents are lethal at extremely low concentrations. Of course mustard gas can cause chemical burns- but low-level exposure to mustard gas has been seen for decades among Deminers in France and Belgium salvaging chemical shells from WWI. Have any chronic diseases such as seen with the discredited “Gulf War Syndrome ” been seen among that group? The Newsweek article seems quick to ascribe the Syndrome to these suspected exposures, without the author realizing that the NEJM article I have referred to previously found no epidemiological evidence that the Syndrome actually exists.

          • Photon,

            A quick question for you:

            How many miles is it from your face to the back of your head when measuring forward? What would be the integers in a calculation to determine that answer to that question?
            \\][//

          • Steve says:

            Photon,

            I will be glad to enlighten you.

            Ford was a liar. You have the reference. Ford lied to his own committee, and he lied during the WC hearings.

            You can look at the article about Ford and it says he “significantly altered” the “findings.” In other words, he LIED. And as Mr. Blakey has said, once you are proven to be a liar, then, according to the standards of the law, EVERY WORD you have said can no longer be trusted. Yes, the committee was in 75 or 76, but as Mr. Blakey says, once a LIAR always a LIAR.

            In other words, your WO report is built on the words of liars.

            Would you like me to post the reference to Mr. Blakey’s words?

          • Steve says:

            Photon:

            Blakey’s words as promised. Please note that his credentials are as impressive, or even more so than any of the so called experts that you are constantly referring to on the HSCA. So, before you dismiss Blakey as a nut or a buff, don’t. He headed the very commission that you hold near and dear to your heart.

            “I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.”

            Oops, Photon. He indicates “willful obstruction of justice.” Lying, in other words.

            Refresh, if you can for the new readers to this site which CIA folks ended up in a courtroom for “willful obstruction of justice.” Oops, no one? That is odd. A federal agency lies to another part of the federal system and NO ONE is held accountable. How convenient for you and the LN.

            No wonder you do not wish to discuss Mr. Hardway.

            The truth is a terrible thing, eh Photon?

          • Steve says:

            Photon:

            Blakey, Part 2

            “For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

            What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.”

            Well, hell, Photon. Blakey says they were unable to conduct a complete investigation. Neither was the WC. I guess what we are left with is a report not worth the paper it is written on.

            Did you also read the part where Blakey, a LAWYER, just like the WC bozos, indicates that the LAW usually does not believe a word after someone has been shown to be a liar. Oops, there goes Ford and Specter and Dulles and LBJ.

            The truth is a terrible thing, isn’t it?

          • Brian Joseph says:

            “As for Hardaway I think that his claims are irrelevant…”

            Geez Photon,
            You find it irrelevant that the Company lied and said it was not connected to DRE in 63 and that the Company contact for DRE was the liason between the Company and the HSCA well over a decade after 63 ? You find all of what Hardway says irrelevant? That is mind boggling. Mostly because you are often on target (in my opinion) in challenging the claims of some conspiracy buffs. Yet you just dismiss what Hardway says and the blatant lies of the Company around this as being irrelevant? I’m disapointed. I was hoping for more than that from someone who is obviously knowledgeable and intelligent.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Have you looked down to the street? Have you thought about a slow moving target COMING towards you, absolutely defenseless, and having a “sharp-shooting rabbit hunter” with cold blood running through his veins ready to “cross the Rubicon” completely missing EVERYTHING? From that distance?” – Steve Stirlen

            Hi Steve: From the witness accounts who stated they saw an individual in that window, they stated that he was focused on looking down Elm Street, not on Houston. And because of the positioning of the box the sniper sat on and the two small boxes positioned as a gun rest, it is clear that the sniper had decided to take his shots as the limosine approached the underpass.

            Why did the first shot miss? We can only speculate – a shot too early would have been a harder shot, would it have not, if it was taken shortly after the turn onto Elm, as it was a sharper downward trajectory with the limo moving from left to right, as opposed to the movement between Z224 and Z313. Perhaps that was a factor.

            If you had mapped out how you would have done it, obviously from your remarks you would have been at least tempted to fire from the front. But the evidence shows that the sniper in that window chose Elm and not Houston, perhaps jumping the gun with the first shot.

        • Bill Banks says:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

          According to wikipedia, the longest registered shot was lethal against a victim attempting to shelter behind a car–480 meters off. Casual look did not find anything to indicate how many shots fired in total against the number of casualties Likewise, nothing definite on scope, though apparently a fixed 4X Leupold; a range finder would likely have been worthy of mention.

          The “skill” here is more than my idea of a scantily proficient Marksman.

          As for the jackalope hunting you mentioned elsewhere, that would be with an accredited guide carrying a .338 backup, right?

          • Photon says:

            No, you are right that the skill is more than that of a scantily proficient Marksman.
            It is the skill ability of a trained Marine rifleman able to win a Sharpshooter’s badge-exactly as Whitman and Oswald did. Oswald just had an easier target.

          • Photon,

            Oswald had Maggie’s Drawers!

            He was a lousy shot. Give it up son.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Then how did he get a Sharpshooter’s badge? When shooting for qualification he was as proficient as Whitman. Or is that record faked also?

          • “Oswald had Maggie’s Drawers!” is quoted from some of the Marines that went through basic with Oswald. He completely missed the entire target on several shots according to these guys.
            Red flags go up when this happens. They are referred to as ‘Maggie’s Drawers’.

            Photon your attempt to cast Oswald as a good rifleman is futile. It is silly and ludicrous.

            IN MY OH SO HUMBLE OPINION!!!
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Oswald’s Ex-Captain Takes Aim at Single-Shooter Theory – latimes http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-21/local/me-59498_1_oswald-s-marksmanship via @latimes

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            UH OH!

            The LINK posted by Mr. Regan (yes, Photon, that is what a link looks like) should certainly cause you to wonder about LHO and his magical abilities with a rifle, especially when we all know that the first shot was by far the easiest of the three.

          • Photon says:

            Did Oswald’s ex-captain ever see him shoot when he was motivated to do his best? By the time he was under this Captain he was trying to get out of the Marines and planning to move to Russia. How well did he really know him if he was surprised that he went off to the Soviet Union? I thought that Oswald’s nickname among his fellow Marines was “Oswaldkovitch”.
            When Oswald cared he was as good a shot as Whitman-at least that is what the documented shooting records of both men state. It is the only way to accurately and objectively compare their shooting abilities.Could Oswald have made some of the shots that Whitman made? Who knows? We do know that he could make one shot out of three at less than a hundred yards-hardly a task for a Marine Sharpshooter.

          • David Regan says:

            The point being Robert Block’s opinion on Oswald’s capabilities with a rifle was shared by other fellow Marines.

            How good of a shot was Oswald? http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html

  9. New York Times article gives Gerald Posner last word in this article:

    Mr. Posner, the anti-conspiracy author, said that if there really were something explosive involving the C.I.A. and President Kennedy, it would not be in the files — not even in the documents the C.I.A. has fought to keep secret.

    “Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this,” Mr. Posner said. “But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html?_r=0
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    My commentary:

    What most coincidence theorists don’t understand is that the C.I.A. trusted and still trusts it’s deep and complex classification system. And it never anticipated the unprecedented legislation of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. Nor how the tenacious some highly qualified researchers would be in digging up the real dirt on the JFK assassination.

    With a skilled analyst like John Newman breaking the inner codes of the way the files were named and managed, the real story is beginning to emerge… right from the horse’s mouth.
    \\][//

    • Jordan says:

      I have to allow Posner some weight in that regards, even if it makes me throw up in my mouth a bit.

      How would you ever know exactly what records they do or do not have…?

      Were they refiled due to some tangential relationship to another matter…?

      The fact that these are real questions is evidence of something out of control…

  10. Anthony Martin says:

    Two ex Marines have the same shooting score. I asked a friend about this (an ex Marin)e. He said if you qualified, even at the lowest rating, you were a damn good shot. I asked about moving targets and slope targets. There was a pause..no. I looked up Whitman (caution on the photos). Scroll down to his arsenal. Consider the quality of the firearms, etc. A picture is worth a thousand words: Whitman took guns seriously. Compare that to Oswald’s supposed ‘arsena’l. Instead of comparing Oswald to Whitman, I’d rather hear from a person trained as a sniper. At least an expert so qualified could give an insight into what’s involved (theory, training, equipment, etc.), n order to make slope shots, moving target shots, horizontal shots, etc. http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/whitman-charles-shooting.htm

  11. Bob says:

    I’m very curious about who fired the shot that hits the street behind the limo in the Nix film. One of the witnesses on the railroad bridge mentioned seeing it during the WC testimony but nobody ever
    addressed the issue.
    Could that have been the Tague shot?

  12. “Could that have been the Tague shot?”~Bob

    The Tague shot hit far ahead of the limo… so, I think that is another bullet that needs to be accounted for.
    \\][//

  13. pat speer says:

    A couple of points.

    1. I discuss Holland and his wacky theory, here:
    http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder

    It’s complete nonsense and at odds with all the evidence Holland has presented to support it. It’s an embarrassment that so many continue to give it attention. It’s the moon is made out of cheese kind of stuff.

