‘What you should know about the Warren Commission report is that…’

Warren Commision

The birth of the story in question.

JFK Facts has more knowledgeable students of the JFK assassination story than any website I know of. So on the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Warren Commission report, I’m inviting regular commenters — and all readers — to submit a statement, no more than 140 words long beginning with the phrase, “What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that…”

Then you have 129 words left to express your opinion.

Your comment is directed to anyone you think would be interested in the subject. Humor welcome.

Email your 140-word statement to editor-AT-jfkfacts.org.

Comments longer than 140 words will not be read or considered.

We will publish the best of these comments in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, we will turn off the COMMENTS function shortly. For the time being at least, our best commenters will appear in the blog.

 

352 comments

  1. Bill Callahan says:

    I think they were dead on. I always thought there was a conspiracy, with multiple shooters until I visited this tiny place. I realized that, for years, all I had been reading was written by people who were peddling a point of view based on the times we lived in…not the facts.

    Connally said he heard a rifle shot at z 160. Then he starts to turn to look over his right shoulder. This is validated by the Croft photo just before that turn starts. It is the ONLY TURN that Connally makes on the entire Zapruder film.

    Second shot taken 64 frames (frame 223/4) later. Time elapsed is 3.4 seconds. Just as Connally and Kennedy are PROVEN To be totally lined up per Myers and Posner AND now completely visible and out from under the tree foliage.

    Third shot taken at z 313. 89 frames later. Time elapsed is 4.8 seconds, total time is 8.28 seconds.

    Try an experiment if you will BEFORE you criticize. Get a stop watch or your smart phone stopwatch and start the Zapruder film at frame 160. You will soon realize that it would be impossible to get the reactions from Kennedy and Connally beginning at any other frame.

    The key is frame 160…This is when Connally’s testimony begins to shed light on what he said he heard…and what he said he did.

    Ps…the car was just about to be obscured from the view of the 6th floor by the large tree…which also explains why the first shot missed/sounded different. Try the experiment. I think you’ll be surprised at how easy it all fits.

    Best of Luck…

    Case Closed.

    • Photon says:

      Anybody with an open mind and a little knowledge of shooting will reach the same conclusion after visiting the Sixth Floor. My impression was that you could have hit JFK with a snowball from the sniper’s position.
      Many conspiracy supporters have never been to the TSBD and have no comprehension of how small the distances actually are, nor do they have any real knowledge of USMC rifle qualifications and awards. This myth of Oswald being a poor shot has been destroyed multiple times by multiple real experts. Any real Marine that has passed his rifle qualifications would find the Dealey Plaza shots easy-which from the very beginning should have prompted questions about the veracity of Roberts and his Hathcock claim. I have discussed this with Marines who knew Hathcock -something Roberts never did. I can guarantee you that no re-creation of the JFK assassination was ever done at Quantico, despite the claims of Roberts.
      And yet the uninformed will continue to post this myth and others as long as people continue to accept anything that supports the conspiracy viewpoint as valid despite what the fact truly are.

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        Hi Photon

        I’ve been to both the 6th Floor Museum and the Grassy Knoll and I can tell you a shot over the fence looked a hell of a lot easier and closer than one out the window while kneeling down. I’m sure there were a lot of other good vantage points in Dealey Plaza that day but it doesn’t necessarily mean that a gunman fired from them. Personally, I would have thought that if it was a conspiracy that was designed to have 3 shots fired from behind JFK and from the 6th Floor of the TSBD then it would make life a lot simpler for the assassins to actually have someone doing just that. However, I haven’t seen any firm evidence that that person was Oswald. It’s still not clear where he was exactly at the time of the shooting with some compelling evidence from Sean Murphy that Oswald was caught on TV camera in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the shooting (and it’s not the Billy Lovelady figure but someone standing behind him).

        regards Vanessa

        • Photon says:

          “Oswald was caught on TV camera in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the shooting…”
          Thanks for completely impeaching your credibility.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Thanks Photon 🙂 . And good morning to you too.

            All the evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor was circumstantial. I haven’t seen any evidence that incontrovertibly places him there. I said the Hughes film and Sean Murphy’s case was ‘compelling’. Have you seen the discussions of the Hughes film and Sean Murphy’s elimination of every other TSBD employee as the person in the doorway? Plus the DPD notes of Oswald’s interrogration where he claims he was “out in front with Bill Shelley”. It’s worth looking at. Then you can reassess my credibility :).

          • Plus the DPD notes of Oswald’s interrogration where he claims he was “out in front with Bill Shelley”

            We don’t know what the cryptic phrase in Fritz’ notes means. It could mean that after the shooting he saw and talked to Shelly.

            Fritz’ written report where he interprets his own notes is the best source.

            We do know that Oswald said he was in the building.

            Q. Were you in that building at the time?

            Oswald. Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hi Professor

            Can’t seem to reply to your comment on Bill Shelly directly so I’m tacking onto Photon’s message. Forgive the confusion.

            Re-Oswald’s comments about being ‘out in front with Bill Shelley’ not being clear as to when he spoke to Shelley. The Warren Commission states that “Shelley denied seeing Oswald after 12 noon or at any time after the shooting”. I can’t seem to post the link but it’s WC page 182.

          • Bert says:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

            Explain….

            Just type in google CE399 and you get plenty of pictures like these 3:
            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_4.jpg

            http://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CE399.pg_.gif

            http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/ce399composite.jpg

            Read captions, and explain how it can be that experts trying to replicate the appearance of the CE399 bullet were unable to do so………..
            CE399 shattered a rib AND a wristbone.
            Tell us pls how it can be that every other similar bullet shot through even 1 rib, or 1 wristbone, is deformed like you can see in the first link?

            Secondly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g

            between 2:10 and 2:20 we see a slowmotion of the path of the bullet.
            At 2:17 they indicate the path with a red line.
            Tell us why this test proves a bullet on a downward trajectory would have exited the chest and not the throat, eventhough this test was done by experts and as accurately as possible.
            It is one of the reasons (i assume) that they dont show us the frontal wound on the ballistic gel torso of JFK.
            Because it never came out the throat. Impossible. Which is clearly shown in this accurate test.

            Furthermore: CE576 to 578………. what are those?
            What purpose did these shims serve?

            Right.

          • Paul Turner says:

            How did she impeach it? Photon, sometimes you remind me of the Hall&Oates video of “I Can’t Go For That” where one of them gets right in front of his microphone to sing those lyrics, then backs away.

        • Morely Upright says:

          It was likely Buell Frazier standing behind Lovelady

          Mr. BALL – Then let’s see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there.
          Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
          Mr. BALL – Anybody else you can remember?
          Mr. FRAZIER – There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don’t know her last name.
          Mr. BALL – Were you near the steps?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
          Mr. BALL – One step down from the top of the steps?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
          Mr. BALL – By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir.
          Mr. BALL – Shown in this picture?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir.
          Mr. BALL – Which is Commission’s Exhibit No. 362. Can you come over here and show us about where you were standing?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir. Like I told you this was an entrance right here.
          Mr. BALL – Yes, sir.
          Mr. FRAZIER – We have a bar rail running about half way up here. This was the first step and I was standing right around there.
          Mr. BALL – Put a mark there. Your name is Frazier, put an “F” there for Frazier.
          Mr. FRAZIER – O.K.
          Mr. BALL – In the picture that would show you about there, would it?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; you can see, just see, the top, about the top rail there, was standing right in there.
          Mr. BALL – Right in there?
          Mr. FRAZIER – To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn’t have any glare in the eyes standing there.
          Mr. BALL – There was a roof over your head, was there?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
          Mr. BALL – Did you stand there for 30 minutes or–tell us how long you stayed there?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Well, I stood there until the parade come by.
          Mr. BALL – Did you see the President go by?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; I did.

        • Morley Upright says:

          Oswald was not clear where he was as he motorcade passed, either. When asked about his whereabouts during police interrogation on Nov 22nd. he claimed he was eating lunch in the lunchroom. When asked the same question in his police interrogation on Nov. 24th, he claimed he was working on the fifth floor as the motorcade passed. Perhaps he was beamed up after eating his lunch. After all, no film exists disproving that 😉

      • Pat Speer says:

        Photon, you owe Craig Roberts an apology. You keep making a claim about him which is almost certainly false. Whether or not you agree with his claim about what he’d been told by Carlos Hathcock, we have little reason to believe Roberts simply made it up.

        1. Hathcock was alive when Roberts wrote his book, and never said anything to indicate Roberts had misrepresented what he’d told him. Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey came out in 1994 and Hathcock died in 1999.

        2. Roberts was well-acquainted with Hathcock. In 1990, Roberts co-wrote and edited a book on sniping, One Shot, One Kill. This was 4 years before Kill Zone. The book relates some of the exploits of Carlos Hathcock. The Foreword relates: “The chapters in this book dealing with one person and his experiences are based on taped personal interviews conducted with, and letters written by, the people volunteering their stories.” The Acknowledgements section, moreover,gives credit to “Gunnery Sergeant 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.”

        And please don’t pull that “my Marine friends tell me” argument. One of my childhood friends is a Colonel in Special Forces. He knows a number of elite snipers. And they all scoff at the idea a radar man with no sniper training could pull off the shooting, without even practicing, etc… They just don’t buy it.

        • Photon says:

          Where are the taped, personal interviews and letters written by the individuals named in the book? To this day there has never been any independent confirmation of Roberts’ claim.
          Got names for any of the ” Special Forces” elite snipers who have no idea what the rifle qualifications for a Marine are?
          As Roberts co-author was caught publishing outlandish falsehoods in another book that I mentioned on an earlier post I would take any claim from him with a grain of salt. But go ahead- explain why Roberts would have inside information on how al Qaeda planned and helped execute the Oklahoma City bombing. Information unknown to the FBI, CIA or Oklahoma City police. He was foolish enough to claim that on a program broadcast on a tiny radio station in Michigan that I am sure he never thought would be recorded for posterity .

          • Pat Speer says:

            Let’s be clear, Photon. I am a real person. You are a troll, insulting real people, without doing the least bit of homework, or using your real name. Your insistence that Roberts lied about his meeting Hathcock, and using him as a source for his book, is an embarrassment. While it’s certainly possible Roberts misremembered, or even misrepresented what Hathcock told him, the scenario you are pushing–that Roberts never met or spoke to Hatchcock, is just silly beyond words. As stated, Hathcock was alive for FIVE years after Roberts’ book was published, and NINE years after Roberts first wrote a book claiming an association with Hathcock. He was undoubtedly aware of Roberts and Roberts’ books. So please produce the interview in which Hatchock disavowed his comments to Roberts, or forever hold your peace.

            As far as your demanding access to the source tapes for a barely noticed book…my God, you must be joking. CBS has HUNDREDS of hours of witness interviews from the 1964-1966 period that they have never made available. William Manchester created notes to HUNDREDS of interviews from this same period that he never made available, and continue to be withheld from public scrutiny. And then there’s Jim Bishop, who interviewed numerous witnesses in the shadow of Manchester, with the addition of President Johnson. Where are his notes? What happened to them? Why can’t we study them?

            But no, you’ve got yourself all worked up over Roberts, even though for all we know Hathcock’s comment was made off the record, or at a later date.

          • Photon says:

            “Hathcock was alive for FIVE years after Roberts book was published , and NINE years after Roberts first wrote a book claiming an association with Hathcock .”
            By 1996 Carlos was confined to a wheelchair.Pat, do you even know what multiple sclerosis is, let alone the natural history of such a progressive neurological disorder? What makes you so sure that Hathcock was aware of what Roberts claimed , when he was already in the late stages of a terminal illness that he had been fighting for decades? More to the point, if you claim that somebody had a close relationship with someone isn’t it your obligation to provide proof? I gave you an example of Roberts’ level of reliability.
            Perhaps you should listen to some of his other claims- I suggest going to YouTube and watch him make some of claims .

          • Photon says:

            I thought that this blog did not go in for name-calling.
            I posted my name months ago, Pat.
            I’m not a troll. I am a hobbit.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            🙂

            Did Photon just make a joke?

            I think we might have to pay that one.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, didn’t they film it in your neck of the woods?

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Possibly they did Photon….possibly.

            🙂

          • “I posted my name months ago, Pat.”~Photon

            Okay, if it’s no secret, post it again Photon.
            Simple! Quite a few of us were not around months ago.
            \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          For crying out loud, the shot was under 100 yards. The target was slow moving. How this shot became so impossibly difficult is hard for me to understand.

          More difficult shots are made in deer hunting camps every fall across America by people that are mostly amateur marksmen.

          • Pat Speer says:

            You bit the red herring, Bill. The problem has never been THE SHOT, it has always been the SHOTS. Members of the WC recognized this, and sought to hide this from the public by constantly taking testimony regarding stationary targets, and Oswald’s skill in shooting stationary targets.

            There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had any skill whatsoever in shooting moving targets, let alone moving targets from elevation…and under rapid fire conditions, to boot. The military shooters using Oswald’s rifle were unable to replicate the supposed shooting, even though the scope was shimmed up before they made their attempts. This led the HSCA to conclude Oswald used the iron sights.

            It would not be IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald to hit the shots as proposed by the Warren Commission, merely highly improbable. The rough equivalent is a 150 average bowler, who bowls about once a year, going to a tournament, and bowling a perfect game, without having practiced in months, or even taking a practice shot. Can we say it couldn’t happen? No. But has anybody seen it happen? No.

          • Photon says:

            It was an impossible shot for those who know nothing about shooting..
            It was an impossible shot for those totally ignorant of what Marines do all of the time.
            It was an impossible shot for someone who still refuses to believe that the Carcano was an excellent rifle in use for dozens of years under multiple combat conditions.
            It was an impossible shot for those who refuse to believe their lyin’ eyes and can’t accept that multiple shooters have duplicated the shots with little difficulty in multiple recreations broadcast over multiple networks over the last fifty years.
            I must say that it is getting tiresome playing these wack-a-mole games with repeated false statements and error-filled claims, often taken out of context to deliberately obscure the truth.
            And now today somehow Dave Power’s Dallas home movie has become a mysterious film that nobody knows about, despite being on YouTube for years and having been broadcast on CNN initially about a decade ago. Amazing.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Understand pressure. 3 shots with THAT bolt action rifle in 6 seconds. At the POTUS, Then cleaning your prints off, running through the book boxes and flooring, hiding the gun, running down the narrow wooden stairs unobserved. To put change in a machine for a coke then meet Baker and Truly.
            Incredulous.
            Killing a deer from a stand is a bit different.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Photon, I’ve studied this issue intensely, and you are 100% wrong. It is one thing to claim “multiple shooters have duplicated the shots with little difficulty in multiple recreations broadcast over multiple networks over the last fifty years”, it is another thing entirely to name these recreations and these shooters. You are repeating a myth.

            The closest anyone came to replicating Oswald’s purported feat–keep in mind that the WC claimed the shooting could be done in less than 6 seconds–was Howard Donahue in a 1967 simulation for CBS. There were problems with this, however.

            1. Donahue was a far better shot than Oswald.
            2. The scope on the rifle used by Donahue was sighted-in properly, while the scope on the rifle found in the depository required the addition of shims to fire accurately.
            3. Donahue was provided practice shots before performing the first of his three attempts.
            4. He failed in his first two attempts.
            5. Only one of the twelve shooters for CBS–all of whom were presumably better shots than Oswald–was able to hit the target–which was far larger than the grouping of the two hits on Kennedy–two of three times on his first attempt.

            As stated, Oswald’s purported feat was not impossible, just highly improbable.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Pat,

            I’d have expected you of all people to know that Oswald’s “purported feat” according to the WC was anything from “approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds,” depending upon which shot missed:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=73541

            As the HSCA pointed out, there’s evidence that the first shot missed in the Z160s. Who hasn’t reproduced “Oswald’s actual feat” of two hits in approximately eight seconds?

          • Photon says:

            1. How do you know that Donahue was a ” far better shot than Oswald”?
            He was a drug rep who had a gunsmith shop in Towson- and actually did work on a rifle owned by my uncle who lived in Damascus. There is really no documentation that his shooting skills reached the level of Marine Sharpshooter- which Oswald was. Pat , you have never qualified on a Marine range. You have never been in the Service nor have any real comprehension of military marksmanship qualifications, particularly those of the U.S. Marine Corps. So how can you compare Oswald’s skills to Donahue’s when you really do not know the the level of skill of either man?
            2. The scope on the rifle found in the Depository was dropped in a corner by a fleeing suspect.You and frankly nobody else know how the scope was aligned prior to being dropped and probably damaged- after all, it was a ” cheap Japanese scope made for a .22″.
            3. Oswald had months to practice with the rifle. The CBS report stated that none of the shooters were familiar with the Carcano before the re-creation.
            4. Define ” failed on first two attempts”- failed to score 1 out 3 in 8.3 seconds, or failed to hit 3 out of 3 in less than 6 seconds? The former was the shooter’s actual performance, the latter the CBS goal.
            5. Oswald’s target was JFK’s head- he made one out of three shots. The ” two out of three shots” comment is immaterial – particularly as the shooters were firing 30% faster than the actual length of the shooting sequence.
            Too bad you couldn’t make it to Bethesda-WRAMC- not that you would have been able to take a tour of a secure military facility anyway.

          • 2. The scope on the rifle used by Donahue was sighted-in properly, while the scope on the rifle found in the depository required the addition of shims to fire accurately.

            And you are ignoring (1.) Oswald’s sight may have been properly aligned during the shooting, and knocked out of alignment when he hid it among boxes, and (2.) at shot at 87 years is that not difficult with iron sights.

            5. Only one of the twelve shooters for CBS–all of whom were presumably better shots than Oswald–was able to hit the target–which was far larger than the grouping of the two hits on Kennedy–two of three times on his first attempt.

            But several others did it on other attempts, and it’s arbitrary to say only the first attempt counts.

            As for the “grouping:” the targets they hit were about the same size as Kennedy.

            A better test would be to have shooters aim at the head, and “success” would be considered one of three hits.

          • The military shooters using Oswald’s rifle were unable to replicate the supposed shooting, even though the scope was shimmed up before they made their attempts.

            Where are you getting this, Pat?

            If I read this correctly, all the shooters hit the target two of three times:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73617

            Here are the actual targets:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=287

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=288

          • Pat Speer says:

            All the arguments made by Jean, Photon, and John, are discussed on my website and are at odds with the evidence.

            There’s just not enough room on this site to get into this in detail, but let me summarize:

            1. A close study of the eyewitness evidence makes it quite clear there was no first shot miss. The WC knew this, and in their desperation threw in Bennett as support the first shot might have missed, even though they’d failed to even talk to him.

            2. The FBI’s Robert Frazier made it quite clear in his testimony that it took several shots for the scope to stabilize after being adjusted, and that the scope was stable when they first fired the rifle. It follows, then, that the scope was not thrown out of alignment in the building.

            3. The WC itself concluded Oswald hadn’t fired his rifle in months. All accounts of Oswald make it quite clear that, outside a short period when he was working on his shooting in the Marines, he was an average shot at best. Mortal Error, on the other hand, makes it quite clear Donahue was an excellent shot. And yes, I have discussed Oswald’s shooting with a real soldier–not the beer-bellied internet warriors prone to write on sites like this–and he scoffed at the idea a former radar man, totally out of practice, could put together a rifle with a dime and then hit two of three shots rapid fire on a moving target 80-100 yards away.

            4. The targets fired upon by the army’s shooters, and then CBS’ shooters, were far larger than the small grouping of two shots in the middle of the target purportedly created by Oswald. When one takes this into account it’s clear the best shooters in the world would have trouble replicating the shots.

            http://www.patspeer.com/intheint3.jpg
            http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3c%3Athewhitewash/theteststhatshould2.jpg

          • Photon says:

            Exactly how or what proves that there was no first shot miss? Please be specific . You seem to ignore the actions of JFK and Connolly in the Zapruder film- oh, I’m sorry, the film is faked. But look at the little girl running along side the limo and see how she stops running. Perhaps you have never heard her testimony about stopping her run as soon as she heard a shot. She stopped running before either JFK or Connolly showed any evidence of being hit.
            ” Mortal Error” proves nothing about Donohoe’s marksmanship skills in relation to Oswald. You have no evidence that Donohoe’s skills were superior to Oswald’s- if so , prove it with documentation, not empty claims.
            How a ” soldier” would know what the marksmanship requirements of the U.S. Marine Corps are shows how loose you are with the facts-as is your belief that Craig Roberts was a Marine sniper. Or that you seriously believe that a man in the terminal stage of multiple sclerosis would be able to even make the statement claimed by Roberts, a statement that he never made to anybody else, including his closest friends and fellow genuine Marine sniper veterans? Frankly Pat, if you were a veteran of the Service you might have realized that one size does not fit all, that a soldier in the US Army really has no idea what the marksmanship skills of a Marine “radar operator” would be. But you never were in the Service, so you seem unable to understand that your “soldier” source’s opinion is worthless.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Pat,

            We disagree, no surprise.

            QUOTE:
            >>
            1. A close study of the eyewitness evidence makes it quite clear there was no first shot miss. The WC knew this, and in their desperation threw in Bennett as support the first shot might have missed, even though they’d failed to even talk to him.
            >>

            Bennett’s original report wasn’t the only evidence the WC cited; it also quoted Connally, who said that he turned to his right after hearing the first shot:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=136

            Significantly, Connally’s testimony matches his movements on the Z film. In addition, Mrs. K said that she was looking to her left when she heard a noise and turned to her right. They can be seen doing this well before Z190. Notice how far Connally has turned right by that frame:

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg

            If the first shot was fired at c. Z160 as their movements suggest, Oswald had about 8 seconds to fire two additional shots. Who says THAT feat can’t be duplicated?

            2. Oswald didn’t have to use the scope.

            3.& 4. Oswald’s shooting ability in the Marines was probably better represented by his first score when he was gung-ho, not the later “barely qualified” score when he was getting ready to defect. As Delgado said, he “didn’t give a darn.”

          • Pat Speer says:

            Photon, Photon, Photon, your most recent post was filled with so much nonsense I don’t know where to begin.

            Let’s start here. My longtime friend is indeed a soldier in that he is part of our fighting forces, and has served our country for many years. He is not straight Army, however, if that is what you assume. He started out as a Marine–and underwent the exact same training Oswald went through in boot camp. He then went into Recon. He then became part of Special Forces, and was given the opportunity to attend Ranger school. He is still in Special Forces. At the beginning of our conversation, he’d told me he thought Oswald could have pulled off the shooting; he said he thought a Marine Corps sniper was up to the challenge. I then explained to him that although Oswald was a former Marine, and people claim he was the sniper, he was by no means a “Marine Corps sniper” in that he’d never spent a day in sniper school. At this point my friend laughed so hard it hurt my ears. He said “You’ve got to be joking,” only in the language of a marine. He then made it quite clear that it was ludicrous for people to assume a Marine radar man seven years removed from basic and 4 years removed from any regular practice could just pick up a rifle and hit moving targets at any distance. He confirmed, moreover, what I’d already come to understand from reading numerous books on sniping–that shooting at moving targets from elevation is a specialized skill for which very few Marines are ever trained.

            This brings us back to Roberts. I am not a big fan of his books, or his theories, but you have no reason, outside desperation, to pretend he made up what he wrote about Hathcock. Hathcock lived nine years after Roberts wrote a book about Marine Corps snipers–which he would undoubtedly have heard about–in which his stories were told and in which he was cited as a primary source. Sources have it that Hathcock had MS and that he was wheelchair-bound towards the end of his life. Being wheel-chair bound does not mean you can’t read or communicate.

            If you have any evidence that Carlos Hathcock was a vegetable for the last ten years of his life, I suggest you present it now.

          • Photon says:

            ” Being wheelchair bound does not does not mean that you can’t read or communicate.”
            Pat, do you happen to know what the effects of MS are?
            Specifically do you know what the opthalmological complications of advanced MS are? The dysarthria noted in advanced MS? The speech difficulties associated in even the early stages? Apparently not.
            Your soldier friend apparently never heard of Charles Whitman. Nor apparently the speech given before the initial rifle range training at boot camp ( Marines never go through “basic” by the way) extolling the skills of Marine riflemen like Basilone, Dan Daly and yes Whitman and Oswald. I live within a few miles of the Crossroads of the Corps ( ask your friend if he even knows where that is) and have active duty and retired Marines as personal friends. One, a highly decorated Vietnam vet offered to introduce me to the man that Hathcock pulled out of that burning amphibious vehicle. Not one that I have asked has claimed that a motivated Marine could not duplicate what Oswald did. And that includes sniper instructors.

          • Pat Speer says:

            This goes back to what started this string of comments, Photon. When retired Marines and other gun aficionados spout off about what Oswald “did” they are almost always referring to the possibility he hit a moving target at less than 100 yards. They are almost always blissfully unaware that what Oswald supposedly did was way harder than that, and that:

            1. He is purported to have hit two of three shots while rapid firing, with his best shot the third shot.
            2. He is purported to have hit the shot after having not fired a rifle for months, and scarcely practicing over the previous half decade.
            3. He is purported to have hit the shots using a bolt-action rifle unlike any he’d ever fired in the Marine Corps.
            4. He is purported to have hit the shots after smuggling his rifle into the building in pieces, and putting it together with a dime.
            5. He is purported to have hit the shots while using a misaligned scope that COULD NOT be properly sighted-in without the addition of shims.
            6. He is purported to have hit the shots while the limo was moving from his left to his right, an adjustment that requires twice the lead, for which he had never received training.
            7. He is purported to have hit the shots from elevation, which requires an adjustment for which he’d never received training.

            Marines who never attend sniper school are NOT trained to shoot at moving targets from elevation. There is no reason whatsoever that anyone should expect an out-of-practice ex-Marine to shoot like an expert in his first series of shots from elevation while firing a rifle with which he was largely unfamiliar for the first time.

            As stated, it’s like a 150-average bowler bowling a 300 after not having bowled in years. It could happen, but it’s extremely unlikely.

          • Photon says:

            #1. No, Oswald made 1 out of 3 shots-he was aiming for JFK’s head.
            #2. How do you know that Oswald hadn’t fired a rifle in months, nor what frequency he had practiced for the prior 5 years? What did he do after he bought the rifle- just look at it? How could you possibly know what his shooting habits were for the prior 5 years, when even his wife didn’t know?
            #3. Oswald was a hunter before he entered the Corps. What do you think he used-a semiautomatic?
            #4. ” smuggling his rifle into into the building in pieces and putting it together with a dime.” Unfortunately you don’t realize that in the Marines Oswald had to be able to fieldstrip , clean and re-assemble an M1 rifle, a rifle significantly more complex than the Carcano. Others have been able to assemble the Carcano with a dime with no difficulty-even without being familiar with the rifle. Oswald had months to practice
            #5. You have no idea how the scope was aligned before Oswald dropped it before leaving the Sixth Floor, nor even if he used it and not the iron sights.
            #6. The limo was barely moving left-to-right during the shooting -the perception was that the target was getting smaller, not translating to any great degree. That is what made the shoots so easy.
            #6 So Marines are not trained to shoot from elevation – unless they are trained snipers? Really? Who told you that?
            ” Marines who never attend sniper school are NOT trained to shoot at moving targets from elevation.” Pat , you have no idea what training Marines undergo. What do you think that they do at Pendleton-hump hills for fun and profit? The statement is one of the most ludicrous that I have ever heard and if a Grunt ever heard you make it you would probably need to see a dentist.
            I can completely refute that libel with two words-Charles Whitman. He did exactly what you said could not be down by an ordinary Marine-times 10. His training and Marine experiences were virtually identical to Oswald ‘s -including the same Sharpshooter badge. He shot accurately from a height significantly higher than Oswald’s perch, he shot multiple moving targets including about 10 fatal shots and multiple serious wounds-while being shot at.
            My first salute was given to me by a Marine guard at 8th and I prior to the Friday Evening Parade. Don’t assume that you know what Marine riflemen can and cannot do.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Photon: #1. Oswald made 1 out of 3 shots-he was aiming for JFK’s head.
            Pat: This is a myth spread by many LNs. When one compares Kennedy’s head and back area to the targets used by the Army’s test shooters, it’s easy to see that the two hits attributed to Oswald while firing rapid fire were closer to the middle of the target than any of the “hits” achieved by the supposed experts while firing rapid fire. So if the back shot doesn’t count then NONE of the Army’s hits count.

            Photon: #2. How do you know that Oswald hadn’t fired a rifle in months, nor what frequency he had practiced for the prior 5 years? What did he do after he bought the rifle- just look at it? How could you possibly know what his shooting habits were for the prior 5 years, when even his wife didn’t know?
            Pat: I read. Oswald’s shooting habits and skills are discussed in the Warren Report and in the Warren Commission testimony of a number of witnesses. It is also discussed in Robert Oswald’s book, Oswald. Since that time, it has been the subject of numerous interviews performed by Henry Hurt and Norman Mailer.

            Photon: #3. Oswald was a hunter before he entered the Corps. What do you think he used-a semiautomatic?
            Pat: Nope, he used a .22. While in Russia he used a shotgun.

            Photon: #4. ” smuggling his rifle into into the building in pieces and putting it together with a dime.” Unfortunately you don’t realize that in the Marines Oswald had to be able to fieldstrip , clean and re-assemble an M1 rifle, a rifle significantly more complex than the Carcano. Others have been able to assemble the Carcano with a dime with no difficulty-even without being familiar with the rifle. Oswald had months to practice.
            Pat: Now, you’re reaching. Name some of these people who have put together the rifle with a dime. Show us their times. Show us any evidence whatsoever that Oswald practiced putting his rifle together with a dime, or even a screwdriver. You are clearly unfamiliar with the research of Ian Griggs, a British police detective, who bought a Carcano and found both that it was quite difficult to put together, and quite time-consuming. You should be able to find his essays online.

            Photon: #5. You have no idea how the scope was aligned before Oswald dropped it before leaving the Sixth Floor, nor even if he used it and not the iron sights.
            Pat: Once again, you need to read. Start with the testimony of Robert Frazier. Continue with the writings of Dr. John Lattimer. Continue on with the addendum to the recent book by Stephen Hunter. The FBI found that the rifle/scope combination could not be properly aligned. The Army added shims to align them for their tests. Dr. Lattimer bought the exact same rifle/scope combination and found that he needed shims to bring them in alignment. Stephen Hunter did the same. There were NO shims on the rifle when presented to the FBI, and the DPD denied removing any shims in Dallas. It follows then that the scope was misaligned during the shooting.

            Photon: #6. The limo was barely moving left-to-right during the shooting -the perception was that the target was getting smaller, not translating to any great degree. That is what made the shoots so easy.
            Pat: If you’ve ever looked at photos from the sniper’s nest, or been to the Sixth Floor Museum, you’d know that the street passes left to right in front of the building. Apparently, the FBI considered this a problem. When Gauthier discussed the L-R trajectory in his testimony, he presented them with a photo of the FBI’s mock-up of Dealey Plaza purportedly showing the trajectory. Big problem: the photo showing the street passing directly away from the shooter was taken from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building.

            Photon: #6 So Marines are not trained to shoot from elevation – unless they are trained snipers? Really? Who told you that?
            ” Marines who never attend sniper school are NOT trained to shoot at moving targets from elevation.” Pat , you have no idea what training Marines undergo. What do you think that they do at Pendleton-hump hills for fun and profit? The statement is one of the most ludicrous that I have ever heard and if a Grunt ever heard you make it you would probably need to see a dentist.
            Pat: Hogwash. I double-checked this with my friend the Colonel. I have both standard military and Marine Corps sniper training books in my possession. I’ve also looked through Oswald’s scorebook. He was taught to shoot at various distances, from various positions, and at various rates of fire. He was not trained in using a scope, nor in shooting from elevation, etc. If you have any evidence to the contrary, cough it up.

            Photon: I can completely refute that libel with two words-Charles Whitman. He did exactly what you said could not be down by an ordinary Marine-times 10. His training and Marine experiences were virtually identical to Oswald ‘s -including the same Sharpshooter badge. He shot accurately from a height significantly higher than Oswald’s perch, he shot multiple moving targets including about 10 fatal shots and multiple serious wounds-while being shot at.
            Pat: Quit with the nonsense! I never said it would be impossible for someone to hit a target from a building. I’m quite sure I could do it myself given enough practice shots. As per Whitman, I’ve actually tried to look into this shooting, and have been unable to find the necessary information. As far as I know, there is no record of how many bullets he fired vs. how many hits, etc. I do know that he fired at pedestrians– many of whom were standing still or moving very slowly. If you’re aware of a thorough breakdown I’d appreciate the link.

            Photon: My first salute was given to me by a Marine guard at 8th and I prior to the Friday Evening Parade. Don’t assume that you know what Marine riflemen can and cannot do.
            Pat: My uncle was stationed at Camp Pendleton at the height of the Vietnam War. He brought his buddies up to our house every weekend for a year or so, till he was shipped out, and then his buddies and then their buddies kept coming for the remainder of the war. My parents were divorced so they kinda adopted me. They showed me their comic books, their girly mags, and their polaroids of dead Vietnamese (only they didn’t call them Vietnamese). They took me to the movies. They told me about sex, and the fights they had with “squids.” They were my surrogate dads and big brothers. So don’t lecture me about Marines.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            Photon wrote:

            #3. Oswald was a hunter before he entered the Corps….

            What evidence is there of that?

      • Bruce Tallini says:

        Perhaps, but could you have made the shot from the 2nd floor lunch room while drinking a soda?

      • David Regan says:

        Well Photon, he allegedly missed Walker who was a far easier shot than a moving target in Dealey Plaza.

      • David Regan says:

        Photon, are you refuting the testimony of fellow Marines who knew Oswald and said his skills with a rifle were laughable? Perhaps they are all conspiring to keep this ‘myth’ going…

        Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald’s shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got “Maggie’s drawers”; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=36&relPageId=243

        Sherman Cooley, who served with Oswald in the Marines, said in an interview with former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt that “If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.”
        *Reasonable Doubt, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99
        http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/poor.htm

        Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty former Marine colleagues of Oswald’s and reported that “On the subject of Oswald’s shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado’s opinion that it was laughable…”
        *Reasonable Doubt, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99
        http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/poor.htm

        Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty former Marine colleagues of Oswald’s and reported that “On the subject of Oswald’s shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado’s opinion that it was laughable…”
        • Reasonable Doubt, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99
        http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/poor.htm

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

    • Jeff Harker says:

      Myers convinces me of nothing because quantitative analysis is completely absent. It’s hot air with nice computer animation, much like other presentations I’ve seen. The “single bullet,” even if it were true, ignores the technical evidence, especially in the sphere of necessary probabilistic analysis. Yes, the concept of the single gunman depends completely on the single bullet theory, but if it were true it would prove absolutely nothing relative to the critical issue, because ultimately this theory is insufficient to determine the number of shooters in Dealy Plaza. It’s necessary for the single gunman theorist, but not at all sufficient.
      In contrast, the concept of multiple gunmen isn’t in any way dependent on the rise or fall of the single bullet theory or even how many shots Oswald fired. The single bullet theory is simply not determinative in deciding the number of shooters in Dealy Plaza and dwindles in importance once the rest of the data is evaluated. I fear that you’ve done what other WC supporters do: you’ve listened to well-intentioned though misdirected conspiracy arguments and ignored the remainder of the analysis which is necessary in order to show how many gunmen were actually present in Dealy Plaza.
      Multiple gunmen are indicated by the detailed forensic crime scene reconstruction that shows that the shot at Z313 came from the right front which, as Sherry Fiester nicely demonstrates, was further down-range, not from the knoll. The Zapruder film demonstrates this beautifully. No, our eyes aren’t fooling all of us at Z313. Neuro-muscular reaction? Complete fiction. The case will never be “closed,” because single gunman advocates maintain a tunnel vision that would disqualify them from ever being top-notch homicide detectives or forensic crime scene analysts.

      • Neuro-muscular reaction? Complete fiction.

        Except it seems that real experts (as opposed to buffs) say it’s the most likely explanation.

        That was the conclusion of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

        And also of the pathologists who consulted with the Rockefeller Commission. Quoting:

        [Members] were . . . unanimous in finding that the violent backward and leftward motion of the President’s upper body following the head shot was not caused by the impact of a bullet coming from the front or right front.

        Drs. [Werner] Spitz, [Richard] Lindenberg and [Fred] Hodges reported that such a motion would be caused by a violent straightening and stiffening of the entire body as a result of a seizure-like neuromuscular reaction to major damage inflicted to nerve centers in the brain.

      • Photon says:

        Amazing. Not a single fact in the entire statement, only your opinions. Quantitative analysis? Sorry Jeff, this isn’t chemistry. Probabilistic analysis? Such as what?
        Sherry Fiester? The crime scene expert with no documentation, the expert who has never seen an autopsy, who apparently hasn’t been in a courtroom in 20 + years?
        Neuromuscular reaction? Where did you study neurophysiology? Statistics? Physics or Kinimatics?

        • It is unfortunate you have not read my book. However, it is even more regrettable that you feel comfortable in making uninformed statements about me on a public forum. I do not think for a moment telling you the facts concerning my professional experience will change your understanding or perceptions concerning the assassination; nor is that my intention. However, you should be able to confirm the following public record information with your personal research skills. I am a Court Certified Crime Scene expert in three states, 36 Judicial Jurisdictions, and Louisiana US Federal Court. I worked homicides for over 25 years, attended hundreds of autopsies, and last testified in a homicide in 2013. I am published in my field, have taught crime scene investigation at local, state, national, and international levels. My peer reviewed, published work Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination contains over 260 references, with more than 70 addressing trajectory analysis. Thank you so much for the comment, which provided opportunity for me to share my information.

          • Photon says:

            Your website states that you are a “Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator”. The closest that I have been able to match that term is the IAI “Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst”- and your name isn’t on their list. Why? Can you define the term ” Court Certified Crime Scene expert”? Anybody can be certified as an expert witness by a court; is there a certification process for the term? After seeing the PBS program on forensic certification I am highly skeptical of claims of expertise-there doesn’t seem to be any real certification process for what seems to be a field with highly questionable standards of accuracy.
            How many murders took place in St. Charles Parish from 1994-1999?
            Where did you see the ” hundreds of autopsies”? When?

          • Sherry,

            I admit I haven’t followed your work closely, although I know about it in a general way.

            So I have a question. I’m sure you know the trajectory of the matter ejected from Kennedy’s head at the moment of the head shot was upward and forward.

            There is no visible brain matter blown out backward (although matter blown upward certainly landed behind Kennedy).

            Since you believe Kennedy was hit from the front, is this all backsplash? Why is there no matter being blown out the back of Kennedy’s head?

          • Photon says:

            How could you have worked homicides for over 25 years when your time with both the St. Charles Parish police force and the Layfeyette Parish police force totaled about 15 years, three of which you worked patrol?
            That is right off your own page.
            I also note that you asked a question about speaking with a tracheal air leak . Now how could you have attended “hundreds of autopsies” without knowing the answer?

          • Frank says:

            Photon….Because dead people don’t speak? That’s the domain of autopsies if I’m not mistaken. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but only if you’re certified.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Ah I see what you’re getting at here Photom. Ms Feister is not a qualified BCSPh (Board Certified at the School of Photon) expert.

            I’m sure the PBS documentary was excellent (and I’m glad to see you supporting public television) but I’m not sure that it qualifies you to comment so vehemently on Ms Feister’s qualifications.

          • Photon says:

            Notice no response

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Yes, I did notice that Photon. Personally I think it’s better defend to every point but let’s face it I’m sure some people would prefer not to get into that. It’s not very pleasant after all and who has the time?

            Though if she’s giving evidence at court doesn’t that satisfy you?

          • Photon says:

            Except that I have been questioning her credentials to be the expert that she claims to be on this subject for months- with nothing but the same verbatim description of her being a expert witness in so many odd jurisdictions as quoted on her website and in interviews as an answer. Anybody can be recognized as an expert witness by a judge- whether they are truly experts or not. Miss Fiester’s crime scene expert community is full of claims about the reliability of investigative methods with little actual proof that those methods are anywhere near as accurate as claimed; the PBS program also documented the extremely lax certification processes, including a graduate student getting a certificate stating that she was an expert Crime Scene Investigator-simply by mailing in a check.
            I have posted previously on another acoustics ” expert” who had a picture on his website of a framed certificate similar to the one obtained by the graduate student as evidence of his expertise . If you claim that a diploma mill certificate makes you an expert I ( and hopefully any rational individual) would question the accuracy of anything in that subject that you claim to be knowledgable in.
            I may not be from Missouri , but Show Me.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Okay Photon fair enough.

            But….there are plenty of occupations that don’t have Nationally recognised standards or even State-wide accreditation. So in the absence of that professionalization of an industry how do we assess the ‘experts’?

            I would have thought one way was through the courts.

            Here in the southern hemisphere 🙂 we have Federal court ‘guidelines’ on expert witnesses. The guidelines don’t specify what level of expertise makes a witness an ‘expert’. I think that would be impossible for the courts to do and be outside the courts’ area of expertise. The guidelines are rules on how the expert witnesses should conduct themselves including stating their qualifications.

            So I’m assuming that the way the courts establish expertise is through the same adversarial system they use for everything else ie the defence (or prosecution) introduces their expert witness and it’s up to the opposing side to rip them to shreds.

            I think that is a pretty rigorous system in those cases where there aren’t existing professional standards or accrediation.

            Happy to hear the alternatives, as always.

          • Your website states that you are a “Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator”. The closest that I have been able to match that term is the IAI “Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst”~Photon

            Well then you haven’t looked into it very thoroughly Herr Doktor…

            There are four different certifications available through the Crime Scene Certification Board. They are:

            Certified Crime Scene Investigator (CCSI)
            Certified Crime Scene Analyst (CCSA)
            Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist (CCSR)
            Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst (CSCSA)

            [Crime Scene Certification FAQ’s IAI page.]
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            And no documentation of her being certified in any of them. Back to you,Willy.

          • “And no documentation of her being certified in any of them. Back to you,Willy.”~Photon

            “No documentation” from where Photon? Have you actually accessed IAI lists of certifications?

            Have you checked the documentation of Fiester’s court certification resume’?

            There are other certifications for CSI, Court Certification for District and Regional court systems. In Fiester’s bio material for her book it is “Written from the perspective of a court certified forensic investigator.”

            Fiester’s work history:

            “Detective Lieutenant – Forensics
            St. Charles Patish Sheriff’s Department
            August 1995 – October 1999 (4 years 3 months)
            In 1995 newly elected Sheriff Greg Champagne employed me to head his Forensic Unit. It was a wonderful opportunity to assist in the development of an investigative unit that would become regionally based and respected for their expertise.

            My duties included: Supervise overall operations for Forensic Unit, Evidence Division, and License and Permits Departments; Direct, supervise and coordinate forensic investigations and personnel in the field; Develop forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications; Maintain fiscal responsibility, develop budgets and maintain inventory for three departments without budget overages; Develop and maintain computerized records management system for case activity, sex offenders database and evidence retention; Inspect facilities for emergency readiness and compliance of OSHA regulations; And develop instructional materials and conducte educational programs on state and national levels.
            Prior:
            Detective Sargeant – Forensics
            Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department
            1982 – 1993 (11 years)
            In 1983 I began my career with Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department. After three years in Patrol I transferred to the Forensics Investigation Division. I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern interpretation in Federal and local judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. I am published in Crime scene Investigation, Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Interpretation and has taught at state, national and international levels.

            Directed, supervised and coordinated forensic investigations for multiple agencies in a 6 parish region
            Trained, supervised and coordinated clerical office staff and forensic investigative personnel
            Developed forensic certification standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for successfully meeting national individual certifications
            Developed and maintained computerized records management system for case activity
            Maintained fiscal responsibility, developed budget and maintained inventory.”
            . . . . . .
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Now Photon, aren’t we still waiting to hear about your psychiatric nurse (?) qualifications from St Marys? We still don’t know whether you there were as a practitioner, a patient or an inmate. 🙂

            Otherwise,you’re doing that double standard thing again.

        • Photon, in an earlier post(one that you didn’t allow for a reply), you talked about Craig Roberts not being a Marine sniper. Proof of this, please? Every detail I’ve read pertaining to him says he WAS one.

          • Photon says:

            Go to his website..
            He was in Vietnam before the Marine Scout Sniper program even started.
            He was never in the Marine sniper training program.
            He never fired a shot as a sniper in Vietnam.
            He never fired a shot at anybody while on the Tulsa police department.
            In his ” Kill Zone ” book he mentions using a rifle and scope in Dealey Plaza, just like he did in Vietnam. Unfortunately the rifle model and scope that he mentioned didn’t get to Vietnam until months after he left the country. And so on.
            He had a reputation on the Tulsa Police force as a “teller of tall tales”.
            The bottom line is that real Marine snipers don’t brag about their exploits. And real snipers that I have met have never heard of him.
            Let him prove his claims .

    • About your “P.S.”-we don’t know where the first shot came from. Might not have been from the TSBD 6th floor.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        The world isn’t about ‘might’ lad. It ‘might’ have been from fired from any open window in the entire plaza. In 1963 that was about 697 someone once wrote. It’s about what fits…and, despite all the conjecture to the contrary, the shooting was carried about by one guy, who went to great lengths to hide the purchase of a rifle, who changed addresses in multiple cities, who was photographed with his rifle, who admitted to his wife he tried to kill someone else with it, who took pictures with that rifle, and who lied at about every last thing he did after leaving the scene of the killing and on and on. I’ll stick with the first shot at 160…the last at 313…and all that time to get off 2 hits after clearing that tree canopy. Heck…it may have been the only shot Oswald needed if it weren’t for deflection.

        So, we do know where the first shot came from…and the ‘coincidence’ of the noises of shooting and reloading, people looking toward the Depository, the discovery of the rifle, the absence of a rifle in the Paine house, the palm-print, all of it…it all points to only Lee H. Oswald. Either that…or let’s totally forget about what Governor Connally stated he did…which is captured on Robert Croft’s photo. ;). One shooter…no proof of anyone else…and and testimony to prove exactly when the first shot was fired (or John Connally testified falsely that he heard that shot and started to turn all over the place for some other crazy reason). Peace.

        • Larry Schnapf says:

          the rear-fired bullets behaved differently and have different trajectories. I think its quite possible that all shots fired came from the rear and that it is PLAUSIBLE (though not likely) that one shot penetrated both men. but there had to be two gunman not because of timing but because of trajectories and the different behavior of the bullets…

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hi Bill

      Did you mean at z260? Otherwise I beg to differ about Connolly’s turn at z160 being his only turn on the Zapruder film. At z160 Connolly does seem to turn from left to right to look at the crowd but at z260 and following frames he does a complete turn around to end up facing JFK. Doesn’t it strike you as strange that with the possible exception of Kellerman no-one on the z film actually does what they say they did at the time of the assassination? Greer even claimed to have heard the President speak but the other 4 witnesses did not hear a word from the President and he certainly doesn’t appear to speak on the z film.

      regards Vanessa

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Hello Vanessa. No. I do mean at z 160. I screened the Zapruder film quite a few times after reading your synopsis. I have to say that I don’t have any idea of what you are referring too. Can you explain, if you care to that is, what you mean about Connally ‘turning’ at Z260. This is, as far as I can tell, just a continuation of his turning to the right and he begins this turn at Z162/163. As the car proceeds down Elm Connally just keeps trying to turn to his right even further (and even after he is clearly shot). In any case, he begins his turning to the right motion AFTER the corresponding Croft Picture (he did, make a turn before the photo and I want to make clear that I’m only beginning with the Croft photo position.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Hello Bill

          Thanks for your comments. Ah, I see where we differ on the turn issue. If I may put words in your mouth you think it was one continuous turn starting at z160. I see 2 turns. One starts at z160 for a few frames until z167 when Connolly just seems to stare at the crowd until about z235. From z207 – z222 he disappears behind the freeway sign. At z222 – z225 he’s still looking at the crowd on his right. At z226 – z252 he seems to be specifically reacting to being shot himself. Then from z255 – z290 he turns right around to look at Kennedy while sitting straight up in his seat. I’m looking at the “JFK assassination every Zapruder frame slowed down” version on youtube from the JFK assassination forum.com. Which version are you looking at? I know the frame numbering doesn’t change depending on the versions but you can see more in some versions than others. Thanks for your views.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Hello Vanessa. I see it this way. The turn starts at the 162 (and I’m sorry if I said 160). 160 is the frame I cite as the first shot (as JFK, Connally, and Jackie are show in a specific spot on the Croft photo). He is reacting as he stated he did.

            Between 167-207 (208-211 missing) he continues to turn and you can see this by the increasing profile/nose/face/hairline glare.

            223 uninjured.

            224 winces, eyes close. (see shoulder drop).

            225 on…Body reacts to pain intensity. Starts yelling, Interrupts Jackie who watches him.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello Bill

      Actually there is one way to have the Connollys’ testimony match what we see on the z film (and this is guaranteed to make you laugh so bear with me).