    2. The limo was not moving straight away from the sniper’s nest during the shooting. This was a fib inserted into the Warren Report to help sell Oswald’s guilt. That this fib was deliberate, moreover, is demonstrated by the testimony of the FBI’s Gauthier. He brought along a picture demonstrating the straight trajectory from the sniper’s nest. There was a problem, however. The picture was taken from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building. Oops.
    http://www.patspeer.com/sniper.jpg

    http://www.patspeer.com/sniper.jpg

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      I would like to add a couple of points to Pat’s post:

      (1) Why on earth does Sherry Fiester say that:

      “These two men are very close, very close in their computations”
      “Both of these men came up with 26 degrees”
      “It’s okay. Myers’s math is fine” (*)

      She is referring to WC staff Thomas Kenning (sp?) and Dale Myers. Her whole book selling business and conferences rely on those 26 degrees, which are crucial to removing the Grassy Knoll.

      One of her sources (Kenning) used 1964 technology for the Warren Commission and the other …

      It is my understanding that the contents of Dale Myers’ hard disk are only known by himself and God, and Myers intends to take those numbers, distances and angles to his grave.

      Does Sherry have some sort of working relationship with Dale? Does she know something we mere pedestrians ignore?

      (2) The dimensions of the limo. Where did ABC/Myers and NOVA/Haag get the dimensions of SS-100-X?

      We may have the most advanced, accurate laser data about the streets and buildings, but if you control the dimensions of the limo you can produce any preordained result.

      (*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ESO8k9Zkxw
      Minute 43:30′

      ABC/Myers, 2003:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

      PBS NOVA/Haag, 2013:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ERXm9OwuE
      https://goo.gl/qgWw7K

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-100-X

      • “Does Sherry have some sort of working relationship with Dale?
        “~Ramon F Herrera

        Do you have some sort of working relationship with Dale Ramon?
        You are referring to him in this comment.
        Fiester referred to him on that show. Aren’t you LEAPING here? Do you dispute the 26 degrees figure? If so on what grounds, and how are your own computations derived?
        \\][//

      • “The HSCA report indicates Thomas Canning determined the distance between Kennedy and Zapruder was about seventy feet, with a line of sight of ten degrees downward. Kennedy’s head was turned away from Zapruder approximately twenty-five degrees past profile, tilted to his left and away from Zapruder about fifteen degrees, and was nodding forward about eleven degrees (HSCA 6:36-38; HSCA 6:34-40).

        This twenty-five degrees past profile turn from Zapruder is confirmed by Dale Myers (Myers, 1995) and the Z-Axis Corporation. In 2003, ABC News hired independent experts from Z-Axis Corporation, one of the nation’s leading forensic animation companies, to assess Myers’ computations. Axis Corporation produces c o m p u t e r – g e n e r a t e d animations of events, including recreations for major litigations in the United States and Europe.”

        https://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/

        \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Pat

      The real joke here is that neither a shot from the SE corner of the TSBD nor a shot from the Dal-Tex could have been the shot that made the SBT. Although the neck of a human looks to be mostly meat from the outside it is, in fact, mostly a column of tightly fitting bones called vertebrae. If the shot came from the Sniper’s Nest, the bullet would have to pass through these vertebrae in order to enter and exit where the WC maintained it did.

      The SBT is a joke, to anyone who understands skeletal anatomy.

      Now, here comes Proton with a load of baffle gab to try to keep a lid on the truth.

      • Photon says:

        Bob, when is the last time you dissected a human neck?
        How often does an IJ catheter encounter bone? You DO know what an IJ catheter is, don’t you?

        • Photon,

          When is the last time you dissected a human neck?

          How long have you been a surgeon now??

          As long as you have been a ballistics expert?

          As long as you have been an expert in cinematography and photography?

          As long as you have been an championship marksman?

          As long as you have been a real person with a real name?
          \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Yup, just as predicted, the Artful Dodger jumps in to confuse a very simple issue.

          Ignore the man behind the curtain, folks. The Great Oz has spoken.

        • theNewDanger says:

          Photon

          June 7, 2016 at 11:07 pm

          Bob, when is the last time you dissected a human neck?
          How often does an IJ catheter encounter bone? You DO know what an IJ catheter is, don’t you?

          Do you understand now why people consider you disinformationist? The application of an IJ catheter does not penetrate one’s back to allegedly pass through the front of the neck and has nothing to do with the toon bullet theory, which no “authority on anatomy” produced. Stay on topic.

          • theNewDanger says:

            theNewDanger

            June 8, 2016 at 12:50 pm

            Photon

            June 7, 2016 at 11:07 pm

            Bob, when is the last time you dissected a human neck?
            How often does an IJ catheter encounter bone? You DO know what an IJ catheter is, don’t you?

            Do you understand now why people consider you disinformationist? The application of an IJ catheter does not penetrate one’s back to allegedly pass through the front of the neck and has nothing to do with the toon bullet theory, which no “authority on anatomy” produced. Stay on topic.

            Just for clarity, here is how one might catheterize the IJ: http://thecardiacicu.com/for_experts/jugular_intro_eng.html

            Does this look anything like how JFK might have sustained his wounds?

          • Photon says:

            You do realize that the tips of these catheters are in the heart, right? And that in the ICU some patients have an IJ on both sides, an ET tube in place and a NG tube in the esophagus. According to Bob there isn’t enough room in the neck for all of that hardware without hitting bone. But for some ICU patients even with all of that in place they may have to place another catheter in the neck that is twice as wide as the other catheter. Bob betrays his ignorance of neck anatomy by making claims that are refuted by standard critical care procedures done on ICUs daily across the country.

          • theNewDanger says:

            Photon

            June 8, 2016 at 4:18 pm

            You do realize that the tips of these catheters are in the heart, right? And that in the ICU some patients have an IJ on both sides, an ET tube in place and a NG tube in the esophagus. According to Bob there isn’t enough room in the neck for all of that hardware without hitting bone. But for some ICU patients even with all of that in place they may have to place another catheter in the neck that is twice as wide as the other catheter. Bob betrays his ignorance of neck anatomy by making claims that are refuted by standard critical care procedures done on ICUs daily across the country.

            That’s not what Bob stated in any way. You’re clearly posting trifling details of your small irrelevant medical world to cloud his argument. An IJ catheterization with any ancillary services and the alleged facts of the 2,000 fps Single Bullet Titration are incongruent, regardless of the rabbit hole you are trying to drag this thread down. There is no relevancy of an IJ catheterization to the toon bullet’s moving on a downward plane at 2,000 fps piercing the upper back that (based on how JFK was postured at the alleged instant of the shot to his back) would have needed to ascend to exit the throat, unless you would advise shooting the catheter into someone’s IJ from six floors up from an unsighted rifle that hadn’t been fired.

          • Photon says:

            Bob stated that it wa impossible for a rifle bullet to transection the neck without hitting the spinal column .
            He gave no evidence for that post
            I explained that thousands of ICU patients has instruments in the neck that Bob claims it is impossible to have

  14. Bob says:

    Supposedly the Tague shot was a ricochet off the street so it could as easily have been the one that hits in Nix frame 99 and sends up a
    puff of material for several frames.
    This shot by itself would seem to prove more than one shooter.
    Was this the fourth shot on the dictabelt?

  15. Jordan says:

    I have to admit the need to give props to Photon for the “…Forrestal Memorial Diving Platform..” quip….!!!

  16. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Ed Bauer said:

    “You don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting! First, you must always zero, or sight-in, your firearm as Lee Oswald knew well and took to heart. The first shot missed because Oswald used it to zero his Mannlicher-Carcano, aiming at the south curb of Main Street and causing that fresh bullet mark. Privately and from the very beginning, the FBI knew the true cause of this curb gouge and they destroyed evidence, spliced films and lied to the Warren Commission to cover up an early first shot. A shot fired immediately prior to the seven-frame splice in the Tina Towner film and more than three seconds earlier than this ‘light-pole’ theory.”

    Seriously, Ed?? I’d be really really interested in hearing how you go about sighting in or zeroing a rifle. I don’t think I am quite familiar with the method you are attempting to describe.

    • Bob: Happy to oblige.

      When firing for accuracy you must always first sight-in your rifle (i.e., zero for a specific distance), an indispensable requirement if the firearm has been disassembled and reassembled as Oswald’s had just been. After noting where a shot hits relative to the intended target, you zero by adjusting the windage (horizontal) and elevation (vertical) screws on the rifle or the scope in Oswald’s case.

      Additionally, you can:
      1) Ask anybody who has shot rifle competitively (as I did beginning in 1966) such as high school, college or gun club rifle teams,
      2) Read this blog post wherein 17 experts and gun manufacturers weigh in on the need to zero a reassembled rifle: http://thefinaltruthjfk.blogspot.com/2015/02/for-those-who-might-like-bit.html#links,
      3) Read my book, The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination.
      Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578
      Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CPSBM7U

      All the best to you, Bob.
      — Edward Bauer

      • Photon says:

        Oswald was not shooting competitively .
        He had an easy 88 yard shot.
        Do you think that he had never disassembled his Carcano and fired it after putting it back together?
        He hit his target 1 out of 3 times, maybe he didn’t need to zero it in.