      Both Nellie and John Connolly testified that after Connolly was shot Nellie pulled him down into her lap. On the zfilm we see Connolly reacting to a gunshot around z224 and following frames. Then at z255 – z290 he turns right around and sits up to look at the President and then crumples into Nellie’s lap.

      Neither John or Nellie mention John sitting up after he was shot. Both say that after he was shot Nellie pulled him down into her lap. Nellie said he ‘crumpled’ after he was shot.

      In Connolly’s first TV interview a couple of days after the shooting he said that he turned around and saw the President. Now that does happen in the zfilm at z255 – z290.

      For the sake of argument lets say that Connolly’s turn and sit at z255-z290 actually did happen before he was shot as he first claimed. The only way that could happen in the zfilm is if those frames have been moved from the start of the shooting to about the middle.

      Then we would have Connolly hearing a shot and turning around and seeing the President, then being shot himself and crumpling into Nellie’s arms. That way it fits their accounts and doesn’t have Connolly sitting up after having suffered at least 3 gunshot wounds.

      What do you think? 🙂

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Well…you did make me laugh. Connally made his turn after he heard the first shot. This pretty much closes the book on this entire matter for me. The Towner Film, the Croft photo, and the Zapruder Film all show the very same moment and, as far as the car being on Elm Street, and the Governor making his observation ‘before’ he was hit, which is important because the world was spinning very fast for him in the seconds he was hit.

        If the Govt wanted JFK dead…all someone had to do was give him some drug. End of story. To suggest frames moved is…well…

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Bill – Happy to oblige. You’re saying first turn at z162 right? I think we’re back to where we started which was you count one continuous turn starting at z162. While I say that there were two turns with Connolly just sitting and staring at the crowd from z167 – z224. Then he reacts to a bullet at z224 – z252. But from z225 – z290 he turns and sits up to look at the President before collapsing into Nellie’s arms.

          I’m happy to let us agree to disagree, as you suggested ’cause I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s minds. But can you humour me with just one query. How do you characterise Connolly’s behaviour at z 167 – z225 when he’s just looking at the crowd (with 3 gunshot wounds in him)?

          Not if, as per “JFK and the Unspeakable” that various elements wanted JFK dead because of his borderline-pacifist foreign policy and because they wanted a confrontation with Cuba and Russia which they believed they could win.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Thanks Bob. I’m only basing my comments on John Costella’s work on the zfilm and what the witnesses said later either in WC testimony or elsewhere. Just a straightforward comparison.

            I don’t think I’m in a position to technically assess the medical evidence so I tend not to comment on that.

            Happy to hear what you think though.

          • Paul M says:

            Vanessa, Connoly definitely makes two turns as you state. it is very obvious. Those who contend he turned to his right after being hit at frame 224 are dreaming. At Z 290 as you state, he crumples as one would when hit with a through and through torso wound. I say it’s impossible to turn your body after such a serious wounding.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Paul M.

            Apologies, I’ve only just seen your post. Thanks for your comments. The more I think about it the more I think it is impossible that Connally could have sat up after being shot. Happy to hear from any shooters though.

            I think those frames showing Connally sitting up and looking back at JFK actually should be at the start of the shooting sequence. ie JFK reacts to his throat wound, Connally does that turn and sit to see JFK and then is shot himself from z224 on. Moving Connally’s turn and sit from the start of the sequence to the middle makes the single-bullet theory possible.

            If Connally’s turn and sit is at the beginning of his reaction to the gunshots then the single-bullet theory is much harder to argue. Because we’d then see a really significant delay between the two men’s reactions.

            Thanks for your views.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Hello Bill

          Ah, the penny has finally dropped (at this end). You think that Connolly’s head turn when he couldn’t see the President happened at z162, then he continued turning at z167-z224 (I count that section as a ‘staring at the crowd’ phase) until he was shot at z224 and following frames.

          How do you account for Connolly not being able to turn and see the President at z162 before he was shot. Then at z255 – z290 he does do a full turn and sit up after being shot?

          In other words what stopped him turning at z162 that wouldn’t have also been a factor at z255 – z290 (and with 3 bullet wounds to boot?)

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Vanessa and Bill

            The two of you seem quite convinced you know when Connally was shot. Have either of you ever studied the medical evidence regarding the wound to Connally’s back?

          • Photon says:

            Have you? Did you ever read the operative report, or have a real physician explain it to you? Do you know what a chest tube is?

      • I will pop in here as Vanessa wanted me to read this exchange between Bill and her.
        What I see is Connally being hit at around Z300. He was hit in the back after the head shot to Kennedy.
        \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Willy

          Your claim that Connally was hit at z300 is intriguing. It would actually explain some things and fits better with his testimony.

          At z300 Connally appears to be half-turned around in his seat and facing towards Zapruder. This would mean he was struck by the bullet when he was sitting side on to the shooter (if the shooter was behind him) which might explain the wounds he received.

          But if Connally was hit at z300 how do you account for him then turning back to the front and then lurching forward at around z325 and then collapsing into Nellie’s lap?

          Do you think he would have been able to sit up after the bullet wounds he suffered?

          Connally’s own testimony says that he felt the punch in the back, jerked forward and then crumpled into Nellie’s lap straightaway. That does happen at z325 and onwards.

          Do you think he was shot at z300 or z325?

          • Hi Vanessa,
            I think Connally was shot at z300, at z325 he is collapsing to his left.

            On the z-film synced with the dictabelt, you can hear the “double shot” (that many will claim are two shots to Kennedy’s head – a front and rear shot), the first of these two shots hits Connally in the back, a split second later the last shot hits Kennedy in the head.
            \\][//

          • Another point here Vanessa, is that the synced film to audio from the dictabelt, is further proof there was no limo stop or any frames removed from the film. If there were frames missing, the sequence of shots would be heard after the limo reaches the underpass.
            For a clear explanation of this see:
            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-4714
            \\][//

    • Bill, what made you think it was a conspiracy before you came to this site?

  2. Jonathan says:

    …most of the Commission’s work was performed by staff attorneys, not the seven Commissioners. The function of the Commissioners was to lend weight, lend credence in the public’s mind to the Commission’s output.

    Notwithstanding the work performed by the staff attorneys, nothing about the Commission’s work product constitutes evidence as a matter of law; nor was its determination that Oswald acting alone murdered JFK and Officer Tippitt a determination as a matter of law. Oswald died an innocent man.

    • as a matter of law. Oswald died an innocent man.

      But as a matter of law, Hitler did too.

      As a matter of history, it’s a rather different matter.

      • RJ says:

        For Hitler to be sure…not so much Oswald.
        I don’t think Hitler ever denied declaring war on England, France, the Soviet Union, the U.S. etc.

        Oswald on the other hand maintained his innocence against all charges until the day he died. And there is no ironclad evidence to convict him that would stand up in court, particularly not against cross examination conducted by a competent attorney.

        So for history, professor, it IS actually a rather different matter.

      • Dave says:

        You’re comparing Oswald to Hitler in terms of the conclusiveness of the evidence against them? Wow.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Ding on that comment John. The books that are written, by both sides to be fair, are just interpretations of a pre-convieved viewpoint. However, even if that were not true…Oswald, in the window, on film, with his gun, 3 shots, witnesses see gun being pulled in, Croft Photo/Connally statement about his turn etc,

        Just the fact that the physical evidence puts JFK and Connally in a position to receive a bullet answers the question pretty easily. Also…There is a lot of speculation about lead content and grains…but Connally was just as likely to be hit with part of the bullet exiting JFK’s skull after fragmenting as the second shot. The nuts don’t deal with that…it messes up their SBT.

        Peace.

        • Bill Callahan says:

          I should mention this: My Connally statement is NOT that all his wounds were caused by the shot exiting JFK’s skull….only that it is just as possible that part(s) of that smashed bullet caused an injury to his wrist.

          • Paul M says:

            You discredit the SBT? Which was devised bt the Warren Commission? Now that is a real stretch of the facts.

  3. Bill Callahan says:

    I’ll also add that malcolm Couch, a journalist in a follow-up vehicle saw the gun being withdrawn into the window moments after the 3rd shot.
    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/couch.htm

  4. lbjkilledjfk says:

    Look, I’m not going to blather on about every detail. After spending 20,000 hours of research on the JFK assassination over the past 40 years, I can tell you that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Lyndon Baines Johnson killed John F. Kennedy. Start from that FACT and work backwards. You will come to the same conclusion. If you don’t, you haven’t done your homework.

  5. Bill Callahan says:

    What would the mathematical chances of shot number 2 (SBT) and shot number 3 (313) occurring at precisely the exact moments in a camera running at 18.3 per second if Governor Connally’s statement is taken at face value, WITHOUT everyone and their brother rearranging the assassination furniture?

    Once you zero out the stop-watch and watch a clear Zapruder Film at regular speed, all it takes is simple arithmetic and common sense. Frame 160-161 is the first and only time Governor Connally does what he said he did. After that…all it takes is a stop-watch and the most important thing….an open mind.

  6. Bill Callahan says:

    Tried to send this to the editor…came back as not a valid email address.

    What you should know about the Warren Commission Report is that…It was a great body of work that was carried out by two agencies who did not want their ties to criminal activities uncovered during this national trauma.

    As far as the shooting of the President they have gotten it right to a large degree. I feel the key to the shooting is the Robert Croft photo. Use it as a marker to start the Zapruder Film and it will ‘magically’ bring you to frame 223/224…let it run and it will bring you again…to 313. What are the chances the math works perfectly and predictably. This accounts for the tree/deflection, the alignment of jfk/connally, and the time frame.

    Thanks

    • bogman says:

      My question is what ‘normal’ assassin would lead two federal agencies to have to cover up criminal activities? Seems like that would open the question of a possible conspiracy to shut down any investigation before it got started by selecting Oswald as patsy.

  7. B Kamp says:

    Have a read here:

    http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_00.html
    http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_01.html
    http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_02.html
    http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_03.html
    http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_04.html

    Now if only 10% of it is dead right, then the whole WC report is a mess to begin with, and whatever it tries to prove it is suspect beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. Starriddin says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission is they were given a mandate to find no conspiracy from the beginning. For a conspiracy would have lead back to Cuba or Russia and evoked the possibility of a nuclear war, or, at least, that is the justification counted on by the sponsors of the conspiracy. The other item to recall is they were relying on the FBI and the CIA for their investigative evidence. The same two agencies that kept popping up whenever Oswald was looked at in any detail. These agencies were, at a minimum, facilitators of the assassination and the cover-up. Even Jack Ruby had more ties to the CIA than the Mob.

  9. Gerald Ven says:

    The presence of Allen W. Dulles on the Warren Commission forever taints its credibility.

    Mark Lane to William F. Buckley, Jr. :

    ” You talk about faith in these institutions . . . as if its a religious experience to read the Warren Report”.

    http://youtu.be/ir7qWRSP09c?t=50m37s

    • Mike says:

      Dulles was a sociopath. After reading about his history I have no difficulty in believing that he would lie and obfuscate and do whatever was necessary to derail the Warren Commission. LBJ’s choice of Dulles for the commission (yes, LBJ – not RFK) makes one suspect that LBJ was complicit in the coverup.

      • Sorry, RFK asked for Dulles to be appointed to the Warren Commission.

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

        • Scott Tracy says:

          Robert Kennedy Jr makes it clear that RFK’s public position differed from his private opinion that Oswald did not act alone. The composition of the commission was political, the agenda was political and the conclusion is political.
          Dulles acted in the best interested of the CIA as did Joannides for the HSCA.
          The treatment of RFK Jr in 2013 was shocking disrespectful to him and the memory of his father and indicative of an ongoing effort in the primary press to ignore the many pieces of evidence that come to light over the past 50 years.

        • Mike says:

          Your writer makes JFK and Dulles look downright chummy! He left out of his article this comment by Dulles, however: “that little Kennedy, he thought he was a God”.
          As for Fortas and Walter Jenkins, they would have done anything (and they did just about anything) to cover for LBJ. Both of them were caught up in the middle of all of LBJ’s legal problems. As my grandfather would say, I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for the whole lot of ’em.
          The choice of Dulles was so outrageous that LBJ had to have some excuse, so why not blame it on Bobby? I don’t believe it.

        • Gerald Ven says:

          Sorry McAdams, but Allen W. Dulles himself immediately saw the inappropriateness of his appointment and his conflict of interest :

          Dulles to LBJ, November 29, 1963, 5:41PM :

          “ You think I can really serve you ? “ . . .

          “and you’ve considered the work of my previous work and my previous job ? “

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=893

          • That’s irrelevant to the point I made, which was that Bobby asked for Dulles to be on the Commission.

            Did you actually read the page I linked to?

            As for “recognizing the inappropriateness,” that’s just not supported by your source.

        • Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

          What are your sourceS for that statement that RFK asked for Dulles to be on the WC? Robert Caro offers only one. A 1969 diary entry by LBJ. That is less than nothing, if one knows anything at all about LBJ’s condition in 1969. Only one source and after he was assassinated. Wow. When I read that lack of sourcing and without any analysis by Caro I knew beyond any doubt that we were in Oceania.

          • I keep posting the link, and buffs keep ignoring it.

            So let me make it easy by linking to the two key sources:

            First a memo to LBJ relaying the information from Bobby:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

            Second, a phone conversation in which Johnson tells Fortas that he appointed Dulles because Bobby wanted it.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/audio/lbj_wh6612_04_11150.mp3

            Note that Dulles was one of the people who relayed the information from Justice to Jenkins at the White House.

            So if Johnson was lying about that, Fortas would have instantly known it. While a politician might lie to somebody who would accept the lie, it makes no sense that Johnson would have lied to Fortas in this context.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Everything McAdams links us to is either hearsay or memos from 3rd parties to Johnson.

            NOWHERE in these links is there any documentation of RFK ever requesting Dulles to be on the Warren Commission.

            However, I hear that hearsay stands up quite well in Alabama as evidence.

  10. Johnny Gumm says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that is was written by government gangsters for higher level government gangsters circa 1963-1964 in a failed effort to disguise a US coup.

  11. phil bowman says:

    The Warren Commission’s function was to prove that LHO Oswald killed JFK. It was not created to find the truth

  12. phil bowman says:

    Photon: If you have been on the sixth floor of the TSB and you are the lone assassin, the time to shoot was when the motorcade was on Houston, coming right at you. Right between the eyes

    • Photon says:

      Not if you wanted to remain concealed .
      Not if you thought that you needed more than one shot ( Oswald loaded four rounds).
      Not if you don’t want to move your rifle while shooting.
      Not if you don’t want to look into your victim’s face .

      • Dave says:

        Photon:
        Prove that Oswald loaded the four rounds.
        Prove that he fired the rifle three times.
        Prove that he arranged the snipers nest.
        Prove that he was on the sixth floor at 12:35 CST 11/22/63

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Haka Comment: I’ll stick with the FSU chant and keep racial overtones out of it. 🙂 The way things get turned around here I’ll be happy with that.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Nonsense. Without the trees to block your view, you would have far more time to shoot JFK on Houston St. than you would on Elm St.

        And as far as moving the rifle goes, JFK is coming straight at you on Houston. How many degrees of lateral tracking was required to follow JFK as he passed from left to right in front of the TSBD?

        And now you know that Oswald was squeamish about seeing JFK’s face as he shot him? Where do you get this nonsense?

        As usual, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

  13. Bill Callahan says:

    So the entire event, at it’s longest point, beginning with Connally’s turn (his eye/earwitness statement as a hunter and someone familiar with high-powered rifles) takes 152 frames. Dividing that by 18.3 seconds (the time the FBI said it recorded at) and you have the event taking 8.36 seconds.

    The frames that show the injuries sustained occur at the exact places mathematics states they will. It’s not subjective…objective at each point.

  14. Bill Callahan says:

    Most critics of the WC want the actual shooting to take place as the car goes behind the Stemmons Sign. Then they can successfully argue timing. However, if you let Gov. Connally’s own remarks and obvious actions speak…we can see the entire thing play out. Also, get a look at the FBI recreation. It also matches that as well.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Bill

      If you study the medical evidence closely, you will see Connally could only be hit by a bullet passing through JFK IF Connally was turned quite far to his right at the time of the so called SBT shot. If Connally faced forward at the time he was shot in the back, the bullet that hit him would have passed well to JFK’s right.

  15. bogman says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that the presumed assassin – a Communist defector and self-proclaimed Marxist — was a known quantity to the FBI and CIA, seeking out their agents and assets while also openly engaging with our Cold War enemies. The Commission accepted everything both agencies had to say about Oswald at face value, with no further investigation into how this caricature of Cold War paranoia slipped their grasp and did not set off alarm bells. The lack of any accountability from the agencies allowed them to lie, stonewall, withhold or destroy evidence, misdirect, prevaricate and otherwise obstruct a clear understanding of exactly who Oswald was to them, clouding the reality of what actually occurred for the next 51 years.

  16. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa…when you wrote this: ‘Personally, I would have thought that if it was a conspiracy that was designed to have 3 shots fired from behind JFK and from the 6th Floor of the TSBD then it would make life a lot simpler for the assassins to actually have someone doing just that.’

    I think that, as far as conspiracy goes, you are closest to what did occur. It keeps the door open. Also, behind the fence may look good…but the reality is that people shooting WOULD BE LARGE and VISABLE in film and witnesses.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hi Bill

      Thanks for your comments. To me that option always made the most sense ie at least one shooter in the 6th floor window actually firing the carcano. But I’ve also seen arguments that could dispute even that (ie no evidence that the carcano was even fired that day). As always with the JFK assassination there’s few ‘facts’ that can’t be questioned. I just try and go for the most logically consistent one.

      As for a possible shooter behind the fence yes, they should be visible in the various films except that sometimes we can’t even see people who we know were actually there ie motorcycle cop who rode up and spoke to Curry (sorry can’t remember his name). Plus I’m one of those who think the films were altered anyway so presumably whoever was behind the fence would have been obscured in that process. There were a couple of witnesses who say they were confronted by SS agents (or someone) providing official ID and were waved off. Yes, it was risky having someone behind the fence but if you have decoys to wave people away then that risk is lessened somewhat. Thanks for your views.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Vanessa…if you think the films were altered…by the Govt…Don’t you think they could have simply had some LSD freak walk up and kill JFK at the airport…at the Hotel…and then just shoot him on the spot????

        Don’t you think they Govt. could have had given the president ‘bad drugs’ and killed him by lethal injection. Or had him drown in the WH pool. Or had him suffer a heart attack.

        I have to laugh about his but….There are a million easier ways for these brilliant conspirators to have killed the man than have done it in broad daylight, on film, collect said film, and wipe it. NFW.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Hello Bill

          Thanks for your response. I’ll respond to your zfilm comments separately. I’m no expert on LSD freaks but I wouldn’t have thought that they could be relied upon to carry out an assassination and then shut up about it afterwards. Any of those other methods you mentioned would have involved a cover up at the autopsy stage. Plus from what I’ve read Kennedy was rarely alone even having Lem Billings sleep in his room at the White House.

          The CIA also tried a view of those left field assassination methods on Castro and they all failed. Maybe a sniper shooting from a concealed space was the best option and they simply didn’t take into account the large number of home movies being taken or figured that whatever stuff ups arose they would be in a position to handle them.

          If you don’t think the films were altered how do you account for the disappearance of motorcycle officer Freeman? He was in between the limo and the lead car on the left hand side and rode up and spoke to Curry at the time of the assassination. It’s recorded in the WC report but he appears on NONE of the films. Where has he gone?

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Hello Bill

          There’s no ‘reply’ button on your zfilm comments so I’ll tack on to this comment. I think we essentially agree on what is happening from z160-z167. But from z167 – z223 I think he’s stopped his left to right turn and is just looking at the crowd on his right. I agree he’s reacting to a bullet from z224/z225 – z255. But then at z255 – z290 he turns right around to look behind him at Kennedy (while sitting up). That’s why I count 2 turns.

          I don’t think what happens on the zfilm completely matches any of Connolly’s accounts of what happened because he officially maintained he didn’t turn around fully to face the President – yet on the zfilm he does.

        • Jason Richardson says:

          So genius and expert of all asassinations…..why did the CIA enlist the mafia for attempts on Castro? Why not do what you suggest above to off him or others like in the Middle East? Keep the condescending idiocy to a minimum when you are trying to argue something you have absolutely zero experience or involvent in Billy.

        • bogman says:

          Maybe they wanted more than his death. Maybe they wanfed war with our Cold War enemies.

        • David Peters says:

          That’s the point. To make it so obvious and horrifying as to send a message . It is a much more terrifying spectacle to have done it in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people with supposed full protection.

    • Paul M says:

      A shot from the fence allowed for easier escape. Just fire, then throw the weapon into the trunk of a parked car. Then walk slowly away, and have the spotter with the fake ID chase away witnesses.

      Much easier than escaping from the sixth floor of a building. And the shot from 8 feet west of the fence corner ( from behind foliage) would conceal you from photos. I could make that shot, and I have fired a rifle twice in my lifetime.

  17. Larry Schnapf says:

    getting back to the question, the WC was a prosecutor’s document that selectively used evidence much that would have been inadmissible at trial and papered over or ignored evidence that was contrary to the pre-supposed conclusion. leads that could have led to exonerating evidence were not pursued. One example, none of the bullets allegedly involved JFK’s shooting could be linked to oswald. No evidence he bought ammo, no fingerprints on the shells, paraffin test on cheek did not reveal evidence of gunpowder and only print on rifle was a latent palm print on portion of rifle that is only exposed when it is dissassembled. None of Marina’s testimony could have been used at trial because of the spousal immunity rule. In sum, there would have been reasonable doubt that he was the gunman such that he would not have been convictable. hence why he had to be killed.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      You said it all Larry. The WC was a prosecutor’s document and the jury (ie the American public) have found the case not proven.

    • none of the bullets allegedly involved JFK’s shooting could be linked to oswald.

      Only to his rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

      No evidence he bought ammo,

      And why should there be? You think clerks in gun shops can remember customers who came in months ago?

      no fingerprints on the shells,

      Why should there be? Do you actually believe that it’s typical in criminal cases to find fingerprints on shells?

      There were prints on the rifle.

      paraffin test on cheek did not reveal evidence of gunpowder

      Proves nothing, since the test creates a lot of false negatives, especially with long guns.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

      only print on rifle was a latent palm print on portion of rifle that is only exposed when it is disassembled.

      Which firmly links Oswald to the rifle.

      In sum, there would have been reasonable doubt that he was the gunman such that he would not have been convictable. hence why he had to be killed.

      You are looking at the issue from the standpoint of a buff, circa 2014. A Dallas citizen circa 1963 simply would not have believed Dallas cops faked all that evidence. And they would not have (as current buffs do) have rejected all witnesses against Oswald as liars.

      Oswald would have been convicted.

      • Paulf says:

        John, in other words, the lack of evidence against Oswald is conclusive proof he did it because something something and because some mythological jury would have convicted him because, well, juries just convict everybody in Dallas no matter if there is evidence or not.

        Brilliant.

        • Where in the world did you get “lack of evidence against Oswald?”

          There was a ton of evidence

          Why do you think buffs have to claim that all that evidence was faked or forged or tampered with? A Dallas jury would not have bought that.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Morning Professor

            So basically before Watergate, My Lai, the Church Committee, DNA testing, the Innocence Project et al those dumb schmucks on the Dallas Jury wouldn’t have known that the authorities were capable of doing terrible things and then lying about them to the American public.

            If you’re relying on that for a conviction of Oswald it says a lot about your case Professor.

          • You seem to have the generic notion that “government officials are evil,” and therefore you feel free to accuse government officials of doing evil things without any evidence.

            A Dallas jury would not have felt that way about their own police force.

            They didn’t live in the world of buffs. They didn’t think their cops were perfect, but they wouldn’t have believed that all the evidence against Oswald was faked, forged or tampered with.

            They were sensible people. Not buffs.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Morning Professor

            Actually I didn’t say that all government officials are evil and I certainly don’t believe that. (In fact I love government!). I said the authorities were ‘capable’ of doing terrible things and covering it up. I cited actual examples of them doing just that (ie Watergate).

            We both know that we all live in a world today where there is less trust in government authorities now than in 1963.

            And why is that? Because we have had events like Watergate, the Church Committe and the Innocence Project etc that have demonstrated that our previous complete trust in the authorities was open to question.

            So first came the breaches of public trust by various official authorities then came the distrust by the public, not the other way around.

            That still leaves you relying on a naive jury to convict Oswald. Shouldn’t you be claiming that the evidence is so rock-solid that any jury at any time would find it convincing?

          • That still leaves you relying on a naive jury to convict Oswald. Shouldn’t you be claiming that the evidence is so rock-solid that any jury at any time would find it convincing?

            No, a sensible jury. It’s conspiracists whom I think are naive.

            Also, a 1963/64 jury on Dallas would not have been exposed to a half-century of conspiracy theorists. Oswald’s lawyer would have to try the case on its merits.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, Oswald would have been convicted and executed for the murder of Tippit; the evidence was overwhelming,legally sound and confirmed on many levels.
            Oswald basically admitted to killing Tippit when he tried to shoot another officer in the Texas Theater and when he stated to the arresting officers that murder of a policeman would result in the death penalty.

          • JSA says:

            @John:

            “They didn’t live in the world of buffs.”

            I grew up amongst insiders in the DC area who had CIA jobs, military jobs, high civilian bureaucratic jobs, from the Left and Right wings and in between. The only “buffs” back then (sixties) were Civil War fanatics. Otherwise, “buff” was a color that some of George Washington’s troops sported. Nowadays it’s used as a smear word by McAdams and his ilk. But to be frank, there were friends of mine, including Victor Marchetti’s family, who DID think CIA capable of a domestic coup. It didn’t get discussed so directly, but believe me, those who know how power really worked back then were far from naive bumpkins. Or “buffs”.

            There’s a term for people who populate a website to smear others constantly, 24/7: TROLL.

            Let’s be fair here. We can disagree with those who don’t accept the Warren Commission’s point of view, but let’s not dismissively refer to them as “buffs”. It’s childish and uncivil, especially coming from someone in academia.

          • Paulf says:

            John:

            1) Would you stop referring to me as a “buff?” I try very hard to not call you names, and it is inaccurate in any event. It’s a silly way to denigrate someone and avoid the topic.

            2) I have never said that all evidence was faked or forged or tampered with, but there was a level of confusion and incompetence in the investigation that doesn’t happen in much less important investigations and therefore it is hard to believe was not deliberate.

            3) I’m not aware of any real evidence against Oswald that would have been admissible in court. He wasn’t seen in the act, there is no clear evidence linking him to the gun, he had no real motive and so on. He had to be killed precisely because he could not have been convicted.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Paulf October 1, 2014 at 1:59 pm

            In 1963 Texas a cop killer sometimes didn’t make it back to the jail alive. If he made it to trial he was a dead man still.

            Any jury in Texas would have hung Oswald. In 1963 it would have been an all white jury of conservative men that were not then or ever politically correct.

            Today Oswald might slip by as goofy as the world and Texas has become.

            “In Texas we have the death penalty and we use it.” Ron White

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Gentlemen, I’ve been ignoring the use of ‘buffs’ up until now as it’s not really the done thing to point out someone else’s bad manners and I prefer to focus on the issues not the person. This website is ‘JFKFacts’ after all not ‘JFKpersonalities’.

            We all know the techniques you are using by calling WC critics ‘buffs’ and they are not going to work on here. If you want to engage in personal aspersions there are plenty of other sites where you can do that. This one is for civil debate.

            How about we agree you guys are ‘WC defenders’ and the rest of us are ‘WC critics’?

            Much more civilised.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Morning Professor

            Now you are saying juries in 2014 are not ‘sensible’? I don’t know where to start with this one.

            We are neither of us sociologists so I’m not sure we should be venturing into the mindset of juries circa 1963 versus today and whether their level of ‘sensibleness’ can be measured and compared.

            What I’m gobsmacked about is that you are saying Oswald would have been convicted in 1963 not on the strength of the case but because he would have had a trusting jury.

            Again, shouldn’t you be saying that the evidence against Oswald is incontrovertible and is not open to interpretation either by a ‘sensible’ 1963 jury or a ‘less-sensible’ 2014 jury?

            Otherwise you seem to be implying that the case against Oswald is not that strong. And I’m very happy to agree with you on that.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Morning Photon

            So Oswald would have been convicted on the Tippit ‘evidence’ but not on the JFK evidence?? Are you sure you want to be saying that?

            Big News on here today folks! Both the Professor and Photon imply weakness in the case against Oswald!

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, you have never been in the United States, have you?
            The Legal system in Texas in 1963 was not identical to what you have in Oz and NZ. You seem to make assumptions based on ignorance of the Tippit case. By Texas law of 1963 the murder of a policeman carried more weight than the shooting of a President, who in the eyes of Texas law was merely a private citizen. As Presidential assassination was not a Federal crime the Texas legal system would have dealt with Oswald.
            In Texas cop killers tended to be executed- often before arrest. On any other day Oswald’s attempted murder of a policeman in the Texas Theater would likely have resulted in his death – perhaps his wish ( ie., suicide by cop)? Now THAT’S a possibility that has some interesting ramifications .

          • jeffc says:

            Oswald did not attempt to shoot a police officer in the Texas Theater. That is a lone nut factoid. Photon, this has been hashed out several times on other threads but you insist on repeating it.

          • What I’m gobsmacked about is that you are saying Oswald would have been convicted in 1963 not on the strength of the case but because he would have had a trusting jury.

            Quit misrepresenting what I said.

            I said the evidence against Oswald would have been very strong, and the jury would have been sensible in evaluating it.

            They wouldn’t have had the attitude of buffs, circa 2014. That’s the perspective from which you are speaking.

          • 1) Would you stop referring to me as a “buff?” I try very hard to not call you names,

            If you’ll consult Webster’s, you see that the term isn’t derisive. It implies amateurism, and enthusiasm.

            But OK, if you don’t want to be called that, I’ll call you a conspiracist.

            but there was a level of confusion and incompetence in the investigation that doesn’t happen in much less important investigations and therefore it is hard to believe was not deliberate.

            Post what you have in mind. I’ll bet that most of the claims are either factoids, or simply irrelevant.

            3) I’m not aware of any real evidence against Oswald that would have been admissible in court.

            You mean aside from the fact that he bought and owned the rifle that shot Kennedy?

            You mean aside from the fact that he brought his gun into work that day?

            You mean aside from the fact that he was one of the few (Dougherty is the only other one I know of) Depository employees who did not have an alibi for the time of the shooting?

            You mean besides from the fact that he shot Tippit?

          • “Why do you think buffs have to claim that all that evidence was faked or forged or tampered with?”~McAdams

            The crux of the argument from the Warren Commission supporters is an appeal to illegitimate authority.

            Several commentators on this site are also fond of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. The Latin noun verecundia means “modesty” or “shame”. It attempts to make those who lack authority feel shame about discussing issues they lack credentials of expertise in, and back out of an argument.

            [An integral part of the appeal to authority is the cognitive bias known as the Asch effect.
            >Grootendorst, Robert (1992), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, p. 158
            Jump up ^ McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology
            Jump up ^ Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter]
            \\][//

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        And that’s not even considering all of Marina Oswald’s testimony would have been inadmissible at trial. Plus she now says he’s innocent.

      • Dave says:

        Oswald would NOT have been convicted if he had lived long enough to retain competent counsel and exhaust all his available legal avenues. Much of the so-called evidence would have collapsed under the scrutiny of his attorney’s cross-examination of the state’s witnesses and physical evidence.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Ah Photon, I see you didn’t get the memo about showing us your best manners.

          Actually I did live and work in Washington DC for a number of years and even visited Texas.

          But that’s got nothing to do with the issue we were discussing which was the strength of the case against Oswald and whether a fictional Dallas jury would have convicted him on the basis of that evidence.

          So far we have the Professor saying that a ‘sensible’ Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald because they trusted the government; Bill Clarke says the Texas jury would have lynched and/or convicted him because they weren’t politically correct and now you are saying he would have been lynched and/or shot by the police but not for killing JFK.

          So we’ve run the gamut from a sensible Dallas jury to a Dallas lynch mob who would have all found Oswald guilty but not based on the evidence. The mind boggles.

          Can’t even one of you fellows say that a Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald for the murder of JFK because of the incontrovertible evidence against him? I can’t really be expected to fight both ends of the argument can I?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Vanessa Loney October 3, 2014 at 8:5

            All I can do is to tell you how things worked in 1963 Texas. I have some expertise in this subject because except for the two years Uncle Sam made me leave Texas I have spent my entire life here. Almost 70 years now.

            Now while perhaps Oswald shouldn’t have been convicted, as you say, the fact is he was dead in the water in 1963 Texas. So I think it incorrect to claim that Oswald wouldn’t have been convicted. He would have been. Should he have been convicted? That is another story.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Thanks Bill, I do appreciate your perspective and what you are saying about the changing times and attitudes.

            It must have been amazing growing up in Texas at that time. Can I ask what your own views on the JFK assassination are? What do you think happened? Were there any inside rumours when you were growing up?

      • Bob Truitt says:

        Yes, Oswald was guilty. He was guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest for his behavior in the Texas Theater. Oh, 2d offense for disorderly conduct (prior conviction in New Orleans), He’s deserving of the death penalty since we’re in Texas. Give LHO a firing squad with one man shooting. Then talk about this man’s mother’s teeth in the book about the murder, as if her teeth were some type of evidence.

      • Paul M says:

        All circumstantial, and no direct evidence that Oswald-
        1. Placed the weapon on the 6 th floor
        2. Was at the window during the shooting.
        No evidence other than eyewitnesses statements, which you deride heavily in all instances regarding witnesses who disagree with the WC.
        Competent legal counsel and an impartial jury would have resulted in acquittal.

  18. What you should know about the Warren Commission report is that it had to be reconstructed and redone when James Tague testified that debris from a bullet nicked him in the face. Their 3-shot “Kennedy-Connaly-Kennedy” was no good at that point. It led to the phony, silly, single-bullet theory.

    • That’s simply untrue, and is yet another conspiracy factoid.

      The most sensible explanation for the Tague wounding is that it was the result of a fragment from the head shot. Hoover suggested that to the Warren Commission, and Tink Thompson concluded that in Six Seconds in Dallas.

      Here is Tink’s diagram:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague4.gif

      The timing issue is what caused the WC to settle on the Single Bullet Theory. It was (and remains) the most sensible explanation for Kennedy and Connally’s wounds.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        “A fragment from the head shot” Really? Your saying a fragment from the JFK head shot(s?) hit Tague? How many feet away from JFK was he? A hundred plus? For a shot that hit the curb where the FBI removed the section and confirmed metal particles in it this is quite a curiosity.
        I’ve read elsewhere (yes, yes, sources, can someone help me here?) that a shot striking the curb by Tague would have bee 20′ above JFk’s head if coming from the “snipers nest”.

      • Paul Turner says:

        “Hoover suggested that to the Warren Commission”? John, isn’t it true that the work of the WC was being controlled by Hoover? Hoover could suggest anything he wanted to the WC, and get no argument from the latter. Tague’s testimony changed history. and I’m glad it did.

        • No, Hoover didn’t control the Warren Commission. Remember, as buff books will tell you incessantly, the FBI thought that three shots were fired and all three hit Kennedy or Connally.

          The Warren Commission figured out that that wouldn’t work, and settled on the Single Bullet Theory.

          • Jordan says:

            Finally the right word in the right context…”settled”.

            In fact, the WC came up with the SBT to explain what the evidence could not and did not.

          • GaryA says:

            The “Magic Bullet” theory remains the most “sensible” explanation for Kennedy’s and Connally’s wounds, except for this:

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

            How silly!

            The Senate discovered that Hoover had deployed one of his favorite dirty tricks to deal with the Warren Commission. “[D]erogatory information pertaining to both Commission members and staff was brought to Mr. Hoover’s attention.”[63] Given the FBI’s history of destroying Oswald’s note to FBI agent James Hosty, Hosty’s recent admission that his own personnel file, and other FBI files, had been falsified,[64] and given the report by author Curt Gentry that assistant FBI director William Sullivan learned of other JFK documents in the Bureau that had been destroyed,[65] skeptics find cold comfort in the Committee’s follow-up comment that, “the Bureau has informed the Committee staff that there is no documentary evidence which indicates that such information was disseminated while the Warren Commission was in session.”[66]
            Ah, yes, the FBI “says.” Well, that settles it, doesn’t it!

            Although Holland touts Earl Warren’s bold declaration, “Truth is our only client,” he omits a more telling Warren directive, one that has been borne out by the Commission’s own internal record: “[O]ur job here is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from the gathering of evidence, and I believe that at the outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely upon the reports of the various federal agencies.”[67] Peter Gross noted that Warren’s inclination toward the FBI’s solution was shared by another powerful Commissioner, Allen Dulles, who “urged that the panel confine its work to a review of the investigation already being made by the FBI.”[68] http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html

          • John, did the FBI THINK 3 shots were fired, or WANT the number to be 3? Jim Tague states in his book LBJ And The Kennedy Killing, that “Hoover didn’t want any missed shots”.

      • Paul Turner says:

        sensible perhaps to Lone Nut theorists. Problem is, a bullet just doesn’t do what Specter asked that one to.

        • Do you believe that the bullet had to zig and zag in mid-air? If so, that’s a buff book factoid and a straight through trajectory works fine.

          Problem is, a bullet just doesn’t do what Specter asked that one to.

          That’s what conspiracists say, but real wound ballistics experts and top forensic pathologists disagree.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John

            Anyone who knows the first thing about the bone structure of the human neck (which obviously does not include you) knows that a bullet going “straight through” the neck will run into the cervical vertebrae. Did JFK have damage to any of his cervical vertebrae?

      • Jordan says:

        Mr. McAdams, what is sensible to you, and what is sensible to someone else are not necessarily the same thing, and in reality are considered to be “opinions”.

        You must surely be aware of the particularly apt saying about such opinions.

  19. Bill Callahan says:

    Insanity by the numbers. Look, IF the Govt. which we all know is completely inept, isn’t it kinda strange that they they can keep a secret for so long? Collect movies, wipe the, etc. I mean…c’mon folks. It really isn’t rocket science here (although you want it to be).

    • Dave says:

      Bill – What then is your explanation of the Dino Brugioni interviews by Doug Horne re: two different sets of Z-film development at NPIC on two different days with two different teams?

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello Bill

      Well we’re not talking about the Dept of Health here are we. We’re talking about an agency and it’s affiliates that at various times in its history has been a nation unto itself.

      All well and fine Bill but if you’re going to argue timing of the shots based on the zfilm then you have to be able to address anomalies in the zfilm rather than fall back on the ‘someone would have talked’ argument when inconsistencies are pointed out.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        I’ve not argued the timing by using zapruder. I argue timing and angle by com pairing film…croft photo…and towner. You seem to make a lot of inferences but all are linked to some misdirected/quoted observation…even down to Freeman disappearing on the z film. Look..if you can’t see the that zapruder has him on film….stopped recording…then restarted filming…then there is no room for discourse.

  20. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa: I see no mention of Testimony by H. Freeman in the Warren Commission Report. Here is a list/index of witnesses.

    http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix5.html

    I do see a comment made by him regarding a hole in the Presidential Limo window. When you say he was in the WC can you send me a link. Regards.

  21. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa, I also wanted to mention that I think you’re referring to Stavos ‘Stevie’ Ellis. He was the officer who rode back over to Curry at the time of the Assassination. Here is what he said:

    About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.

    Freeman was visible in the z film until he rode out of sight.

    Hope this helps.

  22. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa: Here is a link to Ellis. He reported, by the way, that he had the impression that the shots had come from the building which was being blocked by the tree. TSBD.

  23. Bill Callahan says:

    If you are referring to the 3 Motorcycle men who rode in front (and I think you are as there was no Freeman riding to the Right of JFK’s car), you can see the 3 Motorcycle Men take the corner onto Elm from Houston. Then, the motorcycle rider on the right (our left) seems to go right off down Houston when he actually just kept his formation. You can see him reappear just before Zapruder turned off his camera BEFORE starting the assassination sequence. Freeman??

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4L1CVX0FnA

    Hope this helps

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Afternoon Bill

      My apologies I was actually referring to Officer Chaney. My bad on that one. Thanks for the correction. In his WC testimony Curry reported that Chaney rode up and spoke to him during the assassination. See below.

      “I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this, I don’t recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn’t tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, “Get someone up in the railroad yard and check.

      And then about this time, I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could see some commotion in the President’s car and after this there had been two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming behind instead of from the railroad yards”.

      Officer Chaney does not appear in either the zfilm or Nix. Where did he go?

      regards

      Vanessa

  24. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa: Freeman comes back at frame 122.

  25. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa. Thanks for your response. Let me walk through the issues I have with Chaney/Curry.

    1. Chaney IS in the Zapruder Film. (Check the one with the spockets).
    2. From the Nix Film, we can see that the two motorcycles (Chaney and Jackson) to the right of the President SLOWED DOWN dramatically as the Agent on the right side of the Queen Mary, John Ready, attempted to run up behind the Limo. We can see their cycles on other films.
    3. Chaney is not shown pulling out of Dealey Plaza in the Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix, or Daniel Films leaving the Plaza because he did so AFTER the Limo was gone already. The only MC Officer to follow was either Billy Weldon or Bobby Hargis because you can see from the Daniel Film it was a MC Officer on the Jackie side who left FIRST…and later Chaney?? See McIntyre Photo.
    4. So, there was NO discussion with Curry and NO CYCLE pulling up at all.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello Bill, thanks for the explanation.

      If I may go straight to no.4 first though…so you’re saying that the 4 occupants of the lead car Police Chief Jesse Curry, Sheriff Decker, SSA Sorrels and SSA Lawson all lied to the Warren Commission when they testified that a police officer (Curry names him as Chaney) drove up to the lead car during the assassination and told them the President was hit? If you think they lied about Chaney why do you think they did that?

      1. Can you give the zfilm frame numbers he appears in?

      I haven’t had a moment to check your points in 2. and 3. but will respond asap on those.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Vanessa. I am certainly NOT stating that Curry, Decker, Sorrels, and Lawson Lied about an officer driving up to the lead car during the assassination at all. I’m sure ‘someone’ did. My issue with someone driving up to that vehicle is in figuring out who it was and, to be more direct, WHEN it was.

        Both Chaney and Ellis claim that honor (interestingly enough). Chaney is visible in the z film until just before the headshot (out of viewfinder at that point). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwy6Q9_cUwc

        Also, You can really see how the limo slowed in the z film (and Nix) at the same moment. Almost like a log jam. But, in any case…Chaney is in the z film.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        As far as Cheney driving up to the Chief to tell him that.

        1. I don’t have any doubt that Chaney did did tell Curry that…just not when he said he did. Do you understand that? It’s not like everybody pulled over and had a shriners convention on elm street. We can clearly see that only two MC’s rode out after the shooting on the Daniels film and they would need time to catch Curry’s car.

        2. The films like Daniels, Bells, Hughes, etc, all show the Limo moving over toward the right land and passing curry shortly after going under the triple overpass. Clearly the MC’s are left in the dust for a bit.

        S. Ellis Story: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ellis.html

        But, despite all of this stuff, the real issue should not be lost here: Chaney on the Zapruder film and, as shown on the Daniels Film and Bell/Hughes Films, nowhere near Curry’s Car (until long after JFK’s car passed it by).

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Are you talking about Chaney or Cheney here?

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Hello Bill

          But we already do have evidence of when a police officer (Chaney) rode up to Curry.

          Mr. SORRELS – I felt it was, because it was too sharp for a backfire of an automobile. And, to me, it appeared a little bit too loud for a firecracker.
          I just said, “What’s that?” And turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.
          At that time, I did not look back up to the building, because it was way back in the back.
          Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, “Let’s get out of here” and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lunch forward.
          And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, “Anybody hurt?”
          He said, “Yes.”
          He said, “Lead us to the hospital.”

          Mr. LAWSON. “The pilot car was up ahead of us, so appeared other things I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the President had been hit. When the Presidential car leaped ahead, although there was quite a distance, not quite a distance but there was some distance between the two cars, they came up on us quite fast before we were actually able to get in motion. They seemed to have a more rapid acceleration than we did”.

          And then we have Curry’s WC testimony that it was Chaney approaching the car and saying the President was shot as quoted previously.

          I don’t see any room for movement in their testimony as to when the police officer rode up. It’s pretty clear it was during the shooting itself.

          No police officer is viewed during the zfilm or Nix (or any film) riding up to the lead car during the shooting and they should be able to be seen because we can see both cars at the relevant time.

          If the lead car occupants were wrong in their perceptions about when they were approached by a police officer why wasn’t any inconsistency raised by the WC questioners at the time?

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        Hello Bill

        Okay 1. Agree and point 2. Agree

        3. But we’re not talking about what Chaney did after the assassination. We’re talking about what he did during the assassination which is ride up and talk to Curry in the lead car and tell him the President had been shot. As confirmed by Curry, Sorrels et al. This does not appear on Zapruder or Nix or any other film. Where has Chaney gone?

        Which brings us back to point 4. How do you account for Curry’s, Sorrels, Lawson’s etc WC testimony on this incident?

        • Bill Callahan says:

          Hello Vanessa. Actually, I found this page and it sheds a TON of light on just what the actions were of the MC Officers and the occupants of the Curry’s car head/saw/responded to.

          It appears that ALL of the discussion took place through the window of the Chief’s Car as it neared the ramp for Stemmons. This makes pretty good sense for a logistics standpoint too. They compressed the time..that’s all. This makes sense because of later testimony by McLain that, as he rode through Dealey he heard a speaker mention getting to the hospital. From his position in the motorcade…this would put the Limo near the Freeway..and he and his partner directly in front of the steps near where Kennedy was fatally hit.

          Here is the page :http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15281

          In light of Curry’s reporting it differently now it completely confirms what we see on numerous films (Zap, Bell, Daniels, etc) that the MC Officers were NOWHERE NEAR JFK’s Limo as it pullout out from under the Overpass after the assassination.

          It just stands to reason that, since the MC officers could be seen slowing down at the moment of the head shot (and never really accelerating after it as JFK’s Limo then accelerated), with only two visible on the Daniels Film (and the one on the left (our left) being CHANEY) as confirmed by the McIntyre Photo (which weren’t even known about until the 80’s I believe) prove the point.

          Curry was also wrong about leading the car to the Hospital. I’ll tell you why. According to S. Ellis, he was in the lead and entered the lot at Parkland First…followed by the Limo 2nd…and THEN Curry stopped and told him to seal off the lot to only MOTORCADE vehicles.

          Anyway…all in all…it puts to rest the confusion about Chaney…Zapruder…gunshots…people conversing in the middle of elm street…but it does beg one other question:

          Why to the Dallas PO’s have so many different stories about the shooting. Lastly…how can a Motorcycle Cop….with EAR FLAPS…on a motorcycle hear anything (given the fact that they have speakers on their MC’s to help them communicate.

          I’d like to encourage you to check out Ellis You Tube interview tapes. There are 4 of them. I find it interesting that he mentions that Jack Ruby was supposed to pick up Ozzie after the shooting to get him out of there. Also….he doesn’t have a lot of love for M. Baker. He essentially blames Baker for Tippits shooting because ‘he made a mistake’ in not locking down the TSBD.

          Maybe this would explain Oswald’s rush toward Jack Ruby’s Apartment (not toward the Theater) after he escaped. Possibly pissed his ride left w/o him.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hello Bill

            The link you posted is about a conversation that Gary Mack says he had with Curry in 1979. I’m not sure it even counts as hearsay. Is that what you’re relying on to say that “Curry reports it differently now?” I don’t think that conclusion is supported by that comment of Mack’s. Did Mack film this ground-breaking comment by Curry?

            I’ll get to the rest of your points later. Must dash.

  26. Bill Callahan says:

    What I think is special about Stavis Ellis is his You Tube interviews. I’d recommend checking them out. There are 4 parts. I also appreciate how, at times, Bizarre his story appears to be. He says he road back to tell CURRY…that didn’t happen. He says he was in the lead to the Hospital…yet Curry and Sorrels say that the Limo never passed them (in the lead car). Interesting info in any case. Shows how perceptions can be wrong. (Even C. Hill is in error when he stated he was at the limo at the time of the headshot). Just not true. Interesting how Ellis states in the YT video that he feels Ruby and Ozzie were together.

    Peace.

  27. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa…I don’t think it struck the chord with the WC investigators because all of the conspiracy nonsense, allegations of film tampering, etc wasn’t even born yet. I look at it like the obvious…we can all agree that the car with Curry and the Chief was within a few yards of heading UNDER the UNDERPASS….then the shooting occurred…Cars slowed and then accelerated…Motorcycles slowed down a lot and didn’t follow the Limo out for an even MORE extended amount of time and simply didn’t catch up to the Curry/SS Agents (as shown by Daniels Film and the MyIntyre Photo.