        • “Do you think that he had never disassembled his Carcano and fired it after putting it back together?”~Photon

          Do you have any proof that he did?

          Do you have any proof that he ever fired that rifle?

          You say, “He hit his target 1 out of 3 times”.

          The truth is that Oswald is ALLEGED to have hit his target. It is ALLEGED he fired that rifle.

          The truth is, you are ALLEGED to be a real human being.
          \\][//

        • pat speer says:

          The “easy shot” and “1 out of 3” arguments are pure nonsense, Photon. The “hit” by the EOP and the “miss” on the back were far closer to the middle of the sniper’s “target” than any two “hits” by the top shooters attempting to replicate Oswald’s purported feat for the Warren Commission. This led one WC lawyer, Liebeler, to offer that the commission should just say Oswald got “lucky” and leave it at that. This is demonstrated here: http://www.patspeer.com/intheint3.jpg

          • Photon says:

            Define “Master Marksmen”. Who actually did the shooting? Of the seven runs, all but one was shorter than the eight seconds that Oswald had. And nobody in the 50 years since these stationary tests ever tried to duplicate the shooting sequence with a moving target?

          • pat speer says:

            The Army’s shooters were professional test shooters, among the best in the world, using the supposed assassination rifle, after having its scope shimmed up, and firing on stationary targets. They were given a practice shot. And they couldn’t reproduce Oswald’s purported feat. CBS similarly allowed its shooters some practice shots. They were also firing with a perfectly sited-in rifle. And not one of them reproduced Oswald’s feat on the first run, if I recall. (Outside of Howard Donahue’s third try, in which he hit the head three times, they didn’t show the locations of the hits on the handful of subsequent attempts to supposedly reproduce the feat.) There’s also this: the target in the CBS re-enactment had no obstructions, and moved at a consistent angle and consistent speed. This made hitting this target far easier than hitting Kennedy. And yet most of the well-rehearsed shooters attempting to “match” Oswald’s purported feat failed to do so.

            P.S. As far as the “8 seconds” you purport was the actual time of the shooting, well, this is based on the first shot miss myth, a hoax of epic proportions. And besides, that’s irrelevant. The point was, and remains, that the WC knew, based on its own tests, that the three shots between z-224 and z-313 shooting scenario they offered up as a strong possibility was near impossible, and extremely unlikely for Oswald under the conditions of 11-22-63. And yet they barfed it up anyway.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            I think I understand what Ed is trying to say here. If Oswald shot at one spot, and viewed the shot to strike a certain distance away from his point of aim, he would be able to gauge how much his rifle was off and compensate for this with his next shot.

            There is a bit of a problem with this theory, and anyone who has shot a rifle equipped with a scope will understand what it is.

            Even if you are shooting a rifle with very little kick to it, the rifle will move when you pull the trigger and the shot is fired. In other words, try as you might, you cannot keep your target in the viewfinder of the scope. When shooting at targets at a range, it is always necessary to re-acquire your target through your scope in order to see where your bullet hit, if your scope is powerful enough to show you this.

            This also makes a mockery of the LN argument that Oswald did not have to re-acquire JFK as a target for each shot. With that toy scope mounted on the Carcano, which was never intended to be mounted on anything but a pellet rifle or a youth’s .22 calibre rifle, there is no way anyone could have tracked a moving target.

          • Photon says:

            Pat, what Army shooters? Got any names, any ranks?
            How do you know that they were ” among the best in the world” if you don’t even know who the 3 of them were? Aren’t you following the standard CT tactic of avoiding the ” rest of the story”? Weren’t they using a potentially damaged rifle, with a scope misaligned after the shooter dumped it on the way downstairs? How could you or anybody else know what condition the ” cheap telescopic sight” was in before being roughly handled by a fleeing assassin which almost certainly knocked the “cheap” device out of alignment -even if it was used in the first place?
            What you and so many others who promulgate the “Oswald was a lousy shot” myth avoid is what actually happened to the targets that the 3 ” Army experts” shot at. How many times did they ACTUALLY hit the target? And while they all tended to hit above and to the right from the intended spot, didn’t that uniformity prove that the telescopic sight (which they all used) was misaligned , probably from being dropped on one side? What were the results from using the iron sights?
            If you can’t prove that these “Master Marksmen” who couldn’t match a Maryland gunsmith’s shooting record were ” Army experts” will you retract you statement? Because Pat, they WEREN’T EVEN IN THE ARMY!

          • Jean Davison says:

            “And yet most of the well-rehearsed shooters attempting to “match” Oswald’s purported feat failed to do so.”

            Again, I’ll point out that the WR never defined “Oswald’s purported feat” because it couldn’t pinpoint when the missed shot was fired: “The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed.” It listed the pro and con arguments for each of the three being the missed shot.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=135&tab=page

            Three shots in 6 seconds is “Oswald’s purported feat” only in conspiracy lore. The WC didn’t say that.

          • pat speer says:

            Geez, Photon. do the homework, will ya? It’s all there in Simmons’ testimony. The WC’s tests were conducted by the Army, using two civilian gunners employed by the Army, and one gunner still in the Army. They were all professional rifleman. They were all rated as Master by the NRA. Their skills were a quantum leap greater than Oswald’s skills. As far as the scope, Frazier testified that it took a few shots to stabilize after re-adjustment, and that it was stable when first test-fired by the FBI. He had thereby testified that the problems with the scope pre-existed its being dropped, or whatever nonsense you’d like to make up.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Jean, Jean, Jean. The WC knew full well that the consensus had long held that the first shot hit Kennedy and the last shot was the head shot. They knew full well then that most would take from this that it was the second shot that missed. But oops this shortened the shooting scenario down below five seconds,so they refused to claim this as a firm conclusion. But that is what they believed and offered up as a strong possibility. So why do so many LNs present this as a CT myth? Cognitive dissonance?

          • Photon says:

            Pat, what is the top NRA marksmanship category ?
            Since you don’t want to answer how many times the three hit the targets using the ‘scope why don’t we go to the original source-the ENTIRE source, not isolated claims taken out of context:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zir.txt
            13 out of 18 shots using the ‘scope hit the target. The one ( ONE) Army shooter made his shots in 4.6 and 5.15 seconds . He also hit the target with iron sights with at least 1out of 3 shots in 4.45 seconds.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, Jean, Jean. The WC knew full well that the consensus had long held that the first shot hit Kennedy and the last shot was the head shot. They knew full well then that most would take from this that it was the second shot that missed.”

            Sure, the WC acknowledged that most witnesses thought Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and yet it’s undeniable that some spectators were still clapping at frame Z313 because they didn’t realize what was going on.

            The WC also “knew full well” that Connally was adamant that he had heard a shot before he himself was hit and that he responded by turning to his right to try to see Kennedy. His turn to the right can be seen in Z189, e.g., before JFK was wounded:

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gp2GX8y5E5E/hqdefault.jpg

            Jackie testified that she’d been looking at the crowd on her left when the first shot was fired and that she’d turned to her right after hearing Connally cry out. Compare her and Connally’s positions in 162 with 189 above:

            http://s1233.photobucket.com/user/dhjosephs/media/z162-HickeyandWillisstartled_zps91b1d0b3.jpg.html

            Jackie turned from left to right back in the 170s, and in Z189 she’s looking in Connally’s direction. I think those frames and their testimony indicate an early shot that missed, as Connally claimed.

            “But oops this shortened the shooting scenario down below five seconds,so they refused to claim this as a firm conclusion. But that is what they believed and offered up as a strong possibility. So why do so many LNs present this as a CT myth? Cognitive dissonance?”

            No, it’s absolutely a myth that the WC “purported” anything specific about “Oswald’s feat.” That’s a simple fact, because if they’d “purported” 5.6 seconds or 6 seconds or any other specific number you’d be able to QUOTE IT.

            How can you know what the WC “believed”? What you or anyone else may suspect was in their minds is speculation, not fact. Could we agree on that, at least?

      • “When firing for accuracy you must always first sight-in your rifle (i.e., zero for a specific distance)…”Edward Bauer

        It might be a good idea to do in a practice session. But it would be pretty stupid when hunting, and even more ridiculous as an assassin shooting in broad daylight at the President of the United States.
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        So, are you trying to tell us Oswald took one shot, stopped to remove the windage and elevation caps from his scope so he could make adjustments to his scope, put the caps back on and then continued shooting at JFK?

        PS

        It is possible to remove the stock from a rifle and re-assemble the rifle, without affecting accuracy, as long as the scope is not removed from the rifle.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          And just out of curiosity, how much would he adjust his scope by, judging from where the bullet struck on the curb? When I sight in a rifle equipped with a scope, I’m usually shooting at a 100 yard target marked off in inches vertically and horizontally from the bullseye, and I have yet to be able to accurately zero the scope in with just one shot.

          • theNewDanger says:

            Bob Prudhomme

            June 8, 2016 at 9:55 am

            And just out of curiosity, how much would he adjust his scope by, judging from where the bullet struck on the curb? When I sight in a rifle equipped with a scope, I’m usually shooting at a 100 yard target marked off in inches vertically and horizontally from the bullseye, and I have yet to be able to accurately zero the scope in with just one shot.

            Could you fire three shots from a bolt action rifle within 8 seconds doing all of this screwing around with the scope after the initial shot where you would still need to have acquired the target? Tague was standing over 20 yards upfield from the line of sight to JFK from where the first shot at the motorcade would have been fired according to the Warren Omission.

          • Bob: Happy to oblige, again.

            1) There were no “caps” to remove from the windage and elevation screws on Oswald’s scope. You just turn the knobs. See CE541(3).
            2) How the target is marked off is irrelevant. We used A-17s, marked in 3/16th-inch increments. All that matters is turning the screws the desired number of clicks.
            3) The captain of my high school rifle team could usually zero a rifle in one shot.
            4) Even without the rigorous marksmanship training Oswald received in the Marines, if it takes you more than five seconds to operate the bolt and turn two screws a few clicks, you have my sympathy. 🙂

            All the best to you, Bob.
            — Edward Bauer
            http://www.thefinaltruth.net

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ed

            1) Once again, you display a total lack of knowledge of firearms AND the JFK assassination. The 4×18 Ordnance Optics scope mounted on Oswald’s alleged rifle did indeed have caps on its windage and elevation knobs, as this photo clearly demonstrates:

            https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmFDFG-BaokS-nGwqolH5QuF1E3MCUuka2DJL7cqSqn8XA9mhv

            Those may appear to be knobs but, let me assure you, they are caps covering the actual adjustment knobs, which are turned with a flat screwdriver.

            As I stated in another thread, you should not try to bluff your way through things you know nothing about.

            If you think it is possible to fire three shots PLUS adjust the scope in the time allotted by the WC, I recommend you watch the video posted by Photon a few posts down.

            Here is another skill testing question about the scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle that an expert such as yourself should have no trouble answering.

            Outside of the scope being mounted offset to the left of the receiver, what other VERY strange thing was done to the scope when it was mounted? Why was this strange thing, plus offsetting to the left, done to this scope?

      • theNewDanger says:

        Edward Bauer

        June 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm

        When firing for accuracy you must always first sight-in your rifle (i.e., zero for a specific distance), an indispensable requirement if the firearm has been disassembled and reassembled as Oswald’s had just been. After noting where a shot hits relative to the intended target, you zero by adjusting the windage (horizontal) and elevation (vertical) screws on the rifle or the scope in Oswald’s case.

        How many seconds did it take (after the alleged initial firing and kickback) to sight-in the alleged murder weapon?

        What idiot would waste time on taking a shot that could potentially kill bystanders during an assassination attempt with the purpose of obtaining a zero without the assurances that he would have actually acquired a proper zero on the actual target?

        Oswald was not a working “mechanic” and was minimally qualified to use the tools of the trade …

  17. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Ed

    Here is a skill testing question for you. If you are shooting uphill or downhill at a target, does your bullet impact higher or lower than your point of aim?

    • Bob: Happy to oblige a third time.

      The purpose of zeroing is to ensure that the scope or iron sights are in alignment with where the round lands. You always zero under the same or similar conditions as when aiming at your target, including distance and angle. Therefore ‘uphill or downhill,” as you say, will not affect a properly zeroed shot.

      Hope this helps.

      All the best to you, Bob.
      — Edward Bauer
      http://www.thefinaltruth.net

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Ed Bauer said:

        “Therefore ‘uphill or downhill,” as you say, will not affect a properly zeroed shot.”

        Well, Ed, I can tell right away you have never hunted game in mountainous terrain, and you are also not the expert you would have us believe you are.

        It is one thing to shoot a rifle at paper targets on a level range at 100 yards; it is another thing altogether to shoot at things in the real world that are not on the same level as you and you don’t know how far away they are.

        Believe it or not (and I’m sure you won’t), shooting at a target uphill from you has the same effect as shooting at a target downhill from you. In both cases, the bullet will impact a point higher than the point of aim.

        http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/33.cfm

        Have you figured out what the strange thing was that was done to the scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle, aside from it being mounted offset to the left of the receiver?

        • Bob: Happy to oblige a 4th time.

          1) I began zeroing rifles on a daily basis in 1966. You must sight-in before every firing session and re-zero during many. Screwdrivers and “caps” would be impractical if not downright ludicrous.

          2) I’ve shot rifles at ranges in four states and I haven’t seen a screwdriver used to zero at any of them. Visit your local range and ask around, they’ll be happy to help.

          3) Oswald’s Marine Corps Score Book shows that shooters often re-zeroed after every shot. They didn’t need to carry screwdrivers! Sorry, Bob.

          4) From page 124 of The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination:
          CE555. Diagram of sight adjustment mechanism of Oswald’s 4x scope. ES=Elevation Screw, WS=Windage Screw, R=Crosshairs Ring, CH=Crosshairs, S=Leaf Spring (resistance to both screws), T=Telescope Tube.

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_555.pdf

          5) The photo you linked to was not of Oswald’s scope. His scope is shown in CE541(3), noted previously.

          6) Since the scope had to be rotated nearly 90 degrees to the left to fit on the MC, the screw that would have made the vertical adjustment now made the horizontal and vice versa. But this is just common sense, Bob; you don’t need to be a marksmanship expert to know this. It was not a “strange thing done to the scope.”

          Hope this helps.

          All the best to you, Bob.
          — Edward Bauer
          http://www.thefinaltruth.net

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Oswald would have shot an M1 Garand in the Marines, Ed, and his rifle would have been fitted with a peep sight instead of a scope, so any reference to this is an apples and oranges argument on your part.

            The photo I linked to may not have been of Oswald’s alleged rifle but, it was most definitely of a 4×18 Ordnance Optics Inc. scope, the identical model of scope mounted on Oswald’s alleged rifle. Here are more photos of this model of scope mounted on a replica assassination rifle. Note that, in these photos, the windage and elevation caps have been removed, revealing the slotted adjustment knobs beneath them. The slotted adjustment knob is adjusted with a flat bladed screwdriver or, if one wishes, a coin.

            http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=135105

            Do you still maintain the Ordnance Optics Inc. 4×18 scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle did not have caps covering its adjustment knobs, that would have to be removed to adjust this scope for windage and elevation?

            Here is an article about Burris rifle scopes, showing the scope with adjustment knob caps on and removed. Note the screwdriver slot in the exposed adjustment knob.

            http://www.realguns.com/articles/586.htm

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            BTW, Ed, did you have a chance to read the article about shooting uphill or downhill, and how this type of shooting will affect the impact point of a bullet, as compared to shooting on level ground?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Ed

          Do you not wish to discuss further the effects of shooting uphill or downhill, as compared to shooting on level ground? You seem to have grown strangely silent on this topic.

          Just for you, here is another link to an article on this topic:

          http://www.rifleshootermag.com/network-topics/tips-tactics-network/hitting-a-high-or-low-angle-shot/

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ed

            I found a YouTube video about sighting in an older model of scope on an air rifle. Lo and behold, guess what this scope has on it? It has slots on the adjustment knobs and the man in the video is using a coin to adjust them. Say, I’ll bet he could use a flat bladed screwdriver just as easily. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ed

            Pay particular attention to this video beginning at 2:13, when what appear to be adjustment knobs for windage and elevation turn out to be caps concealing the actual adjustment dials.

            The 4×18 Ordnance Optics Inc. scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle had caps identical to this scope, and they had to be removed in order to adjust this scope with a coin or flat bladed screwdriver.

            Now, do you still wish to argue that Oswald removed these caps after the first shot and adjusted his scope before firing the second shot? Did he re-install the caps after the third shot?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ed

            Thought I would share another video with you. Note that the narrator has to remove the turret caps before making adjustments to his scope.

    • John Rowell says:

      Mr. Prudhomme: According to this article by a retired Army major, “at close range (100 yards or less) so little compensation is required that it’s fine to just aim dead on, no matter the steepness of angle.”

      Not having any relevant qualifications of my own, nor having any knowledge of the majors’ qualifications, it is impossible for me to evaluate his statements.

      What are your thoughts? The quote can be found on the second page, under the title “Basic Rules” number 1.

      http://www.millettsights.com/downloads/shootinguphillanddownhill.pdf

      More on the author:

      http://www.millettsights.com/resources/shooting-tips/

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I have shot a lot of deer at approximately the 100 yard range. Despite what many experts claim, I know that if I do not aim slightly low while taking a shot at a 45° angle to my target that my shot will often go high of where I am aiming.

        It all depends on what you consider an accurate shot to be. If a soldier is aiming at a man’s chest and shoots him in the neck instead, and the man goes to the ground with a mortal wound, is it still considered an accurate shot? If you are going for a head shot on a deer (or a president) and you miss by the same amount, and miss your target altogether, it is another matter entirely.