    It’s just processing information…possibly not getting all of it. (similar to you missing Chaney in the regular version of the z movie…but there he is in the sprocket version).

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello Bill

      But the WC investigators had the evidence of inconsistencies staring them in the face at the time they were investigating! Curry’s, Sorrel’s, Lawson’s and Hargis’s testimony regarding Chaney did not match what they would have seen on the Zapruder film with their own eyes. Yet not once was this raised in the questioning of these officers. (Unless of course the WC was viewing the original film….).

      I guess I’m confused as to why you are taking the accounts of non-WC witnesses like Ellis over the 4 officers who did testify to the WC??

      BTW did you see Hargis said he heard the first shot and that Connally turned around and had a shocked and surprised expression on his face? Given Hargis was on the left side of the limousine next to Jackie, Connally’s turn must have been to face JFK or else Hargis would not have been able to see Connally’s expression. I noticed in Connally’s first interview after the assassination that not only did he say he turned and saw the President but that the President was bent over. He must have seen this to know that JFK did bend over. So I think that is more information to support the turn and sit of Connally occurring when the witnesses say it did after the first shot. Which means those frames on the Zapruder film are out of order.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Vanessa. I laughed at the comment about ‘hearsay’. Thanks for reminding me. It works two ways the last time I checked.

        I actually think that it did to a large degree. These are sensible men and they didn’t think that the difference between what was done, in regards to feet, was a big deal. Anyway….I stick with this fact: Whether Curry said his comment to Mack and is not the issue. We can ALL see with out eyes that the Zapruder Film, contrary to what anyone else has ever tried to conjure up, often contains information that ‘some’ people can miss. Even you in the Hargis discussion. Correct? And that’s what led to your own hearsay about him missing and the film being altered. Correct?

        Actually…I don’t need you to answer those…lol. Anway…I’m glad I was able to help you find the mysterious David Powers and his innocent film. On thing it did show btw…was how high up in the seat JFK was and how the back of his jacket and corresponding Shirt hole…would certainly give us the angle to Connally’s wounds.

        The ruler doesn’t lie…only the guy reading it. Peace.

        • Bill Callahan says:

          Lastly, I spent a great deal of time looking at the Chaney Parkland interview. He said that, at the first shot he and President Kennedy ‘looked over their left shoulder’ in direction of the shot. That does not happen at all either. In fact, I’d wonder how Hargis can hear anything with an earflap over his motorcycle helmet in the first place. But, regardless of that….it’s just another DPO putting actions and words into events that didn’t happen.

          http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Connally.txt

          I find it very interesting that Chaney also said he thought the first ‘shot’ was a motorcycle backfire…but then goes on to say the 2nd shot hit Kennedy on the side of the face and knocked him over. So he never very much apparently. He treated the first shot like a backfire (which was the 2nd shot) and then reacted to the last shot..which he called the 2nd shot).

          Interesting witnesses. Similar to Clint Hill I may add. He says he was almost at the handle on the rear of the car but the Nix Film and Muchmore film show him only at the wheel of the Queen Mary.

          Anyway…keep going.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Thanks Bill – that link is to Connally’s testimony btw not Hargis’s interview. I have to say the sound quality of the Hargis interview is not great but he does say that he and Kennedy turned to the left which we don’t see on the zfilm.

            And then Clint Hill’s testimony doesn’t match the films exactly either. So that’s 3 more examples you given of testimony not matching zfilm.

            Let’s turn this around the other way and count how many of the witnesses testimony does match what we see on the zfilm. So far I count only Kellerman. Happy to hear of anyone else.

            Except that doesn’t that strike you as strange?

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Morning Bill.

          Well I’ll make sure I mind my manners but I don’t think I’ve used any hearsay only WC quotes or direct quotes ie Connally.

          You mean the Chaney discussion? We haven’t had our Hargis discussion yet. Can I just clarify that I wasn’t maintaining that Chaney never appeared on any film at all that day but just not on the films when he said was talking to Curry after the 3rd shot.

          The way I see it is on the zfilm we see the limo up to the underpass and then on Daniels we see the limo coming out of the underpass. So we have a continuous view of the limo during that time and we don’t sight Chaney or any other police officer talking to Curry. As you say they are miles away. But we have WC testimony from 4 officers saying it happened right after the 3rd shot. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that this incident doesn’t appear on any film or photo? If it happened before the underpass it should have been on the zfilm and it if happened after the underpass it should have been on the Daniels film or even the MacIntyre photo.

          I appreciate your points about time compressing and different perspectives though. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one too.

          On your comments re-Connally’s first interview – it seems to be clear to me that he’s saying he turned and saw the President. But given his language isn’t absolutely exact let’s count that as unclear.

          However, Hargis’s testimony is pretty crystal clear. I don’t see how he could have seen Connally’s expression unless Connally did turn around to face JFK as Hargis was on Jackie’s left and to the rear of the limo.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Hello Vanessa. 🙂 at the manners comment. Let’s clear up one thing at a time. Ok? I’d be happy to try to sort out the differences between Chaney and Hargis discussions in future discussions…but…before that:

            Let’s rule out Connally first: My viewpoint is that you can’t put words or deeds into what Connally ‘meant’ to say. This is exactly what you’re doing. Connally said that the President ‘had slumped’. He never said that he saw him but, in your note, you base an entire theory on your interpretation that Connally said he did. Later on, in his testimony, he admits that he never did see him. So, I don’t know how much more clear that can be.

            Actually Vanessa, forget that Connally then says he didn’t see Kennedy at all. Imagine if he never NEVER saw Kennedy in that back seat on Elm. I’d be scratching my head and wondering what he was looking at. To anyone watching the Zapruder Film you’d have to swear that Governor Connally, after frame 240 (when he stops his reaction to being shot and begins his 2nd attempted turn to the right) would have had to have seen Kenndy. But he didn’t. Yet..when we look at it, as you said from your initial note…he looked directly at him. The issue is he doesn’t RECALL seeing him.

            My MAIN point is that YOU said he did in your INTERPRETATION. And, in that interpretation, it APPEARS that you’re making slight changes/extrapolations about what did happen because you’re citing a statement from Connally after the fact, and disallowing all information to the contrary that would refute your belief the film was altered.

            As for Hargis….he did see Connally turn…the film shows that did have all the time in the world to see Connally after the Governor made his 2nd attempt to turn around and see behind him by looking over his right shoulder. Connally’s attempted turn lasted until frame 290 or so. It’s my view that they’re simply wrong on the timing..and conspiracy theorists seize on every word to find a reason for ‘something’.

            Btw…please don’t feel as if I’m insulting you. It’s constructive and I’ve learned so much from these exchanges. 🙂

            Tell you what: Sit at your keyboard with your hands on the spacebar and then try to turn and see something directly behind you…as the 6th floor window was. Before you read further go ahead and do it. Then continue reading.

            I think you’ll notice the following:

            1. You’ll place more weight onto your left hip.
            2. You’ll have to really turn a heck of a lot to see your target (behind you).
            3. Notice what your right wrist does..I’ll be willing to bet it moves up and closer to your right breast area..if not backhanding a spot very close to where Connally’s exit wound was.

            Incidentally, from this blow up version of the Zfilm…you can see that Hargis doesn’t look over to Connally until after he was by the second shot or almost simultaneous with it. Altgen’s photo shows this too…just a bit later.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Afternoon Bill

            Can I just say at the outset that I’d prefer we didn’t refer to anyone’s breast’s yours or mine as part of this discussion.

            Okay, very happy to work through Connally again. My problem with Connally’s WC testimony, as I’ve mentioned before, is that on the zfilm he turns and sits at z255 – z290 and is clearly looking at the President. That does not match his testimony or Nellie’s about what happened after he was shot. They both say he crumpled into Nellie’s arms.

            I would argue that a plain English reading of Connally’s first interview statement would strongly imply that he turned and saw the President slumped. If I said to you “I turned. Fred was slumped over”. If Fred was sitting in front of me (or next to me) you could say I was describing 2 separate events. But if Fred was sitting behind me wouldn’t you conclude that I turned and saw Fred slumped over or else how would I know it?

            My point about Connally is not what he said or didn’t say at a particular moment but that his WC testimony doesn’t match what we see on the zfilm.

            Okay Bill, our point of difference at this stage is that even though we both can see Connally turn and sit and look at the President at z255 – z290 you conclude he doesn’t remember doing that. And I conclude that (in combination with Chaney’s testimony, John Costella’s work and events on the zfilm starting at about z290 (which we haven’t got to yet) that some of the relevant frames on the zfilm are out of order and some are missing altogether.

            If it makes it easier, how about we say that evidence that the frames are out of order or missing does not necessarily lead to a vast gov’t wide conspiracy. Let’s just suppose that some klutz at the WC just dropped the film all over the floor, it broke into single frames and in putting it back together the same klutz got it all out of order and accidentally dropped some stuff in the bin.

            No conspiracy – just a klutz in the photo lab. Does that work for you?

            Now let’s get to the elephant in the room with Connally’s testimony. What prevented him turning and seeing the President at z162 (or any other frame) which wasn’t also a factor at z255 – z290? Connally’s difficult seating position was present at z162 when he couldn’t turn and see the President as much as it was present at z255 – z290 (after he’d been shot).

            Connally turns his head at z162 and then appears to just stare at the crowd until z224 when he is shot. So if he did hear a shot at z162 and turned to see it’s source we’d have to conclude that he thought it was coming from the front of the limo and not from behind. Because that is where he looks, in front and not behind.

            I’ll respond to your Chaney and Hargis comments in a separate post – it’ll be easier to keep track of our different points.

  28. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa: Regarding the film on the current home page:

    It was shot by Dave Powers, JFK’s aide. He began filming the motorcade and ran out of film. He then took still photos. He stopped filming about 12:17 or so. He felt the film was not useful to the assassination investigation at the time and, believe it or not, he actually lost track of it. It was his practice to make a movie of each Kennedy Motorcade. The film was discovered in with his personal papers.

    Here is a link:
    http://www.jfklancer.com/Powers.html

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Thanks very much for that Bill – that is very interesting info about Dave Powers filming every motorcade. I’ve got to wonder where are the rest of these films and what happened to them.

      I would have thought that this film and all the others Powers took would have been of vital interest to the WC as they would have showed when SSA’s rode on the bumper of the limo. And whether in fact they did stop riding on it after JFK’s supposed ‘Ivy League charlatans comments. This film is not even in the index of the WC.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Vanessa…Connally said no such thing. He said he ‘turned to his left to look in the backseat. The President had slumped’. I realize that you want to buttress you theory that the film was altered but this statement does not come close to doing that. All it does is continue to propagate inferences vs. facts. This does not mean he ‘saw’ Kennedy at all. You must have noticed that Connally mentions he turned to his left. Connally says he turned to he ‘LEFT’.

        That is not the way it went at all. The point: Connally not only says he turned the wrong way…but later on…in his Warren Commission Testimony he contradicts himself and says he turned to his right ‘immediately’ AND, more importantly, he say’s he never saw the President at all. http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Connally.txt

        • Bill Callahan says:

          1. Hargis hearing the first shot…and ‘seeing Connally’s face’. Is it that your view Hargis couldn’t see Connally’s face because Connally turned to the right and Hargis was on the left? Here is a blow-up version of Zapruder, with frames numbered. Give it a look over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0tZFkVhN00

          Hargis ‘could’ have seen Connally’s face at any time after frame 180 it appears. I think you will appreciate the blow up version and it may help you revise your theory. In the film Governor Connally began his turn, beginning with frame 163.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            For the rest of the Film Connally NEVER makes any motion to turn to his left. He was busy the entire time trying to look at Kennedy (and the shooter) by looking over his right shoulder. In fact, if you were sitting in the Limo, on those little jump seats with your legs up like his were…all bunched up for a tall guy, you would do just what he did. He looked right over his right shoulder (toward the sound of the high-powered rifle)…and, when he didn’t see Kennedy because he was seated far ‘in-board’ of the President, he began to lean toward his left and rotate his body to look even further to the right behind him…all the way until he was shot. It’s as simple as that. Obviously, after he was shot Connally use all of his strength to continue his turn to finally face the President (but, Connally says he never saw JFK…but the film makes it look like he did).

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hello Bill

            This video does show Connally turning and looking at JFK earlier on in the motorcade and he’s turning to his right. Doesn’t seem to be anything impeding him from doing that. So why couldn’t he at z162?

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

            If the link doesn’t work it’s “Never before Seen Footage of JFK assassination” on youtube.

            PS I’m glad to hear you’ve learned a lot from this discussion. I’m learning lots too……just to humour me…could you please name just one thing you’ve learned? 🙂

  29. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa:All someone has to do is understand that the Governor was not sitting directly in front of JFK. He was sitting lower, bunched up himself, and in order to see what was ‘behind him’, he had to turn…and lean. Just what the film shows him doing. As a matter of fact, if you look at the DAVID POWERS movie, made of the Dallas Trip, you can see just how far over to the left of the President Connally was. Connally can be see almost sitting directly in front of JFK’s left leg. Tell you what: Sit at your keyboard with your hands on the spacebar and then try to turn and see something directly behind you…as the 6th floor window was. I think you’ll notice the following:

    1. You’ll place more weight onto your left hip.
    2. You’ll have to really turn a heck of a lot to see your target (behind you).
    3. Notice what your right wrist does..I’ll be willing to bet it moves up and closer to your right breast area..if not backhanding a spot very close to where Connally’s exit wound was.

    • Bill Callahan says:

      Incidentally, from this blow up version of the Zfilm…you can see that Hargis doesn’t look over to Connally until after he was by the second shot or almost simultaneous with it. Altgen’s photo shows this too…just a bit later.

      My view is simply that, on the Zapruder Film and in conjunction with the Croft Photo, you can clearly see that Connally was turned to his left (toward Nellie) when he said he hear the first shot and turned to look over his RIGHT shoulder because he (knew it was ‘an assassination attempt’, and he knew it was a high-powered rifle”.

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        I agree with you that at z162 Connally was turned to his left toward Nellie. Then he turns to his right but I don’t see any attempt to look over his right shoulder. I just see Connally looking at the crowd on his right rather than attempting to turn. Which would indicate to me that (if he did hear a shot at this point) then he thought the shot came from the right of the limo and not from behind the limo. And what’s to the right of the limo at this point…the grassy knoll.

        I see a clear turn and sit by Connally at z255 – 290 and then another turn to the front and sit up at around z320. (We haven’t discussed this turn yet. But I think it’s one of the most interesting of the 2 turns that are missing from his testimony).

        Hopefully we can get to that turn after our Connally, Chaney and Hargis discussions are complete. 🙂

        • Bill Callahan says:

          Hey Vanessa. I think I’d like to curtail any further discussion on this issue in light of your comment about the use of the word ‘breast’. IF you take note…I said ‘BREAST AREA’. FYI: I used that to describe where on the body the back of your hand would be if you were to try that experiment. However, like just about everything else you’ve managed to mess that up and turn it into, what I gather, is some inane sexual innuendo/comment. I’ll not that, even Connally himself used the word ‘nipple’ when he described his wound in later interviews. It’s anatomy Vanessa. Not an interpretations of English class.

          One question you asked that was very clear was the ability of Connally to turn and face Kennedy, as shown on video ‘before’ the assassination. It’s pretty clear to me that the answer to that is sitting right in front of you.

          Governor Connally himself said that he heard the sound of a shot, he assumed it to be a high-powered rifle, it occurred to him immediately it was an assassination attempt, and he mentioned he wanted to see where it came from in the crowds.

          The basic issue with your question is this: In the video link you sent me…Connally was interested in turning to and speaking to JFK. In the Assassination sequence he was looking to his right (which he claimed was his left btw) and, BY HIS OWN WORDS…never got that far as he was shot. Connally then is able to make a heck of an effort to look back before z313..but says he never saw JFK. Why? I’ll tell you. It’s because he either didn’t see JFK or…in his agony he just plain does not recall it.

          Anyway….I’ve come to the conclusion that you’ll just grab on a single detail and distort it to the nth degree. You’ve done that since your arrival with the Oswald in doorway message, the Chaney/Hargis view, the Connally mis-quotes, the Zapruder and Chaney missing comment..and the list goes on.

          Your last distortion is pretty simple. The difference between right and back. If you had done any research you would see that the further that car went down ELM the more the TSBD would go from being on the right…to almost directly behind as you maneuvered down the s-curve of that street.

          Every last thing you bring up is predicated on a misstatement, or a misinterpretation, or simply just not true at all.

          What did I learn you from our exchanges you ask? This: You can lead a horse to water…and you know the rest. Peace.

          • Photon says:

            Maybe you need to settle it with a haka.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Thanks Photon

            …or maybe even a corroboree…

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Good Morning Bill

            I wasn’t going to respond to this spectacular rant…..but here goes. Point by point.

            1. The only seating position relevant to this discussion is Connally’s, that day.

            2. Connally is not prevented from turning around at z162 – z167 to see the President because he was shot. He never got that far because he makes no attempt to turn – he just sits there from z167 – z224 until he is shot at z224. That is a lot of frames just sitting and staring when he could have looked behind him.

            3. I use WC quotes, direct quotes or the zfilm. I do not distort things.

            4. We are both trying to get 2 ‘facts’ of the JFK assassination, the zfilm and the WC testimony which don’t match to make sense. To do that we’re both using a lot of informed and supported speculation. That’s a perfectly legitimate debating technique.

            5. I referred to Sean Murphy’s ‘prayer man’ research not ‘doorman’ which is well argued by SM and stands by itself.

            6. As for Chaney, I maintain that the conversation he had with Curry (reported by 4 officers to the WC) does not appear in any film or photo when it should. If the conversation actually occurred on the Stemmons freeway ramp then no-one involved indicates that in their testimony. And Gary Mack’s reported conversation with Curry in 1979 saying that it did has no standing.

            7. Hargis is behind the limo and to the left of Jackie. I don’t see how he could have seen Connally’s facial expression unless Connally did turn around after the first shot as Hargis says. Otherwise all Hargis would see is the back of Connally’s head. If Connally doesn’t remember the turn that’s fine – we are just trying to establish what actually did happen.

            8. If I was out of line with the breast comment then my apologies. I’m a conservative, that’s all.

            9. Presumably we’re all here to discuss the assassination and possibly learn things. Otherwise we could all just shout our stated positions at each other and then go off doing something much more constructive like hakas or corroboree. I, personally have found it informative and entertaining.

            10. If I’ve missed any points let’s just assume I will dispute them.

            Lastly, I’m willing to bury the hatchet (just not in each other).

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Haka who? i know i can google it but for the benefit of all here what do you mean?

        • Photon says:

          Just a little joke for our friend from Down Under.

        • Vanessa Loney says:

          Apologies Ronnie. Photon is referring to a traditional New Zealand warrior dance which occurs (generally) before they attempt to slaughter each other.

          That’s because Photon thinks I might come from New Zealand.

  30. KenS says:

    One need look no further than a Wikipedia definition to understand the import of the Warren Report: propaganda aimed at the American people, and the world.

    “Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological and commercial warfare.”

    I think we have seen further examples of this warfare in posts on this forum.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Excellent comment, KenS.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Very good deep and thoughtful post. Just JMHO.

    • JSA says:

      I agree that the Warren Report was nothing short of political propaganda.

      I would add that when published fifty years ago, it served two purposes:

      1.) It washed away any suspicion or questions people may have had about Oswald, his CIA handlers, as well as serious questions about a seamy, corrupt relationship that had developed between powerful unelected military and intelligence bureaucracies whom I think were behind a domestic coup to remove a democratically elected threat to their power; and,

      2) It paved the way (by blaming the assassination on a lone nut) for the election of the chief political benefactor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who could (after November of 1964) work hand-in-glove with the powerful, unelected military and intelligence bureaucracies to escalate the war in Vietnam, overthrow the regime in the Dominican Republic, escalate the Cold War, and
      throw some left over tidbit scraps into his War on Poverty and Great Society (which would end up underfunded and on the scrapheap after Vietnam War spending bankrupted the nation).

      What a legacy!

      I can see why some are in denial about this, because like global warming denial*, it’s easier to bury your head in the sand than face ugly, inconvenient truths.

      (*see how to lie with statistics here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/06/arctic_sea_ice_melt_truth_and_inevitable_denial.html?wpisrc=obnetwork)

  31. anonymous says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that a tape of all Secret Service agents, operated by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA),that was used for decisions during the assassination were never made available to the WC, or any subsequent investigation – Peter Dale Scott:

    “Winston Lawson, the Secret Service advance man who from the lead car of the motorcade was in charge of the Secret Service radio channels operating in the motorcade; and Jack Crichton, the army intelligence reserve officer who with Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin selected the Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald’s first (and falsified) FBI interview.

    Lawson has drawn the critical attention of JFK researchers, both for dubious actions he took before and during the assassination, and also for false statements he made after it (some of them under oath). For example, Lawson reported after the assassination that motorcycles were deployed on “the right and left flanks of the President’s car” (17 WH 605). On the morning of November 22, however, the orders had been changed (3 WH 244), so that the motorcycles rode instead, as Lawson himself testified to the Warren Commission, “just back of the President’s car” (4 WH 338; cf. 21 WH 768-70). Captain Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified that that the proposed side escorts were redeployed to the rear on Lawson’s own instructions (7 WH 580-81; cf. 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571). This would appear to have left the President more vulnerable to a possible crossfire.

    Early on November 22, at Love Field, Lawson installed, in what would become the lead car, the base radio whose frequencies were used by all Secret Service agents on the motorcade. This radio channel, operated by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), was used for some key decisions before and after the assassination, yet its records, unlike those of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) Channels One and Two, were never made available to the Warren Commission, or any subsequent investigation. The tape was not withheld because it was irrelevant; on the contrary, it contained very significant information.

    06The WHCA actually reports to this day on its website that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.” However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, or why it was not made available to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). It should have been.

    For one thing, the WHCA tape, as Vincent Palamara has written, contains the “key” to the unresolved mystery of who, after the shooting, redirected the motorcade to Parkland hospital. The significance of this apparently straightforward command, about which there was much conflicting testimony, is heightened when we read repeated orders on the Dallas Police radio transcript to “cut all traffic for the ambulance going to Parkland code 3” (17 WH 395) – the ambulance in question having nothing to do with the president (whose shooting had not yet been announced on the DPD radio). In fact the ambulance had been dispatched about ten minutes before the assassination to pick someone from in front of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), who was wrongly suspected of having suffered an epileptic seizure.

    Lawson later reported to the Secret Service that he heard on his radio “that we should proceed to the nearest hospital.” He wrote also that he “requested Chief Curry to have the hospital contacted,” and then that “Our Lead Car assisted the motorcycles in escorting the President’s vehicle to Parkland Hospital” (17 WH 632), cf. 21 WH 580). In other words, after hearing something on the WHCA radio, Lawson helped ensure that the President’s limousine would follow the route already set up by the motorcycles for the epileptic. (In his very detailed Warren Commission testimony, Lawson said nothing about the route having already been cleared. On the contrary he testified that “we had to do some stopping of cars and holding our hands out the windows and blowing the sirens and horns to get through” (4 WH 354).

    – See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/10/05/the-hidden-government-group-linking-jfk-watergate-iran-contra-and-911/#sthash.yKJ33BiN.dpuf

    • Ronny Wayne says:

      Excellent article by Dr. Scott, I just finished Deep politics a few weeks ago. Thanks for the link.
      BTW, didn’t the guy who had the seizure in front of the TSBD end up walking away from Parkland without ever having his name recorded? I.E. the “seizure” may have been a distraction while others were getting into place for the assassination.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        No. Another bit on nonsense. The guy who had the seizure was a Dallas Morning News employee, named Jerry Belknap. He was picked up by an ambulance and bought to Parkland Hospital. He was being treated for his seizure when Kennedy was brought in. He was NOT A DISTRACTION and he did have his name recorded.

        He was simply a guy who had gotten ill, from a well-document lifetime of having seizures for crying out loud.

        Of all the Oliver Stone crazy conspiracy nonsense…

  32. Ronnie Wayne says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission Report is they never called for questioning and testimony, asked for an affidavit or statement or even interviewed Secret Service Agent Emory Roberts or SSA John Ready. Roberts rode shotgun in the followup car and was in charge of it. Other agents in it were responsible for scanning the crowd His responsibility was watching JFK and telling agents what to do in a given situation. He admitted hearing the first shot and recognizing it as a rifle shot. He did nothing at this point.
    Agent Ready rode on the right front running board by Roberts. He started to react. Roberts called him back.
    Both stated in their reports they were 20-25 feet back going 20-25 mph. They were 5′ behind going 11 mph.
    Then again, Ready reported “…no spectators on the rightgh side of the road (Elm Street)”
    From Survivors Guilt, pgs 231-239.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      As a follow up or addendum to my post you should also know “Once at Parkland Hospital…Roberts brushed past O’Donnell… ‘Get up’ he said to Jacqueline Kennedy. There was no reply. She was crooning faintly. From his side Roberts could see the Presidents face, so he lifted her elbow for a closer look. He dropped it. To Kellerman, his superior, he said tersely ‘you stay with Kennedy. I’m going to Johnson.”