  18. sgt_doom says:

    Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting, so all talk about him is simple waste. Carlos Hitchcock and his fellow sniper instructors at Quantico did tests on both stationary and moving targets, and all failed.

    • Photon says:

      No they didn’t. Why are you repeating the Craig Roberts myth that I took down years ago. By the way, did you know that Roberts has never produced a shred of evidence to support that statement? You won’t find a single Marine instructor at Quantico who supports Roberts claim.
      Of course, Roberts has recently changed his story about his ” close association” with Hathcock. He now admits to only a long-distance telephone call while Hathcock had advanced MS. Of course he has no documentation for that either.
      But heck- keep posting those false claims.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        Didn’t the HSCA medical panel determine that the bullet in the SBT passed on the outside right of JFK’s C7 cervical vertebra (just missing the outside tip of the right transverse process of C7) before travelling in a straight line to JFK’s throat, where it passed through the right side of JFK’s trachea before exiting? Did they also not determine that the same bullet grazed the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 thoracic vertebra?

      • Pat Speer says:

        Please post a link to Roberts’s “confession” he didn’t really know Hathcock, Photon. I pointed out years ago that prior to his book on JFK, Roberts wrote a book on sniping to which Hancock contributed a chapter. It follows then that their relationship extended beyond one phone call years later. Unless you have a direct quote from Roberts saying what you say he did, shame shame shame.

        • Photon says:

          Please post a link to any evidence that Roberts ever talked to Hathcock aside from having his picture taken with him at a range, like hundreds of other law enforcement officers did during the period that Hathcock went around the country visiting Police ranges. Ask Roberts if he has any transcripts, recordings or independent verification that any other associations take place.
          There is no evidence whatsoever that the JFK recreation that Roberts claimed happened at Quantico ever took place-and that is from Marines at Quantico that I know(and there are literally dozens of them in this area). Besides, if there had been there would be written records of times, range utilization , ammunition expended,etc.
          There are dozens of stories about Hathcock’s shooting exhibitions and feats-the axe-balloon shot probably most amazing.( If you had ever been in the Marines, particularly Okinawa you may have seen it). But in decades NO ONE ELSE has independently mentioned Roberts story. No one else who would have been involved in the recreation has ever mentioned this story. Hathcock’s wife never mentioned this story. Gunnery Sargent ( ret.) Hathcock ( Carlos’ son) has never mentioned this story. Because Roberts made it up. Just like he made up the claim that he was a Marine Sniper. Just like he made up the claim of being an experienced sniper. Just like other issues that led to members of the Tulsa police department to state that he had a reputation for telling ” tall tales”.
          Perhaps you should look at some of his claims involving the Oklahoma City bombing-and then tell me about his veracity .
          But let’s cut to the quick. Your favorite ” Marine sniper” who is such an expert in firearms, sniping and rifle expertise had to qualify for marksmanship in the Marine Corps,right? Do you know what level of marksmanship he achieved ?
          Rifle Sharpshooter .
          Exactly the same as Lee Harvey Oswald.

          • DB says:

            Photon and Jean I think I understand your positions but maybe you can clarify that you still fully believe the WC findings as accurate in their JFK assassination findings? Is that still your position with todays information?

            With the last congressional investigation
            (HSCA) determined JFK was probably killed due to a conspiracy, a former DOJ Attorney -Blakely- in writing alleged obstruction of Justice by the CIA, a federal judge -Turnhiem- in writing alleged CIA obstruction of justice, the CIA itself confirmed obstruction of justice in a 2013-2014 history review about crucial subject matters, and written proof Gerald Ford altered critical assassination findings.

            With all the above known today you still fully support its findings ? None of the above has shaken your confidence in the WC report?

            Thanks

          • Photon says:

            DB, even if you accept the acoustic evidence as being shots fired at the time of the assassination ( and not tones that occurred long after the limo left Dealey Plaza) and discount the fact that the two principal acoustics ” experts” never heard ” hold everything secure” what did the HSCA conclude in regard to who shot JFK?
            They concluded that JFK was hit by two and only two shots fired from behind and above. AND:

            All of the shots that hit JFK were fired by Oswald

          • Pat Speer says:

            Nice dodge, Photon, but not really. Take a step back. You claimed Roberts has admitted he only talked to Hathcock one time at the end of Hathcock’s life. You overlooked that they wrote a book together many years before Hathcock’s death,. It is thereby incumbent on you to prove they never talked, not for anyone else to prove otherwise.

            You also neglect to see that there is nothing extraordinary in Roberts’ claims about Hathcock. I’ve known some military men myself. It is totally reasonable to assume a group of them would get together one day and see if they could reproduce the supposed shooting scenario, and keep no records of their experiment. What would be a surprise would be if they kept records of such a thing. And yes, the substance of Hathcock’s supposed claims was also accurate. No one has ever done what the WC claimed Oswald could have done, i.e., put a rifle together with a dime, and then hit two of three shots rapid fire on a moving target coming out from a tree while traveling on an angle and at an inconsistent speed…without any practice runs and while using a misaligned scope.

          • Photon says:

            What book did they write together? Every read Roberts book ” The Walking Dead”? It is full of false claims and outright lies.
            How did a Marine Sharpshooter ever get to be a Marine sniper?
            Pat, you are really doubling down on this fraud. Why ?

          • Photon says:

            I can’t think of a better takedown of the fraud that is Craig Roberts than the late Thomas H. Purvis ‘ Education Forum comments of 18 February 2007:
            educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778
            Pat, how you can claim to believe this serial liar is beyond me.

          • Jean Davison says:

            DB,

            The HSCA’s conspiracy finding was based on the acoustics, which I think has been successfully refuted by several different people. The HSCA’s other work actually strengthened the WC conclusion that Oswald alone fired all the shots that hit anyone that day, which was what the HSCA also concluded.

            I’d like for everything still withheld by the government to be released but until I see them I don’t know what those documents say.

            I don’t agree that Ford “altered critical assassination findings,” if you’re referring to his edit of a sentence in the WR introduction.

            It’s not that I have “confidence in the WC report” exactly — I rely on what I think the evidence indicates.

          • Pat Speer says:

            One Shot One Kill came out in 1990. It is an anthology of sniper stories told by the snipers themselves. It was put together by Robers and Charles Sasser, and features a chapter by Hathcock. It is highly-aclaimed. While I think Roberts made some major mistakes in his book on JFK, I don’t think we should doubt that he knew Hathcock, or even that Hathcock told him something close to what Roberts said he told him.

          • Photon says:

            Despite your claim ” Chapter One US Marine Sargent Carlos Hathcock Vietnam, 1967″ was not written by Hathcock, nor has there been any confirmation that it is anything but a fictionalized re-creation, never attributed to Hathcock. It was probably written by Roberts co-author Sasser, who was caught fabricating information for at least one other book. When confronted about some of the passages in ” One Shot, One Kill” the authors have claimed only that the information is accurate, not that the stories are actually the first-person accounts that are implied.
            Anybody who knew Hathcock ( and yes I do know a few) knew that he never wrote about his exploits in the manner presented and did not speak with the same prose.
            Roberts disappeared from the Education Forum when Purvis called him out. No serious researcher takes him seriously.

          • pat speer says:

            Oh, nonsense, Photon. We’ve been through this before. The forward to One Shot, One Kill, a best-seller in sniping circles and a book that could not have escaped Hathcock’s attention, reads as follows: “To Gunnery Sgt. Carlos N. Hathcock, USMC (ret.),for all his help, advice, information, and above all for sharing his experiences with the authors after traveling 1,200 miles and taking four days out of his life.” KABOOM. If Hathcock had ever said this was a lie, there would be some record of it somewhere. This leaves me little choice but to assume your claim Hathcock had nothing to do with the book is as non-factual as your earlier claim (which you refuse to back up) that Roberts admitted he’d never met Hathcock, but had only spoken to him on the phone one time. Please please please quit making stuff up. There is plenty of authentic evidence supporting the lone nut position. You only hurt your position by making stuff up.

          • Photon says:

            Hathcock was probably not even aware of the book or his supposed comments. There is only one authorized biography of Carlos Hathcock, he never contributed formally to any other book.
            How can you possibly believe a guy who claims to be a combat experienced Marine sniper when he never shot above Sharpshooter in the Marines, claims that Timothy McVeigh was an innocent patsy, admits that he never shot another human being in his life, lied about Oswald’s shooting scores, disappears when somebody actually questions his stories? The only time that Roberts may have met Hathcock was when he traveled across the country giving talks to police sniper programs before the chronic pain of his MS made it difficult to travel. He probably even had his picture taken with him, like hundreds of other law enforcement officers. But if you seriously believe that Hathcock wrote the first person chapter in ” One Shot,One Kill” it is obvious that you are ignorant about the man, his personality and his desire for privacy.
            Because he tells a story that you desperately want to believe, no matter what the facts actually are you are destroying your own credibility.
            Why do you think that Roberts has virtually disappeared?

          • pat speer says:

            If you’d read One Shot One Kill you’d know that one of the chapters recounts Roberts’ experience as a sniper, and the difficulties he encountered. It is presented as a contrast to the stories of the other (far more successful) contributors. And please, enough of the word games. Hathcock spent four days with Roberts and Sasser, telling them his stories. They wrote up one of his stories for their book. This chapter is presented as his story but it’s written up in their words. This is quite similar to what Larry Sneed did with No More Silence. And yet you’ve never claimed Sneed’s book was a lie, and should be ignored, have you? So, no, Photon, the fact of the matter is that you desperately want to disbelieve Roberts’ claim about Hatchcock, even though this claim was never disputed by Hatchock, and was consistent with the known facts (that no military shooter was ever able to replicate Oswald’s supposed feat).
            As stated, I am not a fan of Roberts’ and do not think very much of his book on JFK, but you are completely gaga if you think his pushing a number of silly ideas means he is lying about what seems clear to anyone without a bias (that he knew Hathcock).

          • Jean Davison says:

            This is how the Warren Report described Oswald’s “feat”:

            “…. If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3
            seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly
            increased.

            CONCLUSION

            Based on the evidence analyzed in this chapter, the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that
            one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants,and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=141&tab=page

          • Channeling the memories of a dead whale decomposing on a beach, Jean Davison writes:

            “This is how the Warren Report described Oswald’s “feat”

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Pat, how do you know that Hathcock spent four days with Sasser and Roberts? When?
            At least you are now admitting that the chapter that you claimed that Hathcock wrote was written by somebody else. Too bad there isn’t any confirmation that Hathcock even knew about this false first person narrative. As Roberts book ” The Walking Dead” was full of baloney and couldn’t even get right the correct Marine unit that was known by that title I wouldn’t consider him a paradigm of accuracy.
            But Sasser’s book “Taking Fire: …” the so-called history of a helicopter pilot in Vietnam is simply a complete travesty. The author made up stories and claims that the very people who served with the subject of his book stated were abject LIES. The Air and Space Museum book store dropped the book after it became known to be nothing but fabrications and errors.
            If you are willing to believe that anything that these guys wrote to make a buck has any truth to it be my guest. But if someone lies once they probably will lie again-until they get caught, or find somebody gullible enough to tell their stories to who is ignorant of the rest of the story.

          • Photon says:

            And Pat, I have no idea who Larry Sneed is, nor do I care. If he has been caugh publishing false information perhaps there might be some association to Roberts and Sasser, but please post it.
            Have you actually ever listen to Roberts and heard some of the things that he claims to be true? And as I previously stated, where has he gone?

          • pat speer says:

            Thanks, Jean. It’s as I’ve stated. The WC pushed that Oswald could have performed the shooting in as little as 4.8 seconds. Virtually everyone thinking Oswald did it today acknowledges he would have needed much more time than that. So what do they do? Do they criticize the WC for pushing something which is almost certainly incorrect? No, they claim it is a CT myth that the WC pushed such a scenario. Embarrassing.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Oh Photon,

            Your words:

            “But if someone lies once they probably will lie again.”

            Do you mean Gerald Ford? (Please see his own Rockefeller Committee link I have already given you.)

            Do you mean folks in the CIA? Angleton, Helms, Phillips? (Please see the link I have given you from Mr. Blakey.)

            Please also see ANYTHING written by Jefferson Morley, who is owed a great deal of gratitude by all of us. In case you have forgotten, mr. Morley is suing the CIA for our last, best chance at some sort of truth.

            Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. You piss and moan about people who, in your mind, lie or paint a different picture than what the WR tells us.

            However, the VERY people who “investigated” JFK’s murder were the BIGGEST LIARS and scumbags in the US at the time. However, you have no condemnation for Ford or Angleton or Helms. Or Hoover. Or Johnson.

            Help me understand, Photon. Talbot is a liar in your mond. Gerald Ford is a KNOWN liar. The difference between the two is…?

          • Jean Davison says:

            You missed the point, Willy. The only people who bring up the WC’s supposed claim about “Oswald’s feat” are your colleagues, WC critics.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, is it reasonable that your view of who the critics were might be too narrow?

            http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report
            …..
            Russell’s dissent was the most vocal, and is captured in a phone conversation with President Johnson late on 18 September 1964, a few hours after the Commission’s final executive session. A transcript of the relevant part of the conversation is reproduced below, along with the official minutes of the 18 September meeting.
            ……
            A high–quality digital recording and transcript of this phone call will no doubt be issued in due course by the University of Virginia’s Presidential Recordings Program. http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/johnson
            ………..

            Johnson :
            Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

            Russell :
            Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that … the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

            Johnson :
            I don’t either.

            Russell :
            And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary, and I’m not going to approve of that. So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so. And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot…
            …….

          • No you miss the point Jean; for a lousy shot, like we know Oswald was, it was indeed quite a feat. That is why the Warren critics point it out.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “It’s as I’ve stated. The WC pushed that Oswald could have performed the shooting in as little as 4.8 seconds. Virtually everyone thinking Oswald did it today acknowledges he would have needed much more time than that. So what do they do? Do they criticize the WC for pushing something which is almost certainly incorrect? No, they claim it is a CT myth that the WC pushed such a scenario. Embarrassing.”

            We should be able to settle this, seems to me. All you need to do is to quote the WR “pushing” a 4.8-second scenario over any of the other possibilities. Can you do that?

            As I said, the WR listed arguments both for and against each of the three shots being the one that missed. The 4.8-sec. version could be true only if it was the second shot that missed. The WR listed this as one of 3 *possibilities*, not the one they were “pushing.” That discussion starts here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=135&tab=page

            I think you may find that their favoring one possibility over the others is your own conclusion, not what they actually said. But if I’m wrong, please quote it.

          • “We should be able to settle this, seems to me. All you need to do is to quote the WR “pushing” a 4.8-second scenario over any of the other possibilities. Can you do that?”~Jean Davison

            Yes, we should be able to settle this, all you have to do is prove beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald was in the 6th floor window of the TSBD firing a rifle.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “No you miss the point Jean; for a lousy shot, like we know Oswald was, it was indeed quite a feat. That is why the Warren critics point it out.”

            That whooshing sound is the point flying past you AGAIN.

            On June 7 in this thread you yourself repeated the myth I’m talking about, the one that CTs have repeated for decades in one form another: “Oswald’s purported shooting (2 hits in 3 tries in 5.6 seconds).”

            It’s a myth that the WC “purported” 5.6 seconds or any other specific length of time for the shooting.

    • Well, I find it utterly preposterous that anyone is still insisting that Oswald was some sort of expert marksman, when every test to attempt to match his “score” in Dealey Plaza was performed by competition level shooters. And we know Oswald’s scores in Bootcamp were barely minimal.

      Added to this are the other aspects of the case, the broken chains of custody. The position of the back wound at T-3, and there is an insurmountable problem with the assertion those shots came from the TSBD.

      Also, the assertion that the acoustical evidence from HSCA has been successfully debunked is not true. That issue was addressed here in the deepest detail last year. One may hold the “opinion” that it was successfully reputed, but it is far from conclusive enough to state with full confidence that it was.

      https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Acoustics_Evidence.html

      \\][//

  19. Bob Prudhomme says:

    The biggest problem with the WC story is it is claimed Oswald disassembled his rifle, brought it to work and the re-assembled it; all without having any means to test shoot his rifle to see if it was still accurately sighted in.

    As I stated earlier, I have seen rifle barrels removed from their wooden stocks and re-assembled, without loss of accuracy but, it is also possible to throw the accuracy of a rifle off by doing this.

    The point should be made, though, is that the accuracy will be off, at most, by a few inches. If Oswald was aiming at JFK’s head for the first shot and missed, I would still have expected the shot to hit the limo.

    • Photon says:

      ” …the accuracy will be off, at most, by a few inches.”
      Didn’t you just destroy every commentator who has stated that Oswald couldn’t re-assemble the weapon and fire it accurately?
      Oswald wasn’t engaged in a Match competition. He was firing a weapon that he had obviously fired previously, likely after at least one episode of disassembly. ( Can I prove that? Not objectively, but it is highly likely that he fired it after purchasing it-even before the Walker escapade.Why else would he buy it?) It was ” good enough” for 3 shots taken at less than 90 yards. And something that all of the ” Oswald was a lousy shot” crowd never want to mention: what were Oswald’s scores from the sitting position?
      Why did he miss everything, including the limo with the first shot?
      Maybe he was nervous.
      Maybe the first shot necessated a steeper angle and wasn’t as easy as some people think.
      Maybe he was nervous.
      Maybe he heard something or somebody that threw of his concentration .
      Maybe he was nervous.
      Maybe he had momentary second thoughts.
      Maybe he was nervous.
      Maybe the round was defective.
      Maybe he was nervous.
      There are any number of reasons why a potential assassin of the President of the United States hidden and not already exposed might not be forced to commit himself, unlike a shooter visible and willing to be taken out in the act of shooting. The bottom line is that when you assume that an individual has to conform to what you think they should have done you have lost your argument .