  33. Bill Callahan says:

    Back to what the issue was concerning the FIRST SHOT MISSING. Glen Bennett was riding behind the president. He testified that he heard a shot (1st) and, as he began to turn to look over his shoulder toward the rear he then heard another (2nd) shot and saw it strike Kennedy in the back. His testimony was the most valuable because it was validated by Bennett himself in the best way possible.

    You see…Bennett did something that the other agents should have done. HE WROTE DOWN HIS OBSERVATION on the ride back to Washington and BEFORE THE AUTOPSY DR’S had any notion/idea of a bullet hole in JFK’s back.

    3 shots…book depository…Oswald/shooter…films are correct…it’s the memories that are failing. Peace.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      The true issue of this thread is that the Warren Commission Report was full of shit as a Christmas turkey. In spite of digression and attempted hijacking it has managed to prove insightful in several posts. Thanks to those posters.

    • Pat Speer says:

      You’re repeating a factoid from the Warren Report, Bill. Go to the original source. We don’t know what Bennett saw or was trying to communicate, in part because he was NEVER asked to testify.

      (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) “We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President’s auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss’s car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss’s head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left–high left–but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy.” (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.”

      Discussion: In Bennett’s original notes he does not say that he saw the second shot hit the president, or that he heard a shot when he looked at the President and noticed his back wound. He says he saw “a shot that hit the boss”. He then writes that “A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss’s head”. This suggests the possibility that when Bennett looked at the President he saw “that a shot had hit the boss” and that he then saw a second shot hit Kennedy in the head. This would mean that he’d heard but two shots, which puts his words in line with fellow Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis. Should one doubt that Bennett would change his impressions overnight, and go from hearing two shots to the by-then politically-correct three shots, or that someone else would write his 11-23 report and correct his impression, one should consider that in his original notes, Bennett asserted that he’d yelled to Hickey to get the AR-15 rifle, and that only a day later he reported that he tried to get the rifle himself, but Hickey beat him to it. The notes written before Bennett knew the official story also reflect that he turned to his left upon hearing the shots, while the typed up report the next day leaves this out, and says instead that he looked at “particularly the right side of the area.” These changes then reflect either Bennett’s confusion or his desire to bring his story in alignment with what he’d been told. Maybe someone typed-up Bennett’s 11-23 report based on his notes, and made a few changes. No matter what, we just can’t be sure what he saw.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Hello Pat. Actually, No, I’m not repeating WC factoids. I’m reading a copy of the handwritten notes, by Agent Bennett, on the plane. Not the WC abridged version. Here is a link. Ok? ‘ http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

        Pat, I don’t understand the comment you made about Bennett’s original notes ‘not stating that he saw a shot hit the president or that he heard a shot when he looked at the President that you alluded to in the DISCUSSION. I beg to differ.

        Yes, Bennett’s original report does CLEARLY state that he heard a noise that he thought was a firecracker. He didn’t classify the first noise as a shot. But it was. (First Shot).

        Then he states that he turned his attention to the President/Boss. Then he states at this exact time he heard a ‘shot’ hit the President about 4 inches down (Second Shot). It’s pretty clear to me that Bennett was referring to a ‘shot’ he could clearly identify as being just that. A shot.

        Then Bennett says he heard a second shot hit the right side of JFK’s head. (Third Shot).

        I was simply referring to Bennett’s doing what the other Agents didn’t do ( I guess)…that is to write down the facts as he real led them as quickly after the event as he could.

        Anyway….I provided the link to Bennett’s notes…opinion welcomed. ;).

  34. Bill Callahan says:

    Vanessa.

    1. Incorrect.

    2. You must have a serious issue with your vision. In your point number 2 from above. You say Connally made NO attempts to turn and he just sat there until frame 224???? Absurd and not worthy of mention.

    3. Incorrect. You’ve consistently done this. I feel like I’m watching ‘Ancient Aliens’ when you start down path and zoooooom..here they come.

    4. The WC and the Z film do match. It’s CT’s versions that don’t belong. The films show what they show..and in the case of the nonsense some cite, such as the disappearing Hargis story you vetted…you are in error.

    5. To crazy to comment on.

    6. So, Film, Photos, and EVERYTHING else is ‘fixed’. No further comment deeded.

    7. Hargis: See photo by Croft. Can see Connally’s face at first shot from left rear/Jackie side.

    8. Accepted

    9/10. Of course.

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Hello there Bill

      Thanks for your response. I would really like to continue our discussion on the zfilm as I’m finding it very interesting and useful. Why don’t we agree on some rules of engagement to make things a lot more pleasant and stop us getting off track?

      Why don’t we agree to:
      – no name calling
      – no personal comments
      – no calling each other ‘crazy’
      – no general tone of contempt
      – no swearing or abuse
      – no use of capitals – I understand exactly where your emphases are and I’m not deaf.

      That’s my 6 point peace plan. I haven’t disparaged you at all and I expect the same in return. How about it?

      BTW I have excellent eyesight and was once told by an ophthalmologist that it was good enough for the airforce 🙂

      • Bill Callahan says:

        No thanks Vanessa. We’ll do as I said about 10 postings ago. Agree to disagree I think I put it. You live in your world and I’ll live in mine. We’ve not been at war…just mobilizing. lol. Best Wishes.

      • As per Vanessa’s “6 point peace plan,” I would like to say that, having personally “debated” these very issues about the Zapruder film on another thread here; that Vanessa seems to take umbrage to countering her subjective observations with technical facts.
        While admitting that she is incapable of comprehending the technical facts, she nevertheless argues against them with what seems to me as little more than gastromancy*.

        [*Gastromancy, “gut feelings”, or intuitions based on the flavors and aromas of the intestines.]
        \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Willy

          No, I don’t take umbrage to reasoned debate. I did take exception to your comment about invisibility because it did not demonstrate a commitment to genuine debate.

          As I’ve said before my views on the zfilm are based on John Costella’s research on the film and also the disparity between the witness testimony and what we see on the film (ie the Curry/Chaney conversation, Connally sitting up after being shot and the limo stop to name a few issues).

          If I may say so both Bill and Jean have demonstrated a genuine commitment to debating these issues by examining them and coming up with counter-arguments. True, Bill and I have had our differences however I’m very happy to continue discussing this issue with him, as I’ve offered before. It’s also Bill’s right not to continue that discussion.

          If I may say so your counter-argument consists solely of “I am an expert and I say that the film cannot be altered. Therefore, everything on it actually happened even if it contradicts all the eyewitness reports and defies the laws of physics”.

          If the technical explanation is valid then it ought to be able to explain the anomalies that we see on the film. But it doesn’t.

          • “As I’ve said before my views on the zfilm are based on John Costella’s research on the film..”~Vanessa

            Here are some of the issues pertaining to Costella’s so-called expertise on photography:

            http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/costella.html

            http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html

            http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/lamson-costella-1.html

            You have been offered these before.
            \\][//

          • “If I may say so your counter-argument consists solely of “I am an expert and I say that the film cannot be altered. Therefore, everything on it actually happened even if it contradicts all the eyewitness reports and defies the laws of physics”~Vanessa

            You may say so if you wish. But I haven’t contradicted any laws of physics. I haven’t contradicted ALL the eyewitness reports. Their are many, taken as a whole that contradict themselves. Unlike physics, human perceptions aren’t empirical, they are subject to perspective, errors in memory, and psychological manipulation through time and outside influences.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hi Willy

            Yes, I have been offered those before and have examined them and I’ll repeat what I said last time. None of these links addresses the issue I raised which is Officer Chaney and the Curry/Chaney conversation and the disappearance of this conversation and Officer Chaney from the zfilm. I haven’t mentioned Greer’s head snaps, the signpost or the light pole at al.

            The difference between the signpost and head snap etc issues and the Curry/Chaney issue is that they all actually appear in the zfilm and we can see them. I’m quite prepared to accept that these issues could be issues of perspective or timing. No problems with that at all.

            But Chaney does not appear in the zfilm at all. So it cannot be an issue of perspective or timing. He’s either in the film or he isn’t. And the Curry/Chaney conversation cannot be an issue of perspective. It either happened or it didn’t.

          • “But Chaney does not appear in the zfilm at all.” ~Vanessa

            Of course Chaney appears in the Z-film, he just doesn’t appear where you expect him to be during and after the head shot to Kennedy.

            I tend to agree with Jean now, that Chaney lingered back with the other motorcyclists near the grassy knoll, and followed later after the limo had gone through the underpass.

            I don’t wish to insult you Vanessa, but I find your almost fanatic focus on this one particular – and frankly minor point – to be misplaced and trivial.

            Personally I have no more interest in this point of discussion.
            \\][//

          • “None of these links addresses the issue I raised which is Officer Chaney and the Curry/Chaney conversation and the disappearance of this conversation and Officer Chaney from the zfilm.” ~Vanessa

            Look Vanessa, YOU are the one who said you look to Costella for your take on the Z-film. I gave you those links to show that Costella doesn’t know what he is talking about.
            Costella is a charlatan. It’s as simple as that.
            Like I said moments ago, this issue of Chaney is trivial and I am no longer interested in your views on it.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Willy

            That’s fine. Let’s not continue.

            Yes, I am detail oriented. My job requires it – I draft multi-million dollar foreign aid contracts for a living. If you don’t get the details right then your $40 million ends up in Papua New Guinea instead of Timor-Leste.

            Similarly with the JFK assassination – looked at from a distance, a la Photon, it all sounds believable. Looked at up close, it falls apart.

            The devil is in the detail, Willy.

        • The sprocket of the camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

          Does everyone grasp this? In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

          Furthermore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would therefore not realize that they had to then somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice. This makes the entire process much more complex than what Horne is attempting to present here.
          \\][//

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that the conclusions drawn from the SBT are in contradiction of the medical evidence presented by Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s back surgeon.

    Shaw described a bullet entering the back, outside of the right shoulder blade and contacted the 5th rib at the mid-axillary line, following the outside of that rib and exiting just to the left of the right nipple. Translated, the bullet entered at the side of the chest and followed a right to left angling course toward the middle of the chest, without penetrating the chest cavity.

    Seen from behind, the 5th rib is almost completely obscured by the shoulder blade. There is a chance, with Connally facing forward, the bullet might contact the 5th rib but it could not follow a course to the left unless A) Connally was turned well to his right or B) the bullet that hit Connally in the back was travelling a course well to the right of JFK.

    As Connally is not seen turning to the right until at least frame z237, and JFK is already seen reacting to his wound(s) at z226, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is these men were not hit by the same bullet.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Thanks Bob. I never knew the bullet did not enter his chest cavity. You know a lot more about the ballistics than I. What I don’t understand is how the bullet broke the rib coming out if it never entered the chest cavity. Otherwise it makes sense.
      I can put my left index finger on my right nipple, push down and start pushing it back and up to my right rear through my arm pit and end up pushing the muscle under the shoulder blade against it.
      If this shot came from further to the right which you offer as a possibility, do you think it could have come from the east end of the 6th floor as some have thought there was a shooter there?

    • Vanessa Loney says:

      Thanks for that explanation Bob

      Ah, I see you’re coming to it from the opposite side ie trying to fit the zfilm to the testimony. I assume that means you don’t believe the zfilm has been altered at all?

      Can I ask what you make of what is happening to Connally at frames z224 and after?

      Thanks for your views.

    • Photon says:

      If it didn’t penetrate the chest cavity, how could he have a “sucking chest wound”?
      What was the point of putting in a chest tube?
      “Translated”? Bob, if you don’t understand the absurdity of that statement how can the rest of your conclusions have any merit?

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        And this is exactly why I don’t venture into the medical evidence – “that way madness lies”.

        However, if I may be permitted to speculate on your field of expertise Photon. Based on your comments on these recent threads I’m thinking either a psychiatrist or a psychologist (with a lot of medical knowledge).

        Either that or you’re very good at coming up with obscure medical terms such as ‘phrenic nerve dysfunction’. 🙂

        • Photon says:

          Just call me Jack Crabbe.
          You don’t have to be a medical professional to recognize nonsense.
          The claim that a shot never penetrated Connolly’s chest cavity is patently absurd.

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            🙂 …..so a military doctor with a sideline in psychoanalysis then?

            Perhaps, but I choose to leave the medical evidence to the experts (self-appointed or otherwise).

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Photon

            Please be patient. I am a bit busy at the moment but I will soon show for all these good people your complete lack of understanding of Gov. Connally’s wounds.

            In the meantime, I would suggest you read the WC testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw, both 1 & 2.

            Have a nice day!

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Interesting. The person who demands everyone be a twenty year expert prior to commenting, now claims you don’t have to be an expert. Obviously, you are far from being a medical expert, Photon.

          • Photon, what if that shot was a second shot on Connally? Maybe HE was hit more than once, as well as was JFK.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Photon, I’m betting you know how to temporary fix a sucking chest wound in the field. Would this be correct?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Anyone with a basic knowledge of 1st Aid knows how to treat an open pneumothorax.

            The trick is to prevent the treatment from developing the condition into a tension pneumothorax, without the insertion of a chest tube.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Bob Prudhomme October 21, 2014 at :48

            Chest tube? We didn’t have a chest tube. We used the cellophane from a pack of cigarettes.

            Smeared the readily available blood around the wound to make a seal with the cellophane. Worked lik a charm.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        October 13, 2014 at 6:40 am

        “If it didn’t penetrate the chest cavity, how could he have a “sucking chest wound”?
        What was the point of putting in a chest tube?
        “Translated”? Bob, if you don’t understand the absurdity of that statement how can the rest of your conclusions have any merit?”

        As I stated earlier, if one has not read the WC testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw, 1 & 2, one is not qualified to speak on Connally’s wounds.

        Connally did indeed have an open pneumothorax, or “sucking” chest wound, but it was not the result of a bullet passing through the right pleural cavity, as Dale Myers likes to portray in his cartoon. Unfortunately for Mr. Myers, it is impossible for him to make the SBT work in his cartoon without showing us a bullet going through the right pleural cavity. That is not what happened, though.

        Shaw describes an entrance wound in the fold made by Connally’s right armpit. This was a tangential wound that cane very close to missing Connally’s back altogether, and striking his right arm instead. The bullet passed through the latissimus dorsi muscle and struck the 5th rib a glancing blow at the mid axillary line, or side of the chest.

        As the bullet was following a right to left trajectory, it followed the 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches) before leaving the rib, travelling through the flesh of the anterior chest and exiting just below and to the left of Connally’s right nipple.

        It may seem impossible for a bullet, travelling in a straight line, to follow a rib curving away from its trajectory to the left. Shaw observed that the 5th rib appeared to be depressed inward, in comparison to the 4th and 6th rib, above and below it. As the rib is quite spongy at this point, it is likely the pressure of the passing bullet “bowed” the rib inward, straightening it and momentarily allowing a bullet to pass straight through. Further evidence of this is noted by Shaw, as the 5th rib also suffered a fracture just out from where it attached to the spine, and Shaw believed this fracture to be a result of the bullet striking the other end of the rib.

        When Shaw was asked if this type of tangential strike could have deflected the bullet from the trajectory it arrived on, Shaw was unable to answer with any certainty; meaning the bullet could have been on an even more oblique trajectory than most researchers have assumed; and been deflected to the right as it travelled along the 5th rib. This would mean, of course, that Connally would have had to have been turned even FURTHER to the right when struck.

        The bullet was NOT tumbling. This is evidenced by Shaw describing the wound as a narrow, burrowing wound, and by his observing that the muscles attached to the top and bottom of the 5th rib were surprisingly untouched.

        The open pneumothorax, or “sucking” chest wound, was caused mainly by shattered shards of the 5th rib acting as “secondary” missiles entering the right pleural cavity. While stripping out much of the 5th rib, the bullet still remained on the outside of this rib, and at no time entered the pleural cavity; contrary to what Photon and others will tell you.

        As the bullet travelled a right to left trajectory across the right front of Connally’s chest, this presents many problems for the SBT, as it leaves only a few frames of the Zapruder film in which Connally would have been turned far enough to his right to have been wounded, in this fashion, by a bullet transiting JFK’s neck in a right to left trajectory.

        • Photon says:

          Please document your claim that the bullet never entered the pleural space.Where is the quote from Dr Shaw that states this?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Photon

            October 27, 2014 at 2:28 pm

            “Please document your claim that the bullet never entered the pleural space.Where is the quote from Dr Shaw that states this?”

            “Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet.”

            Well now, Photon, let me see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

            The bullet struck the 5th rib a tangential blow at the mid axillary line or outside edge of the chest. Tangential is a four dollar word that means the bullet did not hit the rib nose on but, instead, hit the rib a glancing blow with the side of the bullet. As Dr. Shaw tells us, it followed the downward course of the 5th rib for 10 cm., depressing it somewhat into the pleural cavity and stripping parts of it out, before leaving the rib and exiting the anterior chest just medial to (to the left of) the right nipple.

            While the bullet likely came quite close to the pleural lining, Dr. Shaw tells us, in his testimony to the Warren Commission, what actually entered Connally’s pleural cavity and made the open pneumothorax. It was NOT the bullet.

            “Dr. Shaw – It was found that approximately 10 cm. of the fifth rib had been shattered and the rib fragments acting as secondary missiles had been the major contributing factor to the damage to the anterior chest wall and to the underlying lung.
            Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean, Doctor, by the words “fragments acting as secondary missiles”?
            Dr. SHAW. When bone is struck by a high velocity missile it fragments and acts much like bowling pins when they are struck by a bowling ball–they fly in all directions.”

            Dr. Shaw’s testimony, while being difficult to follow, tells us that while the bullet stripped out a part of the 5th rib in its 10 cm. of contact with it, the bullet could not have removed the rib entirely for this distance.

            “Dr. Shaw – Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth and the sixth ribs on either side.”

            If there were a portion of the 10 cm. of stripped out rib where the rib was entirely missing, and this is the only way the bullet could have entered the pleural cavity, would Dr. Shaw still have described it as “the rib” or would he have been describing two broken ends of the 5th rib protruding inwards toward the pleural cavity?

            Suffice it to say, Photon, Connally did not suffer a through and through wound of the thorax. If he had, would there not be a need for two occlusive dressings to seal the open pneumothorax, one at the entrance, and one at the exit? Shaw only mentions an occlusive dressing on the exit wound in his WC testimony.

          • Moderator says:

            Photon, could you provide JFK Facts with an email address that works? Our emails to you are bounced back to us. Thanks.

  36. What you need to know about the Warren Commission is that all of it’s members were hand picked by the only person on the planet who had the means, the motive and the opportunity to both greenlight the crime and cover it up afterwards. Whatsmore, the only evidence considered by the Commission was gathered, examined, censored and approved in advance by J. Edgar Hoover, the underling and long time crony of the main suspect in the crime. Finally, understand that the commission’s members well understood that their reputations, careers and very lives depended on them reaching one conclusion; That a lone nut had killed President Kennedy and that no one else – specifically the new President, the most powerful man in the free world, had a damn thing to do with it

  37. Bill Callahan says:

    Bob. I would suggest you consult the video of exactly where the occupants of the Limo were sitting as that car moved along as shot by Dave Powers. You can clearly see that JFK was sitting far to the right, and almost leaning kitty-corner, if you will, into the right side of that door. Especially in light of turning that corner onto elm from Houston. In fact, Kennedy and Connally, are actually doing what you suggested WOULD be the position have to be to get that hit. Please see the blink I’ve provided and stop the action at frame 192. You’ll see that Connally is actually turned so far to his right that his mid-line has physically passed the middle of Zapruders position. He has, physically turned further than you may think. Please focus on frame 192, the most clear. Your reference to Connally not turning until z237 is just not factual at all. Connally was doing just as he said he was. He turned to look and was shot while attempting to turn and look over the other shoulder.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

    Also, you mention that the 5th Rib would be excluded because of the how this rib is shielded by the Shoulder Blade. I read, with interest, your argument that Dr. Shaw was contradicting his own testimony etc. This is not true at all. Please consult this link.
    http://thesebonesofmine.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/skeletal-series-part-5-the-human-rib-cage/

    It does an excellent job of showing the right-anterior (frontal view) area in question. In fact, Connally was surgically ‘repaired’ by having lying on the O.R. Table on his side. This was necessary because he was shot, generally speaking, nearly under his arm.

    Also, if you consult the Zapruder film link provided above you will actually be able see the Governors entrance wound through the blood pool on his jacket is just as described by Dr. Shaw in layman’s terms, under the armpit. I think the best view of this is in frame number 354.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Bill Callahan

      You are correct, Gov. Connally was shot at the side of his chest, in the crease made by the fold of his armpit.

      However, you left out the best part.

      After entering the chest at this point, and travelling along the OUTSIDE of the 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), the bullet exited medial to (to the left of) and just below Gov. Connally’s right nipple.

      In other words, the bullet entered Connally’s armpit and travelled a path from right to left, exiting not far from the centre of his chest.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Something else all of the researchers looking at this case have never considered about the bullet that struck Connally in the back.

        The bullet, as I stated earlier, struck a tangential blow to Connally’s 5th rib at the side of his ribcage, followed the course of the rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), and depressed it inwards far enough to cause a fracture of the 5th rib close to where it attaches to the vertebra.

        While bullets are difficult to stop head on, it takes very little resistance on the side of the bullet to make it change its trajectory laterally by as much as 10-20°.

        Do you really think this “magic” bullet was able to have so much effect on Connally’s rib without being deflected from its starting trajectory? Are you absolutely sure the bullet came from the SE corner of the TSBD?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Bill

      I might add that the entrance wound on Connally’s back, as shown in the diagram accepted by the WC, places this entrance wound within a millimeter of lying directly over the outer edge of the shoulder blade. If Connally was rotated to his right at z223/4, this rotation would have placed the posterior end of the 5th rib squarely in line with the path of the bullet, and the bullet would have gone directly into Connally’s right lung.

      Admit it, you are defending a hoax.

      • Photon says:

        As a physician who has treated hundreds of ICU patients, placed chest tubes, managed vents,treated gunshot wounds, evaluated operative reports I find your claims ridiculous-as did the HSCA medical panel in Volume VII of their report.

        • Jonathan says:

          Will the real Photon please stand.

          Last year’s model averred he or she had medical knowledge but was not a physician.

          Either last year’s Photon became a physician or this year’s model is a different Photon.

          Which is it?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            It will never happen Jonathan. I’s mockingbird in action.

          • Paulf says:

            Maybe there are multiple posters sharing a sign-in, that would explain why one person could be on the site so many hours in the day. There’s something odd about the amount of time the naysayers spend nitpicking here.

        • Pat Speer says:

          What claim is ridiculous, Photon? While Prudhomme and I don’t always agree, it is an incontrovertible fact that Dr. Shaw claimed the bullet traveled along the outside of the rib, and that the HSCA’s Dr. Charles Petty–who interviewed him–came to agree with him.

          While the rest of the HSCA panel couldn’t see how this jived with the SBT, and as a consequence decided that Dr. Shaw must have been wrong, they offered no scientific reason to dispute Shaw’s observations, outside that they didn’t want to believe them.

          The fact remains, then, that the only doctor to examine Connally’s chest wound claimed the bullet did not go straight through his chest from entrance to exit, but traveled along the outside of the rib.

          If you’d blink, btw, you’d realize that this supports the SBT. If the bullet headed straight through the chest, as claimed by the rest of the HSCA panel, the bullet would have struck the ribcage twice, and not once, and would most probably have been far more damaged than it would have been striking the 5th rib at a tangent, and sliding along the outside, as suggested by Shaw and Petty.

          • Jonathan says:

            The Oswald-did-it crowd admires the HSCA medical panel, which is amusing.

            The FPP — which never examined the body, which assumed the SBT was true, which “moved” a rear skull bullet entry location, which displayed no scientific curiosity, which accepted without question the three extant skull x-rays — surely represents one of forensic pathology’s low points.

            Yet the Oswald-did-it crowd embraces the FPP’s work wholeheartedly. Even though — despite the fact — the Bethesda morgue witnesses overwhelmingly agreed with the Parkland Trauma Room 1 witnesses as to the location of JFK’s wounds. Which fact the ARRB discovered the HSCA had buried.