      • “The bottom line is that when you assume that an individual has to conform to what you think they should have done you have lost your argument.”~Photon

        The bottom line is that this assertion by Photon is no more than empty supposition.

        “He was firing a weapon that he had obviously fired previously, likely after at least one episode of disassembly. ( Can I prove that? Not objectively…”~Photon

        That is right Photon, you cannot prove that proposition.
        \\][//

      • ed connor says:

        Photon, you have inadvertently hit on one of the key paradoxes of the case.
        If LHO intended to shoot the president, he could stand and fight, he could proclaim the communist manifesto before the press, or he could run. He obviously chose to run.
        But, if he alone knew he would shoot the president at 12:30 on Friday afternoon, with a smuggled disassembled Italian carbine, why didn’t he bring his .38 revolver? He surely knew there would be pursuit; he shot his pursuer at 1 pm in Oak Cliff.

        • Perhaps because he only found out about the motorcade on Thuesday (reading a two day old paper) and had the choice of bring in rifle (in Irving) or his revolver (in Oak Cliff).

          He could go one place that evening, but not both.

          • Paulf says:

            Perhaps?

            That about sums up the case against Oswald. A lot of perhaps.

          • ed connor says:

            Professor, you bring up an interesting point:
            When did LHO learn that he would have an opportunity to shoot the president (assuming he shot the president, on his own).
            What is the basis for your assertion that LHO did not know he would have an opportunity until Thursday, 11/21?
            His police interviews were not transcribed, Marina is not a reliable witness,and he told the co-workers ON 11/22 that he was unaware the president would be passing the building that day.

          • What is the basis for your assertion that LHO did not know he would have an opportunity until Thursday, 11/21?

            You were asking how something might have happened, and I told you how it might have happened.

            I don’t have to prove it happened that way. Merely that it could have.

            If you say “it could not have happened that way,” a legitimate rebuttal is to show a scenario whereby it could have.

          • “You were asking how something might have happened, and I told you how it might have happened.”~McAdams

            So you are submitting supposition.

            How much of your argument is composed of supposition “professor”?

            It seems to me a great deal of your overall position is presumption.
            Especially your presumption of Oswald’s guilt.
            \\][//

      • We’ve been dancing around the truth for 50 years. The first shot missed because Oswald used it for the indispensable task of zeroing his weapon, aiming at the south curb of Main Street and causing the fresh bullet mark.

        The well-trained ex-Marine was anything but nervous. He was as cool as a carrot until the instant he was shot. Underestimating Oswald is one reason it has taken so long to solve this case.

        Another ‘we’ll never know’ myth busted.

        — Edward Bauer
        http://www.thefinaltruth.net

        • “We’ve been dancing around the truth for 50 years. The first shot missed because Oswald used it for the indispensable task of zeroing his weapon, aiming at the south curb of Main Street and causing the fresh bullet mark.”~Edward Bauer

          Nothing but speculation Bauer. As far as I have read here, everything you propose concerning Oswald is empty conjecture.
          \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Hi Ed

          Hey, I thought you were avoiding me. In fact, I thought you were avoiding this forum altogether.

          Let me see now, where were we? Oh right, I forgot, we were discussing the scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle.

          Did you see the material I posted for you? I believe I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Ordnance Optics Inc. 4×18 scope on Oswald’s alleged rifle had turret caps on the windage and elevation dials that had to be removed, prior to adjusting the scope, and that adjusting this scope required the use of a coin or flat blade screwdriver.

          In fact, you know what? I don’t think turret knobs had even been developed yet in 1963. They sure weren’t popular, if they were around, as every scope I recall from the 60’s had turret caps on them that had to be removed to make adjustments to the scope.

          Hope this helps you out, Ed.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        You miss the point, as usual. Whether this is accidental or deliberate is hard to say, but I believe it is deliberate.

        He could have missed JFK by a couple of feet, in any direction, and the bullet would still have hit the limo somewhere.

        No, the real myth here is the missed first shot.

  20. Bob Prudhomme says:

    BTW, Ed, do you still maintain that Oswald fired the 1st shot, then removed the turret caps from the windage and elevation dials on his scope, then adjusted his scope to sight it in, then put the caps back on and then continued to fire two more shots? Or do you think he put the turret caps back on after he finished shooting?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Bob Prudhomme
      June 12, 2016 at 1:32 am

      “BTW, Ed, do you still maintain that Oswald fired the 1st shot, then removed the turret caps from the windage and elevation dials on his scope, then adjusted his scope to sight it in, then put the caps back on and then continued to fire two more shots? Or do you think he put the turret caps back on after he finished shooting?”

      Shocking as it is I’ve ran across people that actually believe one must “removed the turret caps from the windage and elevation dials on his scope, then adjusted his scope”, especially for range. As you and I know, this is laughable.

      You can describe “combat zero” to them until you are blue in the face but they still think you have to turn the adjustments on the scope for each change in range.

  21. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon has a bad habit of over simplifying the task he believes Oswald accomplished; hitting a moving target downhill at 88 yards with a toy scope designed to be mounted on an air rifle.

    Can he tell us when and where Oswald would have practiced for this? Shooting at stationary targets at a range on level ground won’t prepare you for this kind of shooting.

    • Photon says:

      ” He could have missed JFK by a couple of feet in any direction , and the bullet would still have hit the limo somewhere .” Talk about oversimplifying. Hasn’t Whitten pushed the ” Maggie’s Drawers” issue on this site? So either Oswald was a complete failure as a marksman and could have never executed the shooting scenario, OR he had to be an expert marksman who had to hit with every shot, no matter how difficult it may have been or how well he was mentally prepared to shoot the most powerful man in the world. Or, again ignore the obvious-Oswald was human.
      So it was impossible for a Marine Sharpshooter firing a weapon that had killed hundreds of people from Ethiopia to Russia and who had participated in at least six hunting excursions with his brother shooting at small,difficult targets couldn’t compensate for a 4 degree downhill slope ( which actually would partially compesate for the natural drop in the bullet’s flight) and make one out of three shots at less than 90 yards?
      You and nobody else has any real idea what the path of the first bullet was-only informed speculation as to the timing of the shot.To say that no matter how it was aimed it had to hit the Limo is ludicrous .
      Again, why does something have to conform to what you believe SHOULD have happened, instead of what COULD have happened-and apparently did.

      • It is too simple for everybody to figure out here apparently.
        A tempest in a teacup here. The simple fact is that Oswald was not a very good shot. His scores in Marine boot camp prove that.

        You should all give this a rest because there are many other issues that make it impossible for that rifle to have been fired in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.

        These points have been made before:

        >The angle of the shot that hit JFK in the back at T-3.

        >The broken chain of custody proving the Parkland Bullet was not CE399

        >The shot to JFK’s throat was from the front (Dr. Perry)

        >Ballistics; trajectory based on medical evidence, Z-film; backsplater, and Photogrammetry proving the final head-shot was from the front. See Fiester.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          What were Oswald’s shooting scores from a sitting position,Willy?
          Are you willing to admit that from that position Oswald achieved Expert scores?
          It is quite simple. If Oswald shot at Expert level from a sitting position and the assassin was believed to have assumed the same position, why couldn’t Oswald have made the shots?

          • “If Oswald shot at Expert level from a sitting position…”~Photon

            Oswald just barely made ‘Expert’ Photon, that is not a big deal, as he had been practicing to make that grade.

            That does not mean he was an expert shot like guys who take sniper training Photon.

            Oswald was a lousy shot, all the evidence leads to that conclusion. You are grasping at straws Photon.
            \\][//

          • Again Photon:

            Oswald’s Marine Rifle Marksmanship Scores

            In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorized at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardized test of their accuracy:
            Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
            Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
            Marksman: 190 to 209.

            According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was *tested twice:

            In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: **two marks above the minimum** for a ‘sharpshooter’.
            In May 1959, he scored 191: **one mark above the minimum** for a ‘marksman’.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            I will ask again. If Oswald shot at an Expert level in the USMC, why couldn’t he have executed the shooting sequence from a sitting position in the TSBD?
            If Oswald shot at what the USMC considered an Expert level for a Marine, doesn’t that mean that from a sitting position as a marksman he was maybe, I don’t know, possibly an EXPERT in shooting from the position most knowledgable investigators believe was assumed by the Sixth Floor shooter?
            Or are Marine Corps qualifications faulty or were Oswald’s scores faked?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Okay, Photon, why don’t you tell us when you believe the first shot occurred, and just what you think Oswald was aiming at.

        Four degree slope?? Are you serious? Elm St. itself descends on a three degree slope, and Oswald would have been six storeys above that. If the first occurred before the limo went behind the live oak tree, it would have been a very steep shot indeed.

        Something to remember here. Oswald shot a rifle right handed. If a shooter is nervous, as you imagine Oswald was, he will often make a classic shooting mistake. Instead of gently squeezing the trigger, nervous shooters tend to pull on the trigger, especially if it is a stiff (rusty?) and not overly sensitive military trigger. The result of this is, in the case of a right handed shooter, a shot that misses the target and impacts to the right of the point of aim.

        If Oswald was aiming down at a man in a limo passing from left to right below him, the limo would be so large, he would have to miss by several feet in order to not hit the limo. If he “pulled” the first shot, it could only help him, as it would compensate for the left to right traverse of his target.

        So, if we know the rifle did not have a hair trigger, and the ammo, as tested by the FBI, was American made and quite reliable, what happened to the first shot? How could it have missed the limo?

        • Photon says:

          So you know how he pulled the trigger and that his shot was to the right of the target? How?

          • Steve says:

            Oh Photon,

            I can answer that question. Because LHO, deadliest crackpot shot in the entire armed forces MISSED THE FIRST SHOT. By far the easiest. Since you have never been to Dealey Plaza, you cannot possibly know how ridiculously easy the first shot was. Maybe you should visit?

            By the way, did the FBI or the DPD every try to find out where the first shot struck? I would have to guess, although I am not the firearm expert you are, a missile traveling at 2200 feet per second would leave a TRACE of where it struck somewhere, wouldn’t you guess, Photon? I mean, if the Z film has been studied and with JEH on the case, surely a search was done in the vicinity of the limo turning the corner, correct? After all, only 2 days after the shooting JEH told LBJ that we have the “basic facts now.”

            Thank goodness the WO did such a wonderful job of answering the most basic of questions…

          • Photon says:

            Steve, exactly when did Oswald take the first shot? Tell us exactly when the shot took place and prove that it was the easiest shot.
            Until you can there is no proof that the first shot was the easiest.
            Even if it was there are the other factors that may have influenced Oswald’s accuracy with that shot as I and others have stated.
            Please give us some reference that proves that every assassin’s first shot hits its mark. I have posted 3 prominent assassination attempts where the shooters missed with the first shot. What is your evidence? Do you believe that leading a target makes it more difficult to hit the target?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Well, if you want to follow this line of thinking, Photon, how do you know Oswald even fired the rifle? How do you know for sure he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            YOU are the one that tells everyone on this site that LHO could hit a gnat’s ass from one hundred yards with one arm tied behind his back. YOU are the one that tells everyone that he was a cold blooded killer. Perhaps YOU can tell me why he COMPLETELY WHIFFED on the first shot?

            As far as the when the first shot occurred, you don’t know, I don’t know, and the FBI and the DPD who INVESTIGATED the murder sure as hell don’t know. However, you run into a time crunch if the shot didn’t happen pretty quickly as the limo came to the corner. Of course, that depends on which “official version” of how long it took to fire three shots with a crappy, rusted, cheap piece of junk rifle.

            You have mentioned “several factors’ that could have caused LHO to whiff. Are these REAL factors, or more of your gas, like JFK’s carbon fiber neck? Because you have mentioned nerves, but he was able to earn a “sharpshooter” or whatever status he earned while in training, so nerves seems a little iffy.

            The tree? If you believe that to be the case, then why didn’t the FBI cut the stupid thing down and investigate? Street sign? Uh, same idea.

            Now, maybe you will answer my question. How does a missile traveling at 2200 feet per second miss everything related to the limo, but NO ONE can find any identification of where it DID strike. Don’t you find that odd? Since you have not been to the corner under the sixth floor window, you would not know that it is really a smallish area, and a thorough search would not have been out of the question.

            Of course, that would have required some real investigative effort, and as you are well aware, a true investigative effort was NO WHERE to be found in late 63 and early 64.

          • Photon says:

            Steve you can persist in your belief that Oswald has to hit with his first shot, but I have given you three examples that prove that association is incorrect. You seem to be the only person in the world that doesn’t understand that a first shot is not a guaranteed hit, no matter what the circumstances are.
            “As far as when the first shot occurred ,you don’t know, I DON’T KNOW…” If you do not know when the first shot occurred, how could you possibly know that it was the easiest shot? Looking down from the window adjacent to the window Oswald used one can see that it was a rather steep angle almost directly down if he took any shot when the limo was within a few feet of the corner.In addition, before the limo went past the TSBD he would have had to lead the target. So your assumptions as to how easy the first shot was in comparison to the others are probably incorrect.
            ” but he was able to earn a ‘sharpshooter’ or whatever status while in training , so nerves seem a little iffy.” Or whatever. Steve, while it is obvious that you have never served in the military nor had any military firearms training,apparently you can’t comprehend the difference between shooting a paper target at a range and shooting a human being who happens to be the President of the US with security personnel who can shoot back.
            Where did the first shot go? Did it leave a trace? Did it hit a curb, chip off some concrete that became tiny low velocity missle that hit Tague?
            Did it glance off of a tree limb disintegrating it or sending it down range beyond where anybody might find it? Did it make a 6.5 millimeter diameter hole in the grass of Dealey Plaza that went unrecognized and is still there? Steve, just because you can’t find a needle in a haystack doesn’t mean a needle isn’t there, it only means that you can’t find it.
            Steve, just how often are rounds that miss their targets recovered at crime scenes, particularly those fired from a rifle into an area of several acres?

  22. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS:

    The questions plaguing researchers can now be answered.

    The President’s small throat wound was caused by a small flechette.

    The flechette dissolved, leaving no trace, explaining why no bullet was found.

    No bullet was fired from the grassy knoll at the time of the first hit. TUM had a clear shot at Z189.

    TUM’s flechette was actually moving in a slightly upward trajectory, explaining the backward and upward motion of JFK’s head between Z189 and Z190.

    The flechette’s small momentum explains why there was no violent backward motion.

    JFK’s fists clenched and his head snapped to face forward while his right hand snapped downward because his muscles were paralyzed quickly by the poison.

    The bullet at Z225 didn’t knock JFK down, because he was paralyzed.

    The paralysis affected the muscles, fixing them in position and preventing those portions of JFK’s upper body from moving when he was hit in the back. His elbows were not fixed and were flung outward.

    JFK did not make a sound, because his vocal cords were paralyzed (see testimony).

    There were definitely two separate volleys of shots. Each of the four gunmen were prepared to shoot twice upon radio coordinating commands. One knoll gunman could not fire the first volley, because of obstructions. The other did not fire at all.

    All the questions about TUM and the umbrella are answered by knowing he was using an intelligence weapon system with umbrella launcher and flechette dart.

    Raising and lowering the umbrella was a signal to TA for a radio beep to order a second volley.

    The umbrella rotated because TUM was tracking JFK.

    TUM and TA sat down together to assess what happened.

    TA was the radio coordinator and was standing behind TUM, where he could see TUM’s signal and transmit a beep to the radiomen, ordering the first volley.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

    \\][//

    • The comment above is only 310 words Tom, I checked it in the new Word counter.

      ~Will

      • Tom S. says:

        Willy, your proposed comment seems OT, considering:

        “A technical investigation into the first shot fired in JFK’s assassination”

        I’ll approve your comment if you’re willing to agree not to reply to replies to your comment because you’re presenting a different topic of a “shot” unrelated to other shots.

  23. Bob Prudhomme says:

    The main thing to consider, if one subscribes to the fantasy of the first shot being fired at frame z160 of the Zapruder film, is just how slowly JFK’s limo would have been moving at this point, and how easy a target JFK would have been.

    At frame z160, the limo would have barely completed the 120° turn from Houston St. onto Elm St., and would likely have been moving at its slowest speed seen on Elm St., outside of the stop it made following the head shot.

    The limo would have been almost directly below the SE 6th floor window 62 feet above the street. At most, JFK would have been 75 feet or a mere 25 yards from the alleged assassin.

    So, 25 yards at a target that is practically standing still. Pretty easy, and even if he missed, how much could he possibly miss by, and not have the bullet impact somewhere else on the limo? JFK’s ead would be at least 3 feet, if not more, above the pavement, and it would be at least 5 feet to the far side of the limo. The trunk lid stretches behind JFK at least 6 feet, and it’s at least 10 feet to the front of the limo.

    See what I’m getting at here? If Oswald missed so badly that his bullet didn’t even hit the limo, and this was an example of his shooting, how did he pull the other two shots off?

    • Mike says:

      I’ve always thought the best time to shoot from “Oswald’s window” would be as the car slows to commit to that turn. The target is moving slowly and generally towards me with only a slight sideways component. Doesn’t make sense to wait until the car is heading away from me at an angle and accelerating. But that timing does make sense for a shooter in the knoll/overpass area…

  24. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Of course, if one believes, such as our good friend Photon believes, that Mr. Oswald was a steely eyed, highly trained and efficient killer who developed great proficiency at hitting moving targets with a rifle after making 5 or 6 rabbit hunting expeditions as a youth, there really is no way he could have not hit the limo with a bullet, if he indeed did fire a shot at JFK at frame z160.

    We can only surmise the shot at z160 to be nothing but fantasy, intended to prolong the required time for an assassin to fire three shots.

Leave a Reply

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

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