            If I were a physician, I surely would not associate my valuable reputation with the HSCA FPP.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Thank you, Pat. As usual, you have a way of putting things that is almost poetic, and a pleasure to read, although “Dr.” Photon may not agree with me on this.

            It would almost seem the nature of the wound, as described by Dr. Shaw, would work in favor of the SBT, but closer examination of the facts shows that the wound is incorrectly portrayed in the WCR, and if the bullet had struck Connally at the margin of the scapula, it wold have gone directly into his right lung, instead of following the course of the 5th rib and exiting to the left of Connally’s right nipple.

          • Photon says:

            The operative report clearly describes a missile path through the chest wall. If you do not have the background to interpret the operative report and what it says about the surgical treatment you cannot correctly evaluate the true nature of the wound nor the procedures done.
            It is a legal and historical document and must be the basis for the actual nature of Connolly’s wounds, not the description for laymen that Dr. Shaw gave to the Warren Commission .

          • Even though — despite the fact — the Bethesda morgue witnesses overwhelmingly agreed with the Parkland Trauma Room 1 witnesses as to the location of JFK’s wounds. Which fact the ARRB discovered the HSCA had buried.

            In fact, conspiracists misrepresent both the Parkland and the Bethesda testimony, in order to push the wound into occipital bone where they want it.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

            And there is no reason the FPP should have paid any attention to the witness testimony, since they had the photos and x-rays.

            The HSCA had forensic anthropologists, photo experts and other disciplines authenticate those.

            That was real science. Not conspiracy hobbyist stuff.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

          • Jonathan says:

            John McAdams:

            Pierre Finck stated the skull wound was in the occiput.

            James Humes told the ARRB the rear skull entry wound was to the occipital region.

            If you want to “move” this wound, go ahead. You’ll be in fine company, just the company of physicians who behaved other than as scientists.

          • Photon says:

            “Occiput” is a medical and anatomical term that means the back of the head. It is not synonymous with occipital bone.Being a lawyer does not give you license to misinterpret medical terminology, nor to ascribe more meaning to a generic medical term that is used daily as a general description.
            Your dependence of ER witnesses betrays a lack of understanding what goes on in the ER, particularly in a setting of a DOA patient during a 15 minute resuscitative effort. Nobody did a complete exam; they went through the motions on a pulseless body with agonal if any respirations, no BP and fixed pupils. Anybody but JFK would have been declared dead after the first MD evaluation. The tracheostomy incision betrays the stress that they were under, plus the fact that normal incision size didn’t really matter in this hopeless case.

          • If you want to “move” this wound, go ahead. You’ll be in fine company, just the company of physicians who behaved other than as scientists.

            Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged or tampered with?

            Unless you do, you should accept what they show.

            How significant it is that the hard physical evidence is always cited by LNs, and witness testimony (often heavily selected and spun) by CTs.

          • The FPP — which never examined the body,

            But the autopsists did. Do you accept their verdict: two shots from behind?

            which assumed the SBT was true,

            No, which found that the evidence supported the SBT. The wound in the back was an entrance wound (it had an abrasion collar). No bullet was found in the body. The bullet entered at T1.

            which “moved” a rear skull bullet entry location,

            Oh! You think the autopsists were right? Do you accept their other findings, like two shots from behind?

            which displayed no scientific curiosity, which accepted without question the three extant skull x-rays —

            No, the HSCA had top experts authenticate the autopsy x-rays.

            All you have is amateur hobbyists who question the authenticity of the autopsy materials.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon:

            You don’t strike me as a physician. You’re an advocate, meaning your view of the JFK medical record is biased. Physicians are supposed to be open-minded. In order to get to the truth as they have been trained to understand it.

            John McAdams:

            I think the autopsy physicians revealed the facts to a limited extent. Both in the autopsy materials and in their various testimonies under oath. In his Warren Commission testimony, James Humes revealed the blow-out to the back of the head. Humes moreover never agreed to the “high” entrance wound to the rear skull except in HSCA testimony, which he effectively disavowed.

            Go ahead, attack the facts.

          • In his Warren Commission testimony, James Humes revealed the blow-out to the back of the head.

            Really?

            Quote him.

            When he was guiding Rydberg to draw the damage, this was the result:

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

            And the autopsy said the shots came from behind.

            Humes moreover never agreed to the “high” entrance wound to the rear skull except in HSCA testimony, which he effectively disavowed.

            So you think he was right about that? Then why don’t you believe him when he said Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind?

            Or better, why don’t you believe what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.

          • Pat Spear,
            I have been reading your online book, ‘A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination’.
            I want to send you my kudos on the hard work you have put into this.
            We seem to have a remarkably similar trajectory in our research. I’ve already noticed that in my time here on JFKfacts.
            You are filling out quite a few things there that I am already familiar with.
            Good Job!
            \\][//

  38. Terry moore says:

    What you need to know about the Warren Commission is that what happened in Dallas 51 years ago still affects this country today. The Warren Commission failed to look for the truth. Lies and secrets are still being protected. I don’t believe this country would be the country it is today if the assassins of President Kennedy were revealed and held accountable. Until the day comes when the facts are revealed and accepted there will always be suspicion and lack of trust about how our government.

  39. Sandy K. says:

    “What you should know about the Warren Commission’s report is that…” no Commission member had a vested interest in pursuing the unvarnished truth of the murder. The Commission membership was devoid of any person who was remotely a JFK loyalist or avenger. In 1963 Washington politics JFK was not a beloved heroic icon – quite the contrary he was mistrusted by and alienated from the institutional halls of power. The Commission had two Republican congressmen, two Southern Democrat congressmen, Rockefeller pal McCloy, recently-sacked Dulles and Republican Warren. None of them was going to rock their political boats for the sake of a man who was just another politician to them.

  40. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    November 1, 2014 at 6:51 am
    “The operative report clearly describes a missile path through the chest wall. If you do not have the background to interpret the operative report and what it says about the surgical treatment you cannot correctly evaluate the true nature of the wound nor the procedures done.”

    “Dr.” Photon, by “operative report”, I would assume you are referring to Dr. Robert Shaw’s report of the operation he performed on Gov. Connally to repair the damage done to his chest by a bullet.

    Would you be so good as to quote the relevant portions of that report that led you to believe Connally suffered a through and through wound of the chest, and not a tangential wound that followed the outside of Connally’s 5th rib, as Shaw testified to the Warren Commission?

  41. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Bill Clarke
    October 27, 2014 at 11:47 am
    Bob Prudhomme October 21, 2014 at :48

    “Chest tube? We didn’t have a chest tube. We used the cellophane from a pack of cigarettes.

    Smeared the readily available blood around the wound to make a seal with the cellophane. WORKED lik a charm.”

    Bill

    Please take note that my posted stated treating an open pneumothorax WITHOUT the insertion of a chest tube.

    Covering and sealing an open pneumothorax with a rubber gloved hand or a piece of polyethylene is basic 1st Aid knowledge, but what must one also do to prevent it from becoming a tension pneumothorax?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Thanks Bob. In retrospect I probably shouldn’t have posted that but sucking chest wounds in the field hold a place in my history.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hey Bill, no problem. When you say “in the field” I imagine it was a place a lot livelier than most of us civilians are accustomed to. Fortunately, myself, I have only ever dealt with one sucking chest wound while I was a 1st Aid attendant in the logging industry. It was a laceration from a chainsaw that just barely penetrated the pleural lining. However, I’m willing to bet the ones you dealt with were on your buddies, were small and round, and came in pairs; one on the front and and a matching one on the back. My hat is off to anyone who has had to deal with a medical emergency such as this in the field, with limited resources.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Thanks Bob. I thought I’d seen my last wound of this sort until I had been home a couple of years and my brother’s big Ridgeback dog punched a hole in my sister’s pet goat. This time I just sewed it up and shot it full of antibiotics. Goat lived to an old age.

          I live in the Piney Woods of Texas and am familiar with what the chainsaw can do to a man. Not pretty.

  42. Bob Prudhomme says:

    ““Dr.” Photon, by “operative report”, I would assume you are referring to Dr. Robert Shaw’s report of the operation he performed on Gov. Connally to repair the damage done to his chest by a bullet.

    Would you be so good as to quote the relevant portions of that report that led you to believe Connally suffered a through and through wound of the chest, and not a tangential wound that followed the outside of Connally’s 5th rib, as Shaw testified to the Warren Commission?”

    I very much hope you are not ignoring my request, “Dr.” Photon. I have read Dr. Shaw’s post-operative report several times now, and have been unable to find a single reference to Connally suffering a through and through wound of the chest. However, with your vast medical knowledge, perhaps you have been able to spot things in the report that I missed. Would you please enlighten us on this matter?

    • Photon says:

      I submitted an extensive reply on Oct 28 outlining the medical issues I had with your conclusion. That it was not posted is beyond my control.I refer you to the comments describing the incision Shaw made, plus the anatomical relationships of the muscles involved. It is of historic interest that the wound was irrigated with penicillin and streptomycin,, neither one of which is used in this manner now, the former because of lack of coverage for Staph, the later because of issues with aminoglycoside antibiotics concerning oto-and nephrotoxicity.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        “Dr.” Photon, you are dodging my request. You stated that Dr. Shaw’s post operative report clearly states Connally suffered a through and through bullet wound of the chest, as opposed to the tangential bullet strike that followed the outside of his 5th rib, that he described to the Warren Commission.

        If you are going to make such outrageous on this forum, do you not think you owe it to the members of this forum to back your claims up with proof when requested to do so?

        Once again, please share with us the relevant parts of Shaw’s post operative report that would indicate Connally suffered a through and through bullet wound of the chest.

        Hint: They’re not there.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          For those interested, here is the link to Appendix VIII of the Warren Commission Report, containing the postoperative report by Dr. Robert Shaw following surgery performed on Gov. Connally’s chest, plus reports by many other medical personnel that became involved on 22/11/63.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

          Contrary to the claim made by “Dr.” Photon, there is nothing in Dr. Shaw’s report to suggest Dr. Shaw believed Connally suffered a through and through bullet wound of the chest.

          Would an apology to this forum by “Dr.” Photon and a retraction of his claim not be in order at this point in time?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      “Dr.” Photon….paging “Dr.” Photon….

  43. Photon says:

    ” … So as not to have the skin incision over the actual path of the missile … through the chest wall.”
    How do you violate the Serratus anterior and the Latissimus dorsi without passing through the chest wall?

    • Jonathan says:

      It’s easy. Look at an anatomy chart. The serratus anterior covers the outer part of the rib cage under the armpit. The latissimus dorsi is the big muscle, worked by doing chin-ups, that covers much of the upper side of the back.

      Prudhomme gets it right.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      “” … So as not to have the skin incision over the actual path of the missile … through the chest wall.”
      How do you violate the Serratus anterior and the Latissimus dorsi without passing through the chest wall?”

      LOL “Dr.” Photon, really, is that the best you can do? Your response is not a response at all, merely another attempt at diversion. Shame on you!

      Here is a link to a handy dandy diagram titled “Superficial Muscles of the Chest”:

      http://anthropotomy.com/muscles/the-muscles-of-the-chest/the-superficial-layer-of-muscles-of-the-chest

      Looking closely, you will see the latissimus dorsi muscle (10) contacts and overlaps the serratus anterior muscle (9) at the mid axillary line (side of the chest).

      As both of these muscles are outside of the pleural cavity, a bullet would have no trouble passing through these muscles WITHOUT entering the chest cavity.

      P.S.

      When Dr. Shaw (a real doctor) said “through the chest wall” he was referring to the burrowing path the bullet made through the outer part of Connally’s chest wall as it followed the outer course of his 5th rib.

      • Photon says:

        So Bob you are an expert in anatomy and anatomical relationships based on a two dimensional drawing of the lateral aspect of the thorax? Even Frank Netter couldn’t completely reproduce the true anatomical relationships of the chest wall musculature .
        There is a reason why every medical school in the U.S. and Canada teaches Gross Anatomy and has a practical lab of gross dissection. Physicians need to learn in precise terms what structures are related, how muscles originate and insert, vascular relationships, even common anatomical variations. You can review the Ciba Collection for weeks and still not appreciate the three dimensional aspects of the human body.
        Unfortunately Bob you seem to believe that having a Classic Comics level knowledge of basic anatomy, medicine and First Aid makes you an expert in the medical aspects of this case. It is the same level of ignorance that leads people who have never been in an ER or treated emergency room patients to assume that incomplete physician examinations of DOE patients in 15 minutes or less trump autopsies done by board-certified pathologists that include radiographic and histological examinations.
        What I find disconcerting is that some physicians reinforce this ignorance despite knowing that the assumptions of many conspiracy laymen about the infallibility of ER evaluations are simply not true.The term “doctor” means teacher.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          And your point is what, exactly, “Dr.” Photon? That is a very long post you just made but, unfortunately, you completely fail to address the issue at hand.

          That issue is your outrageous claim that the post operative report written by Dr. Robert Shaw, following the chest surgery he performed on Gov. Connally, clearly stated that Connally suffered a through and through bullet wound of the chest, as opposed to the tangential strike Shaw described to the Warren Commission which did not penetrate the chest cavity.

          I have asked you several times, and will continue to ask you, will you post the relevant sections of that post operative report that will support your outrageous claim, or will you continue to deceive the members of this forum?

          • Photon says:

            For the third time Bob, please post the quote from Dr. Shaw where he states that the bullet did not penetrate the pleura. You made the claim that is what he said; let’s see the quote,not just what you think he meant.

  44. GaryA says:

    McAdams writes: “In fact, conspiracists misrepresent both the Parkland and the Bethesda testimony, in order to push the wound into occipital bone where they want it. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar”

    Complete rubbish.

    McA and his fellow Warrenistas have long argued that percipient witnesses who claimed that JFK suffered an injury that involved his occipit were either saying this “years later,” or were in no position to say so, or were unreliable. I’ve compiled a list of witnesses’ earliest claims about JFK’s skull injuries and, it’s true, most were made to the Warren Commission, months after the fact (months not years later), or to journalists or the HSCA, etc., sometimes, yes, years later.

    But the immutable fact remains that those witnesses said virtually the same thing that the Parkland professor/doctors said about JFK’s skull injuries on the day of the assassination. Any lurker is welcome to read the reports written on 11.22 by the Parkland doctors, as published in the Warren Report:

    Warren Report:

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

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

    p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

    p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

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

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

    ***************************************

    If McAdams wants to argue that the virtually identical accounts given by the Parkland doctors and Bethesda witnesses to the Warren Commission, HSCA and ARRB are mere coincidence, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to argue that credible witnesses, 3 professors among them, including a neurosurgeon, did NOT describe occipital injuries on the day of the assassination, when their memories were clear and fresh.

    Oh, yes, he’ll next likely argue that they didn’t really examine JFK’s head, and so were in error. Another silly myth, long since debunked:

    Because the autopsy photographs show no wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, an explanation has been sought for how it was that so many Parkland physicians, including neurosurgeons, said they saw such a wound. The Boston Globe raised this very issue, reporting that, “some [Parkland] doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart.” [Ben Bradlee, “Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists.” The Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981, p. A-23.]

    The Globe immediately refuted that speculation: “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.” Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn’t see JFK’s head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry, “‘Where was the wound?’ Perry pointed to the back of the President’s head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound.” During sworn interviews with the JFK Review Board in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .” (Figure 8) The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”

    Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that not only did they have plenty of time to get a good look at Kennedy’s skull injuries, the Dallas doctors took responsible and appropriate steps to examine the skull wound before pronouncing the President dead. However, their early descriptions don’t square with the autopsy photographs.

    Professor McAdams should either offer a sensible explanation for why there is such a mismatch, or he should admit that the Parkland witnesses are the most incompetent, stupid doctors imaginable.

    Gary A

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Gary A

      Excellent post! What I fail to understand is why, in the face of such obvious evidence, McAdams and Photon continue to argue their Warrenati points.

      P.S.

      For those of the unwashed masses not familiar with the terms “cerebellum” and “cerebellar tissue”, here is a diagram showing the location of the cerebellum in the brain:

      http://www.neuroskills.com/brain-injury/cerebellum.php

      Also, here is a link to a site showing a photo of the brain. From this, it is obviously clear how difficult it would be to confuse the smaller cerebellum with the larger cerebrum:

      http://conwaypsychology.webs.com/thecerebellum.htm

      Although it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature, I should point out that it would be impossible for the cerebellum to have suffered damage if JFK’s cranial entry wound was in the cowlick, and the massive blowout was in the right temple.

    • Photon says:

      Actually, there was only one physician in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 who saw the back of JFK’s head before it was placed on the gurney resting on the EOP- making it impossible for any of the Parkland doctors to have even seen the posterior head wound as claimed by Gary. That was Bill Midgett, who was the only M.D. who lifted JFK out the automobile and as such was the last M.D. to actually see the EOP before JFK was lifted off the gurney and placed in the casket. His description of the head wound matches the Bethesda photos.
      Gary, I would like to ask you when was the last time that you were in an ER evaluating a DOA gunshot wound victim? How extensive was your exam-if any? If your exam never even discovered a potentially fatal wound, how complete could it be? On a practical side, how could you possibly defend a malpractice suit for negligence if your exam missed a potentially fatal wound? If someone does an incomplete exam can anything in the exam be expected to be accurate -at least from a legal standpoint? How can you diagnose papilledema if you can’t see the retina?

      • Peter says:

        Photon, this is a prime example of where your entreaties fall short for those of us who genuinely want to weigh the evidence and make the best determination about the truth. It strains credulity for you to suggest that a group of very able physicians dealing with the highest profile gunshot victim of their careers didn’t take in every detail possible in the time the president was under their care. Why in the world would so many suggest a wound, especially one so glaring, if it wasn’t there? They misunderstood what they saw? Others misinterpret what they say? They really didn’t see what they say they saw? Common sense says such a wound would be fairly obvious and wouldn’t require turning the body over. With all due respect, the perspective of someone like Dr. McCLelland, who was actually THERE, is far more persuasive than an apologist spin doctor who wasn’t at Parkland.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        “Dr.” Photon:

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

        I’m a little confused here, “Dr.”, and I’m hoping your vast medical knowledge will be useful in straightening things out a bit.

        If there were attempts to control slow oozing from the cerebrum and cerebellum via packs, wouldn’t those persons applying those packs be looking directly into the large gaping head wound on JFK, or do you think they kept their eyes closed while they were doing this?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          “Dr.” Photon, do you not have an answer to my questions?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            So neither “Dr.” Photon nor the great Professor McAdams can tell us how an attempt was made to stop cerebral and cerebellar oozing from JFK’s large gaping head wound, via packs, without the personnel applying those packs looking directly into the large gaping wound.

            Why am I not surprised they do not have an answer?

      • GaryA says:

        Hilarious! You’re grasping at straws, methinks.

        To confirm your pro-govt. bias, rather than take the contemporaneous, written descriptions of three professor-trauma surgeons, including a neurosurgeon, and two experienced resident trauma surgeons, you instead take the sketchy/ambiguous word of Bill Midgett, an OB-Gyn resident who’s participation was at most minimal and who wrote nothing about JFK’s head injuries on 11.22! It’s perfect. What alternative do you have?

        But if indeed Midgett corroborated the autopsy photos, saying it was “parietal,” why did he also say that the right parietal wound was behind the right ear? It’s not there in the autopsy photos, is it?

        And you’ve obviously rejected the published accounts of Richard Dulaney, MD and Robert Grossman, MD, who the Boston Globe reported had said, “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.”

        And you reject what David Lifton reported. Namely that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn’t see JFK’s head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry, “‘Where was the wound?’ Perry pointed to the back of the President’s head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound.”

        And you reject the sworn interview of Paul Peters, who reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .”

        And you reject the report of the ARRB: The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”

        All fabulists, I suppose? ; ~ >

        It’s silly to throw up a smokescreen about how long ago I was a trauma surgeon at as busy (and more prestigious) hospital than Parkland. My point was not that I’m a trauma surgeon now, but that as trauma surgeons we actually examine the patients we deal with, including, perhaps especially, those who are mortally wounded. I mean, duh!

        So your tactic seems pretty simple: reject solid, contemporaneous, written accounts by true experts in favor of the “years later” pro-govt, ambiguous account of a demonstrably inexpert Ob-Gyn resident. And you reject sworn and published accounts of named witnesses who said that at some point they actually lifted up JFK’s head and took a look.

        I can’t say I know any trauma surgeon who’d not examine her mortally wounded patient. Can you name one?

        Gary

        • And you’ve obviously rejected the published accounts of Richard Dulaney, MD and Robert Grossman, MD, who the Boston Globe reported had said, “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.”

          Dulaney confirmed that the autopsy photos and x-rays showed the wound he remembered.

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

          Grossman put the large wound over the ear in parietal bone.

          http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-2.JPG

          Seems you are using their testimony only in ways that are convenient to you.

          What came before “But others. . . ” Gary?

          • GaryA says:

            Ah, .John, nice to have you join us!

            So, let’s see, you reject the contemporaneous, written accounts of the 3 professor-trauma surgeons and the experienced trauma residents at Parkland, right?

            Were they dreaming, .John? Lying?

            And when other Parkland witnesses who corroborated these descriptions in sworn testimony before the Warren Commission and elsewhere, were they dreaming, lying, just making things up? And since we “know” from the photos that they were all wrong, is it just an astonishing coincidence that they somehow managed to make the same mistake – calling an anterolateral skull wound a posterior-parietal-occipital one?

            And since we “know” from the autopsy photos that there was a right-sided, anterolateral blowout of JFK’s skull involving the anterior parietal, posterior aspect of JFK’s frontal bone and a portion of his anterior temporal bone, why did no witness describe it that way?

            All liars, or just the dumbest doctors on the planet?

            And can you name a trauma surgeon we can contact who’d not examine the injuries of a patient under his care?

            So I guess either the following is just the result of extreme incompetence, or just making things up out of whole cloth. Right? ; ~ >

            Warren Report:

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

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

            p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

            p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

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

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

            Gary

          • GaryA says:

            Re Dulaney, why don’t you tell your readers the rest of the story?
            http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
            RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, “…he had a large head wound—that was the first thing I noticed.” Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., “…Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

            Since the blowout wound “was”on the right front side of JFK’s head, did Dulaney lie to the Boston Globe when he said “…Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn’t see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side” They lifted up the head and “the whole back-side was gone.” (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)”Whttp://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

          • So, let’s see, you reject the contemporaneous, written accounts of the 3 professor-trauma surgeons and the experienced trauma residents at Parkland, right?

            Were they dreaming, .John? Lying?

            No, you are interpreting their testimony in a tendentious way.

            And when other Parkland witnesses who corroborated these descriptions in sworn testimony before the Warren Commission and elsewhere, were they dreaming, lying, just making things up?

            No, you are quoting them selectively, and interpreting their testimony in a tendentious way.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

            And since we “know” from the autopsy photos that there was a right-sided, anterolateral blowout of JFK’s skull involving the anterior parietal, posterior aspect of JFK’s frontal bone and a portion of his anterior temporal bone, why did no witness describe it that way?

            So you think the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked, forged or tampered with?

            Have the courage to say so, Gary!

            If you fail to do that, you will give readers the impression that you are being less than candid.

        • Photon says:

          I can name three. On November 22, 1963 Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland and Kemp Clark did an incomplete exam on John F. Kennedy, never turning him over and completely missing a potentially fatal back wound . How complete could the rest of their examination be?
          You can accept Dr. Grossman as a reliable witness if you wish. I and others do not. As he is the only Physician to have claimed to have lifted the head off of the gurney I can understand why you give him credence.
          Bill Midgett is the only M.D. at Parkland who can be proven to have had an unobstructed view of the EOP of JFK’s head. Even McClelland admitted he never moved the head.-so how could it even be possible for him to see the wound that he described ?
          A few years ago I was in an emergency room during a similar period of excitement and confusion. A young lady was brought in having suffered a gunshot wound through the chest while standing in a parking lot. I spoke with the ER doc in charge of her care while attending to another patient. He was initially told that some kids hit her with a random .22 shot, then she supposedly was shot by a handgun during a robbery in the parking lot. Despite being straightforward, the incident occurred in the setting of a highly publicized murder spree in the area. Normal evaluation broke down, mistakes were made and what seemed obvious at the time turned out to be incorrect after the patient went to surgery. The local sheriff’s office claimed that the shooting could not be related to the spree, the police officer publically in charge of the murder investigation claimed no relationship. The initial wound appearances as noted by board certified ER docs turned out to be inaccurate.
          And two days later it turned out that the patient was proven to be a victim of the same criminals responsible for the previous crimes. After that I learned to take ER interpretations of highly publicized shootings with a grain of salt. Until you are in that situation you really can’t comprehend what occurs.

          • GaryA says:

            Quote “Photon”: >I can name three (trauma surgeons who didn’t examine their patients). On November 22, 1963 Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland and Kemp Clark did an incomplete exam on John F. Kennedy, never turning him over and completely missing a potentially fatal back wound . How complete could the rest of their examination be?You can accept Dr. Grossman as a reliable witness if you wish. I and others do not. As he is the only Physician to have claimed to have lifted the head off of the gurney I can understand why you give him credence.

            Quote P: >Bill Midgett is the only M.D. at Parkland who can be proven to have had an unobstructed view of the EOP of JFK’s head.Even McClelland admitted he never moved the head.-so how could it even be possible for him to see the wound that he described ?A few years ago I was in an emergency room during a similar period of excitement and confusion … <

            Oh, phlueeze, Photon, this is about as silly as it gets. You're comparing a shot "young lady" attended by a single ER doc with a slain president attended by a large team, including experienced trauma professors, at a major trauma center. I needed a good laugh. Thanks!

            Quote P: "Until you are in that situation you really can’t comprehend what occurs."

            Oh, really, Photon? After graduating from med school at UCLA I was an admitting surgical resident at a known trauma center – UCLA-Harbor General Hospital – and I saw a number of gun shot victims. Where, may I ask, did you go to medical school and where did you do your trauma work?

            Gary

          • GaryA says:

            My response was clipped.

            But there were three Parkland physicians who said JFK’s head was lifted, not just Grossman.

            And, no, I don’t take Grossman’s anti-conspiracy rubbish seriously, as anyone who’s followed Grossman’s follies in the “peer-reviewed” journal, Neurosurgery would know: http://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2005&issue=09000&article=00036&type=fulltext

            Your story about errors in an ER couldn’t possibly be more disanalogous. We’re not talking about an ER doc making an error in the JFK case. We’re talking about seasoned trauma professor-surgeons, and a large number of other, attending physicians, all making the same “error”: JFK’s wound was posterior-parietal-occipital.

            Gary

          • Photon says:

            Can you name the other 2 physicians who lifted up the head and their quotes? Moving the head does not mean the same as lifting the head off of the gurney.
            I mentioned my ER experience only because the shooter was one of the most notorious since the JFK assassination and special circumstances were present . The physicians involved were all board certified ER doctors-a specialty that didn’t even exist in 1963- yet in the heat of the moment initial perceptions proved to be wrong. And this patient was not a DOA patient with a 15 minute exam but an individual evaluated with CT scans, lab work and examined by physicians trained in places like UVA, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins. They still weren’t infallible , but at least they turned the patient over.
            As far as all of the Parkland doctors ” making the same error, could you please explain why all of the Parkland doctors that were shown the Bethesda autopsy photos in the NOVA 25th anniversary program confirmed that the autopsy photos agreed with what they saw? Aren’t you just overinterpreting what many said initially, without the qualifying states that several made? Doesn’t the Marion Jenkins quote ( “Boys, before you open the chest…”) imply that nobody had even evaluated closely the head wound up until the moment when resuscitative efforts ceased-calling into question how closely any of the ER witnesses could have actually seen the head?
            I empathize with you having your response clipped. Jeff’s blog is still the most fair on this topic to contributors.

          • GaryA says:

            Photon,

            First: are you a physician? If so, what’s your specialty, and are you board certified and on any medical school faculties?

            Next, Photon asks:

            >Can you name the other 2 physicians who lifted up the head and their quotes? Moving the head does not mean the same as lifting the head off of the gurney.<

            Grossman was one, and the other two I named didn't lift JFK's head themselves, they stood by JFK's side as it was lifted. I already quoted them, incidentally, but here goes, again:
            Richard Dulaney, MD and Robert Grossman, MD, who the Boston Globe reported had said, “But others, like [Dr. Richard] Dulaney and [neurosurgeon Dr. Robert] Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, thereby exposing the rear wound.”

            David Lifton reported. Namely that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn’t see JFK’s head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry, “‘Where was the wound?’ Perry pointed to the back of the President’s head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound.”

            Paul Peters reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .”

            The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”

            To imagine that so many credentialed trauma surgeons would have not taken a look at their victim's blasted skull you have to be way outside of medicine and trauma. Perhaps in something like political "science."

            And re NOVA, let's not ignore that NOVA goes to "experts" who are as "patriotic" as they are notoriously unreliable, guys like Lucien Haag and Larry Sturidivan. The latter collaborated with the debunked articles by Robert Grossman in "Neurosurgery" and he also co-wrote the long-debunked nonsense about NAA with Ken Rahn. When Sturdivan was recently featured as an expert, the promoters politely declined to remind him that his prior JFK work had come a cropper.

            NOVA has an agenda. Had they been real journalists, they'd have compiled the earliest statements, many of them sworn, and had a physician confront them with those claims while showing them JFK's autopsy photos so they could explain to the professional how their earliest, unmassaged descriptions square with the photos.

            Look, John Stringer offers a perfect example of the power of the state, er, for how "memory" works: JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer. David Lifton interviewed Stringer, in part, as follows: Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?…High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off–yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."–as had McHugh (BE, p.516)(

            On November 14, 1993 the Vero Beach Press Journal's Craig Colgan reported Stringer's surprise when he heard, and positively identified, his own tape-recorded voice making the above statements to Lifton in 1972. He insisted in the interview with Colgan that he did not recall his ever claiming that the wound was in the rear. The wound he recalled was to the right side of the head. ABC's "Prime Time Live" associate producer, Jacqueline Hall- Kallas, sent a film crew to interview Stringer for a 1988 San Francisco KRON-TV interview after Stringer, in a pre-filming interview told Hall-Kallas that the wound was as he described it to Lifton. Colgan reported, "'When the camera crew arrived, Stringer's story had changed', said Stanhope Gould, a producer who also is currently at ABC and who conducted the 1988 on-camera interview with Stringer…'We wouldn't have sent a camera crew all the way across the country on our budget if we thought he would reverse himself.' Gould said…'(In the telephone pre-interview) he corroborated what he told David Lifton, that the wounds were not as the official version said they were,' Hall-Kallas said." (Vero Beach Press-Journal, November 14, 1993, p. 1C-3C. Provided to author by David Lifton.) The reader will have to decide for himself which description is more likely to be reliable.http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

            Ya can't make this shit up!

            Gary

          • Photon says:

            It comes back to only one physician actually claiming that he lifted the head up -Grossman. Where is the quote from Dulaney aside from ” High Treason”? As that source is responsible for the Jenkins Ph.D Pathology student absurdity it is hardly credible. As Dulaney was one of the “NOVA” physician witnesses who agreed that the autopsy photos accurately reflected what he saw it would appear that Groden, Livingstone and Bradlee,Jr. at the least inaccurately reported what he actually said. As you seem to object to what Grossman wrote in “Neurosurgery” why do you accept him as a source on this issue?
            Even if “NOVA” had some pro-government agenda how would that affect the filmed responses of the four Parkland doctors who stated unequivocally that the autopsy photos matched their perceptions from November 22, 1963? Are you claiming that “NOVA” altered the film of their responses? Did the program directors gain access to the National Archives and replace the autopsy photos with fakes?
            As far as the “earliest descriptions” go, aren’t you using your own interpretation as to what the witnesses said, omitting qualifying statements and obvious mistakes, like Dr. Jenkins error about a wound in the left temple? Did Professor McAdams inaccurately state facts in his review of your witness list? If so,how?
            Doesn’t the Stringer episode completely impeach your conclusions on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and memory? Why do you give more credence to such testimony than to photographic, radiographic and ballistic evidence? Unless you feel that all of the physical evidence in this case has been faked or altered your conclusions are not logical. Exactly what has been faked or altered? And how?

        • Re Dulaney, why don’t you tell your readers the rest of the story?

          The rest of the story is that he told NOVA “I don’t see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room.”

          But you think the materials have been faked, don’t you Gary?

          Step up, Gary, and say what you think! If you don’t, readers are going to wonder why you won’t.

      • Jonathan says:

        Photon,

        You ask:

        “…when was the last time that you were in an ER evaluating a DOA gunshot wound victim? How extensive was your exam-if any?”

        Photon, if you want to argue anatomy, medical forensics, and the like, please do so. It’s pointless, however, to quiz commenters as to their E.R. experience, so you might as well stop it. Everyone in good faith here is seeking a better understanding of the facts. You offer scant facts, IMO, and rely on bluster, again IMO.

        I’m ready and willing to be educated. I’ve got no time for mere assertions and unsubstantiated opinions.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          “Dr.” Photon

          If you want us to believe you are really a doctor, you’re going to have to provide us with some proof.

          All I’ve seen so far is a member who distinctly remembers you stating, last year, you were not a doctor.

          Fish or cut bait, “Doc”.

          • Photon says:

            We have many talents, Bob.

          • GaryA says:

            Bob,

            Apparently among the many talents “we” have, forthrightness and transparency appear not among “Photon’s.” Say, Photon wouldn’t be George Bush or Barak Obama, would he? ; }

            So, are you a physician, Photon? If so, what’s your specialty. And if so, are you board certified? Are you on any approved medical school faculties? Which certifying board and which medical school faculties?

            Gary

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

      When Carrico drew the wound for the Boston Globe, he put the wound squarely in parietal bone, above the year.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF

      p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

      It seems you are interpreting this in a very tendentious way.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg13.txt

      p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg9.txt

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

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

      Note that in 1988, Jenkins said the autopsy photos and x-rays depicted the wounds as he remembered them.

      However, their early descriptions don’t square with the autopsy photographs.

      So do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged or tampered with, Gary?

      Be honest!

      Is this what you think?

      • GaryA says:

        Quoting Dr. Perry, I wrote:

        …521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63 . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

        McA answers: >It seems you are interpreting this in a very tendentious way.

        I quote Dr. Baxter’s contemporaneous, written claim: “p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.”

        But there’s much more to the Baxter story that McA appears reluctant to share (I wonder why ; ~ >): http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm: In a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, “…the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table…” (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads “…the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)…”. (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter’s original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present….” (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been “temporo-occipital” than “temporo-parietal”, because he also recalled, “cerebellum was present”. (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, “…the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table….” (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as “…a large gaping wound in the occipital area.” Livingstone also reported that “(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact).”(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

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

        McA responds with >Note that in 1988, Jenkins said the autopsy photos and x-rays depicted the wounds as he remembered them.<

        Yes, and Dave Powers "remembered" that the shots he heard coming from the Grassy Knoll instead came from the TSBD, AFTER a little talk with the FBI. I expect you're certain that Jenkins' repeated assertions about occipital and cerebellum are completely consistent with the photos and you are certain Powers didn't think shots came from the GK.

        But don't deny your readers of all of Jenkins' earliest, and ergo most likely reliable, claims. To wit:http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

        In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…" (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…" (WC–V6:51.)

        In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) "…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was '…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, "…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out."

        John: how many witnesses have said autopsy photos are missing? Are they all liars?

        Gary

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Something everyone seems to forget, and this is something I have demonstrated several times, is that the back of the human is not flat but, rather, is quite rounded. When a person lies on his back, the only part of the back of the head touching the surface he is lying on is the very centre of the back of his head. If there is a large gaping occipital wound in the right rear of his skull, it will be on the curving section of his skull between the EOP and the ear.

          How could a person standing beside JFK NOT see this great wound?

        • You’re just calling all the witnesses liars when they give testimony that you find inconvenient, Gary.

          And you didn’t answer my question: do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged and tampered with?

          Step up and answer!

          Why are you evading the question?

  45. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “For the third time Bob, please post the quote from Dr. Shaw where he states that the bullet did not penetrate the pleura. You made the claim that is what he said; let’s see the quote,not just what you think he meant.”

    Here it is, again, “Dr.”:

    “Dr. Shaw – It was found that approximately 10 cm. of the fifth rib had been shattered and the rib fragments acting as secondary missiles had been the major contributing factor to the damage to the anterior chest wall and to the underlying lung.
    Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean, Doctor, by the words “fragments acting as secondary missiles”?
    Dr. SHAW. When bone is struck by a high velocity missile it fragments and acts much like bowling pins when they are struck by a bowling ball–they fly in all directions.”

    Now it’s your turn, “Dr.”, to show us the relevant part of Dr. Shaw’s post-operative report that makes you believe Gov. Connally received a through and through bullet wound of the chest.

    P.S.

    Just to be sure we are all on the same page, do you believe the bullet that entered Connally’s back also penetrated his right lung?

    • Photon says:

      Can’t do it,can you Bob?
      The right middle lobe was rent from the periphery to the hilum. Included in this damage was a torn bronchus. As the bronchi at this level are composed of cartilaginous rings any bone fragments sufficiently massive enough to sever the bronchus would fragment and leave identifiable remnants noted during surgery and radiographiically. These were not seen, confirming that the agent responsible for the rent was the missile that traveled through the chest. In addition, that portion of the fifth rib disrupted by the round was relatively soft bone that physically would be unlikely to significantly damage a cartilaginous structure such as the bronchus mentioned. While the bone fragments of the fifth rib could amplify the wounds in soft tissue and contribute to the enlarged exit site the damage to the middle lobe precludes them as being the sole etiology for the “sucking chest wound”..

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        From the 2nd Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Robert R. Shaw:

        “Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet.
        Mr. SPECTER. Would the shattering of the rib have had any effect in deflecting the path of the bullet from a straight line?
        Dr. SHAW. It could have, except that in the case of this injury, the rib was obviously struck so that not too dense cancellus portion of the rib in this position was carried away by the bullet and probably there was very little in the way of deflection.”

        Explain to me just where you believe the bullet passed through the pleural lining.

        “Dr. Shaw – It was found that approximately 10 cm. of the fifth rib had been shattered and the rib fragments acting as secondary missiles had been the major contributing factor to the damage to the anterior chest wall and to the underlying lung.”

        Are you saying Dr. Shaw, a physician who, as chief of the thoracic surgery centre in Paris, France during WWII, oversaw the admission of over 900 patients with bullet and shrapnel wounds in their chests, did not know what he was talking about?

        Tell me where you believe the bullet entered Gov. John Connally’s chest cavity; puncturing the pleural lining in the process. Seriously, be a man and take a stand.


        Mr. McCLOY – Now, you have indicated, I think, that this bullet traveled along, hit and traveled along the path of the rib, is that right?
        Dr. SHAW – Yes.
        Mr. McCLOY – Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on the rib itself?
        Dr. SHAW – I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.”

        • Photon says:

          For the fourth time, where does Shaw state that the missile did not violate the pleural space? McCoy invited him to say that, yet Shaw did not. ” The bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” is a layman’s description that the intercostal muscles were not damaged. Coupled with the middle lobe and bronchial damage mentioned on my previous post the path of the missile had to pass through the pleura.
          If you had ever taken gross anatomy you would be able to understand the relationships that I have mentioned. If you still believe that you can understand the anatomy in this case simply by looking at 2 dimensional drawings it is pointless to proceed further. In addition, operative reports are clear in their findings-as they may become court documents they have to be. In this case if Shaw felt that the pleura had not been violated he would have stated that unequivocally in the operative report. That he did not do.
          But let’s go back to the historical facts mentioned in the operative report. You believe that the rib was the sole instrument of the damage to the lung and that the bullet itself only caused the ” flesh wound” that Dr. Shaw did not confirm. The report states that the wound( including the pleural space) was irrigated with penicillin and gentamicin. These drugs could have detrimental effects on wound healing, particularly to the pleural space. The would have been used only if a potentially dirty object had entered the pleural space or traversed lung tissue. Bone fragments would have been essentially sterile and would not have warrented the introduction of agents that could have possibly delayed wound healing and caused pleural scarring. The fact that Shaw felt the need to use them confirms that the missile passed through the pleura and the substance of the lung.

          • Jonathan says:

            “For the fourth time, where does Shaw state that the missile did not violate the pleural space?”

            Why should Shaw say X did not occur if X did not occur? There is no logic to what you write.

            As to irrigating the wound (including the pleural space) with antibiotics, the internal wound paths were caused by the bullet that entered Connolly. Makes sense Shaw would have irrigated all internal wound areas with antibiotics. Who could tell what harmful bacteria had been allowed to enter those internal wound paths, even the ones caused by sterile bone. Seems to me Photon you’d err on the side of hope rather than on the side of caution. Doesn’t sound like a physician to me.

  46. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “Bone fragments would have been essentially sterile and would not have warrented the introduction of agents that could have possibly delayed wound healing and caused pleural scarring. The fact that Shaw felt the need to use them confirms that the missile passed through the pleura and the substance of the lung.”

    I don’t think I would want you in my ambulance, “Dr.” Photon, if that is as far as your understanding of sterile procedures goes. Yes, the rib would have been essentially sterile, but the fragments of rib would have come into contact with the bullet as it ploughed lengthwise through the rib, robbing them of their sterility.

    Once again, where do you think the bullet entered the pleural cavity?

    P.S.

    Where did Shaw say the bullet DID violate the pleural space?

  47. Bob Prudhomme says:

    ““Dr.” Photon:

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

    I’m a little confused here, “Dr.”, and I’m hoping your vast medical knowledge will be useful in straightening things out a bit.

    If there were attempts to control slow oozing from the cerebrum and cerebellum via packs, wouldn’t those persons applying those packs be looking directly into the large gaping head wound on JFK, or do you think they kept their eyes closed while they were doing this?”

    I was afraid you might have missed this post, so I thought I would re-post it down here where you would be sure to see it.

    Your thoughts?

    • Photon says:

      How could they have put packs inside the skull when Dr Jenkins could see blood oozing out of the head with chest compressions? Jenkins had the best view of the head of anybody during the resuscitation , as would be expected of the anesthesiologist standing at the head of the table managing the airway. He mentioned no packs. Nobody else mentions packs, including Carrico during his Warren testimony. No packs were mentioned by the nurses who wrapped JFK ‘s head in multiple pieces of linen.Despite these “packs” blood and fluid continued to ooze from the head, through the linen and eventually staining the interior of the casket. Even if the packs existed, which appears doubtfull, they could not have been placed with great care as the head wound continued to bleed during the entire time JFK was in the ER- at a time when JFK had no blood pressure nor effective heartbeat to drive blood loss.
      Again, how could the doctors present have effectively evaluated the head wound when at the end of the resuscitative effort just as they were about to crack his chest it took Jenkins to mention how severe the head wound actually looked? As multiple physicians have said that after JFK was declared dead they all quickly left the room it is apparent that nobody did any kind of postmortem examination.
      If the head wound was noted to be as severe and obvious to the present physicians and they all had accurate perceptions of its true nature, why did they even contemplate opening up JFK and starting open cardiac massage before Jenkins told them to stand down?

      • Jonathan says:

        The Parkland physicians surely did observe the TOP of JFK’s head. Including the part the right lateral x-ray shows to be blasted away.

        Not ONE of the Parkland physicians reported the massive absence of skull shown in the right lateral x-ray. According to that x-ray and the A.P. x-ray, the right top and right front of JFK’s skull was missing. Which would have been evident from the most casual viewing of JFK’s face and the top of JFK’s head. The blasted skull bone would have ripped apart the overlaying skin. As Jackie said, from the front there was [no evidence of damage].

        The x-rays are phony.

      • GaryA says:

        Photon,

        What a strange reply.

        You admit that, as THE anesthesiologist, professor “Pepper” Jenkins was sitting (NOT standing) just inches above JFK’s head, and so he had the best view of JFK’s head injuries, perhaps until Neurosurgery Professor Kemp Clark took over and took a look.

        So, what did Jenkins say? MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, “Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…” (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.)

        Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51)

        In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”

        End of Jenkins ***************************************

        Indeed, it WAS Jenkins who argued against cracking JFK’s chest (something I’ve done myself as a trauma surgeon, by the way). But it was ALSO Jenkins who only stayed the knives of those who would have cracked JFK’s chest by showing them JFk’s skull damage: During sworn interviews with the JFK Review Board in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported, “[anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.] Jenkins said, ‘Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you’d better step up here and look at this brain.’ And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked in the President’s head … .” (Figure 8) The ARRB’s Gunn interviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, MD on March 21, 1997, reporting, “[Grossman] and Kemp Clark [Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland] [sic] together lifted President Kennedy’s head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President’s head.”

        Most Warrenistas are so “patriotic” they happily ignore the time-proven rule that witnesses’ earliest statements are the most reliable. They do it happily because soooo often those early statements are inconvenient and so, well, “unpatriotic,” if by “unpatriotic” one means mistrust of J. Edgar Hoover. ; ~ >

        • GaryA,
          In the testimony you provide there is this:
          “Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.”

          It is clear to me from this statement that Jenkins was only assuming, that he wasn’t sure. Because if he was sure, if he had actually inspected close enough, or touched the area to determine an actual bullet hole, he could not have resolved his own speculation that; “this probably was some blood that had come from the other point”.
          Now clearly we are left with the probability that it was splatter from the wound above, as Jenkins was clearly not sure, and there are no other indications of such a wound to the left temporal area from any other source.
          My point being, I think your own source goes against the proposition that there was such a wound to the left of the head. Furthermore, a bullet entry at that spot would likely mean another exit wound from the right side of the head, which clearly is not the frontal wound to the right temporal area, as forensically proven by the ballistics of that shot.
          \\][//

  48. from now on, when I see the term “buffs”, I’m going to assume it is a referral to people from the University of Colorado who think Oswald was not the lone gunman. (The nickname for UC sports teams is “Buffaloes”.

  49. David Regan says:

    9 Things You May Not Know About the Warren Commission @history http://fw.to/mlRuq7

  50. David Regan says:

    On Saturday, November 23, J. Edgar Hoover had given President Johnson his opinion of the case against Oswald:

    “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction”.

    (Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=807

  51. roy quist says:

    A flaw in the WC that’s easy to see is their judgment of the second “lone nut,” Jacob (“Jack Ruby”, “Sparky”) Rubinstein: he had “no mob connections.” (!!!!!!!!) Whereas, in truth, JR was Mob practically from the mother’s milk. As a boy of 8, he ran messages and pay envelopes for low-level mobsters. By the age of 10, JR was such a trusted hoodlum that THE Al Capone used him for the same. As a young man, JR had to leave Chicago due to his involvement in the murder of the president of the scrap metal dealers union, and the subsequent Mob takeover. Ran guns all over, and especially to Cuba for Lewis McWillie about whom Sparky beamed, “Imagine, me, Jack Ruby, met a great man like that!” JR helped with the American Mafia Bay o’ Pigs prisoners. All of his enterprises, esp. the strip clubs, were Mob financed/controlled. He was in debt to them for at least 40 G’s, maybe 80. And that’s why Jack was a busy boy in the days around 11/22/63, paying them back. JR was EVERYWHERE that weekend, also ignored by the WC.

  52. Finally, my answer to, “What you should know about the Warren Commission Report is that:

    It was a turgid tome of trite trash.

    \\][//

  53. Steve Stirlen says:

    I have very LITTLE faith in Mr. John McAdams. I personally e-mailed him through his website and asked him two POINTED questions. I asked him directly how the testimony of Dr. Robert McClelland, who has always stated—you can find his three part interview on YouTube—that he stood 12-18 inches away from Kennedy’s head and was able to look into the wound in the back of his head for about 12 minutes. I also asked him about FBI agent James Sibert—his interview is also on YouTube— who wrote the famous 302 report that was filed away from the eyes of the public who also said that he was less than 2 feet away from the president’s head during the autopsy and described the wound at the back of the head. I asked Mr. McAdams how both men, who have never changed their story and who have never profited from their story could be wrong when they were as close to the president as anyone. His response? The best source was the autopsy findings. Well, one man was at the autopsy and the other was in the hospital right after the shooting. However, according to Mr. McAdams were are only to believe SOME of the Warren Commission witnesses—like Howard Brennan—and not the kooks, like a MD and a FBI agent that works for the very government he wants us to believe. I have very LITTLE faith in Mr. McAdams now.

  54. Mariano says:

    Tasked with a mandate to conclude a SN finding, the Warren Commission cannot be seriously considered as having adequately explained the cause/s that led to the assassination of a president.
    Further to that, if it is established that the investigative arms (FBI/CIA/Secret Services/other services) covered up relevant evidence or failed to carry out investigations in good faith, the findings must be seen to be significantly compromised.
    Further to that, if relevant evidence has been deliberately ignored, or not sought in the course of investigations by the Commission, the findings must be called into question.
    Such a travesty demands a new investigation with powers invested to access all relevant evidence with an unrestrained brief to seek the whole truth.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.